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

Australia’s top economists have overwhelmingly backed a decision by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg to reset the budget strategy so that it prioritises achieving an unemployment rate of between 4% and 5% over reducing debt.

Australia hasn’t had an unemployment rate below 5% since 2011.

It hasn’t had an unemployment rate below 4% since the early 1970s.

Unemployment rate, per cent

The new wording of the fiscal strategy required in the budget as part of the Charter of Budget Honesty will commit the government to quickly drive down unemployment until the unemployment rate is between 4% and 5%.

Only when the unemployment rate is sustainably within that band will the strategy switch to a focus on reducing government debt as a share of GDP.

Read more: Josh Frydenberg has the opportunity to transform Australia, permanently lowering unemployment

The existing wording, introduced in last year’s budget in response to the COVID crisis, only commits the government to drive down unemployment until the rate is “comfortably below 6%”.

Treasurer Frydenberg spelled out the new strategy in an address to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry on Thursday saying both the treasury and the Reserve Bank now believed the so-called non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment was lower than 5%.

“In effect, both the bank and treasury’s best estimate is that the unemployment rate will now need to have a four in front of it,” he said.

Like it was under Menzies

The Reserve Bank was limited in its ability to cut interest rates further, meaning greater weight would have to be placed on the budget to bring unemployment down to between 4% and 5%.

The exact wording of the new strategy will be unveiled on budget night, May 11.

The increased ambition means the government plans to usher in an era of sustained low unemployment not seen since the prime ministerships of Robert Menzies, Harold Hold, John Gorton and William McMahon.

Backed by 6 in 10 leading economists

Of the 60 leading Australian economists surveyed by the Economic Society of Australia and The Conversation ahead of the announcement, more than 60% wanted the target strengthened to an unemployment rate below 5%.

Some 21% (13 of the 60 surveyed) want the target strengthened to an unemployment rate below 4%.

Five want the target strengthened to an unemployment rate below 3%.

Only one of the 60 top economists surveyed wanted an immediate tightening of the budget regardless of the unemployment rate.

Tony Makin, a former International Monetary Fund and treasury economist who was critical of Australia’s stimulus program during the global financial crisis says the present ultra-low interest rate settings are more than enough to drive unemployment as low as it can get without stoking runaway inflation.

He says the extra government debt that would be created by a push for even lower unemployment would put Australia’s credit rating at risk and push up interest rates and the Australian dollar, making Australian exports less competitive.

‘Unusual opportunity’

The economists chosen by the Economic Society to take part in the survey are recognised leaders in fields including microeconomics, macroeconomics, economic modelling and public policy.

Among them are former and current government advisers, former heads of government departments and a former member of the Reserve Bank board.

Labour market specialist Sue Richardson said Australia faced an unusual opportunity to test how low unemployment can go before a tight labour market produces unacceptable stresses.

US unemployment got down to 3.5%

The combination of reduced temporary migration, very low inflation and inflation expectations and a relaxation in the focus on containing the size of government debt made this a rare moment.

Consultant Nikki Hutley said if the experience of the United States before COVID was any guide, Australia might be able to get its unemployment rate down to 3.5% without stoking accelerating inflation.

With interest rates at such low levels, investing in Australia’s economic future could not be a better decision.

Taking pressure off the Reserve Bank

Economist Saul Eslake said it wasn’t unreasonable for the treasurer to have proposed a threshold of an unemployment rate “comfortably below 6%” before beginning budget repair last year, given that at that time the conventional wisdom was that unemployment was headed to 10%.

But now both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank have made it clear unemployment can be forced lower without stoking inflation, “four point something” is realistic.

Read more: Jobs for men have barely grown since the COVID recession. What matters now is what we do about it

Another reason for the government to delay cutting debt is it will give the Reserve Bank the opportunity to lift interest rates sooner, giving it greater ability to cut interest rates to fight downturns in the future.

A report released by the Parliamentary Budget Office on Wednesday said reducing the government’s debt-to-GDP ratio to pre-pandemic levels would take decades, “even under relatively optimistic scenarios”.

But it added that debt servicing costs should remain subdued as the existing debt was borrowed at historically low interest rates.

Read more: Should the government keep running up debt to get us out of the crisis? Overwhelmingly, economists say yes

Macquarie University’s Geoffrey Kingston said it was the wrong time to be thinking about either an unemployment or a debt target. What mattered, this year more than most, was the composition of government spending.

This meant better supplies of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, more facilities for mass vaccinations and safer quarantine.

Peripheral programs such as subsidising airfares to holiday destinations at a time when it remained imprudent to encourage air travel were much less important — even if they helped fight unemployment.

– ref. Exclusive. Top economists back budget push for an unemployment rate beginning with ‘4’ – https://theconversation.com/exclusive-top-economists-back-budget-push-for-an-unemployment-rate-beginning-with-4-159989

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Usha M. Rodrigues, Visiting Scholar, Deakin University

As COVID-19 ravages India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is becoming increasingly draconian in its crackdown on social media, particularly when it comes to any criticism of its response.

Cries of help and outbursts of anger have been spilling out on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms since the second wave began to worsen in recent weeks. Indians are using hashtags such as #ModiMadeDisaster and #ModiFailsIndia to place the blame directly on the government — and Modi himself — as the human tragedy unfolds.

In one Twitter post, for instance, a photo of burning pyres is accompanied by the tagline, “First in the world ‘24/7’ crematorium launched by Modi Govt in India”.

Another hashtag, #ResignModi, was spreading across Facebook this week before posts containing it mysteriously disappeared for several hours. Facebook told BuzzFeed News the posts were temporarily hidden by “mistake” and not because the Indian government asked the company to do it.

But the government has been taking a harder line on any social media content it finds objectionable, with the purported aim of preventing the spread of misinformation and sparking panic. Opponents are concerned its true objective is to stifle criticism and dissent.

Blocking tweets for purported misinformation

Last week, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued an edict to Twitter, Facebook and other platforms to remove some 100 posts the government claimed were spreading misinformation and creating panic.

The request was made under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, an amendment passed in 2008 that gives the government the power to direct social media companies to block content in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity and defence of India.

Read more: After early success, India’s daily COVID infections have surpassed the US and Brazil. Why?

Various news media reports said over 50 tweets were subsequently censored on Twitter from a variety of sources — including opposition politicians and journalists. Twitter said it had done so after receiving a “valid legal request”.

But media reports say some of the censored content merely criticised the government for its handling of the pandemic or showed images of patients being treated in cramped hospitals or makeshift tents.

Internet shut downs and increasing regulations

The government has denied it is sensitive to criticism. But this is not the first time the government — and Twitter, for that matter — has come under fire for removing or blocking users’ content.

In February, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology ordered the blocking of hundreds of Twitter accounts that supported the ongoing farmer protests across the country. The government claimed the accounts were spreading misinformation and provocative content with the hashtag #farmergenocide.

However, following public outrage, the accounts were restored by Twitter. A subsequent demand to block over 1,000 accounts was only partially fulfilled by Twitter after the government issued a notice of noncompliance.

Meanwhile, the Indian government continues to be the biggest instigator of internet shutdowns in the world, according to the digital rights group Access Now. Last year, Indian governments shut down the internet at least 109 times, violating citizens’ rights to information and expression.

The singer Rihanna gave the issue international attention after the government shut down the internet in parts of New Delhi in February.

India’s Supreme Court is currently considering a petition filed by a member of the ruling BJP party seeking greater regulation of content on social media platforms.

Another concern is the government’s new regulations for all digital media and streaming platforms in the name of controlling fake news, which critics say would allow it to “censor news media at their pleasure”.

Opponents point to the lack of legislative backing and parliamentary scrutiny for the regulation. They argue it could be used to target major online news media players such as The Wire, Scroll.in, Newsclick, The News Minute and other outlets for their criticism of the government.

Numerous media, civil society and digital rights groups have expressed alarm over these attempts to increase government control over social media platforms. Said one group in an urgent warning after the blocking of Twitter accounts in February:

Such actions are harmful not only for operational transparency but also for India’s democratic ethos. […] The secrecy and lack of a clear process with respect to the blocking of the accounts is especially concerning if directions have indeed been made under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

From news reports no show cause notice or opportunity to present a defence has been provided to the users of these accounts. Indeed, Twitter did not even notify most of these accounts about their access being withheld.

From social media darlings to silencing critics

Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party swept into power in 2014 on the back of the first-ever social media election in India. Modi himself has since become one of the top three most followed political leaders in the world on social media. His every movement, policy announcement and campaign is multicast on numerous platforms.

His party extended its lead in the 2019 election by using data collected from conversations on messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Modi’s eponymous “NaMo” app.

Read more: Narendra Modi has won the largest election in the world. What will this mean for India?

Now, however, Modi’s party is seen as increasingly intolerant of public criticism online. And counter to its own claims of rampant misinformation in the country, his BJP party has been accused of distributing false and misleading information on these platforms itself.

Modi is known for his ability to speak to the masses, while BJP President Amit Shah is known for his organisational abilities. The combination has won election after election for their party. It is time for both these leaders to speak candidly with their citizens about the COVID crisis and not attempt to silent critics and dodge accountability for their actions through censorship.

– ref. As pressure builds on India’s Narendra Modi, is his government trying to silence its critics? – https://theconversation.com/as-pressure-builds-on-indias-narendra-modi-is-his-government-trying-to-silence-its-critics-159799

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diego S. Silva, Lecturer, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

The go-ahead for Australian Olympians to be vaccinated against COVID-19 before others the same age has led to allegations of “queue-jumping”.

One of the issues at stake is whether athletes should be vaccinated ahead of the Tokyo Olympics with the Pfizer vaccine we know is currently in short supply. This is at a time when so many vulnerable Australians have yet to receive their shots.

Prioritising Olympians can be justified. The trouble is, they shouldn’t be prioritised for the Pfizer vaccine given the interests and claims of other deserving Australians.

The explanation for this is much more nuanced and ethically interesting than it seems at first.

Read more: For now, the Tokyo Olympics will go ahead. But at what cost?

What just happened?

Before this week’s announcement, Olympic athletes would have been part of the phase 2b vaccine rollout, alongside the bulk of adults under 50.

But this week, federal health minister Greg Hunt said “vulnerable Australians remain an absolute priority” for vaccination but “our athletes deserve the opportunity to compete” without having to worry about the coronavirus.

Read more: Japan is facing a fourth COVID wave and sluggish vaccine rollout. Will it be ready for the Olympics?

So athletes were moved up to phase 1b, the same group as some health workers, and people with disabilities or underlying medical conditions.

If these health workers and vulnerable people are under 50 — and many of them will be — they should receive the Pfizer vaccine, the recommended vaccine for this age group. This is the vaccine now also earmarked for Olympic athletes, as they are under 50.

So who has the stronger ethical claim to the Pfizer vaccine?

Olympians should be prioritised …

Australian Olympians can make a strong claim to priority access for the Pfizer vaccine. Competing in the Olympics is unbelievably hard work and a rare honour. Most Olympians toil for years to compete at the pinnacle of their sport, which only happens every four years.

So having the COVID-19 vaccine would allow them to safely fulfil an important “personal interest” that requires incredible sustained effort over a long period of time.

Think of a personal interest as someone’s stake in something, where fulfilment of this interest contributes to their well-being and happiness.

All of us have such personal interests, whether it’s playing a sport, painting or reading. In a sense, they’re trivial pursuits as nothing life-or-death depends on them. But they’re still important; they’re part of what makes us human.

We have special admiration and respect for people whose interests represent the pinnacle of human achievement, such as Olympians. And you could certainly argue Australia values elite sporting achievement.

So there are two mutually reinforcing reasons why Australia’s Olympic athletes should be prioritised for the Pfizer vaccine over other Australians:

• it will help them safely achieve a rare personal interest for which they’ve worked hard and represents a pinnacle of sport

• we generally agree society should support people in their pursuits of such amazing interests, all else being equal.

… just not right now

However, the challenge rests on claims other Australians can make to the Pfizer vaccine. This is particularly so when there are claims for scarce resources, like the vaccine in Australia at the moment. While Australia has ordered more Pfizer vaccine, this is not scheduled to arrive until the last quarter of 2021, after the Olympics has finished.

When scarce resources are necessary to protect interests in being alive, we usually — and rightly — give priority to those interests. In other words, a person’s interest in staying alive and healthy should trump another person’s personal interest, which may be important, but not life or death.

Let’s return to those people currently listed in phase 1b, particularly health-care workers and people with underlying conditions or disabilities. Their claim to the Pfizer vaccine is clearly in the public interest.

Access to the vaccine would protect and promote the health of others (as in the case of health care workers) or the very preservation of life itself and protection against serious disease (as in the case of persons with disabilities).

If we were to rank these various competing interests, it becomes clear why Olympians should not be prioritised over others in phase 1b.

Read more: COVID vaccines won’t be compulsory for the Tokyo Olympics. But if offered, here’s what athletes need to know

But Olympians should still queue jump

The athletes’ justification for being prioritised for vaccines still holds moral weight, though, when it comes to other Australians.

All Australians under 50 will have important interests they’d like fulfilled that will depend on getting the Pfizer vaccine (for example, international travel). But the vast majority of these interests aren’t the pinnacle of achievement or take years of hard work.

If this were the trade-off at hand, Olympians should get the vaccine first. So the issue isn’t whether Olympians should be prioritised, but when.

They could be prioritised in their existing cohort, phase 2b. Alternatively, they could be vaccinated as part of phase 2a, alongside other “high-risk workers”.

Doing so might be the compromise we need to protect Olympians, their safety, and their efforts while respecting the interests and claims of those more deserving.

– ref. Even if Olympians are jumping the COVID vaccine queue, that’s not necessarily wrong. A bioethicist explains – https://theconversation.com/even-if-olympians-are-jumping-the-covid-vaccine-queue-thats-not-necessarily-wrong-a-bioethicist-explains-159907

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Poulton, Senior Lecturer, Brain Mind Centre Nepean, University of Sydney

Controversial LNP Queensland MP Andrew Laming yesterday revealed he has recently been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

In an interview with news.com.au, Laming suggested the condition could explain some of his erratic behaviour, which has most recently included reports he harassed women online, and took an inappropriate photograph of a woman.

Laming’s comments linking these actions with ADHD have attracted criticism. But as an expert in ADHD, I do see certain aspects of his behaviour as possible manifestations of some of the symptoms associated with the condition.

ADHD in adults

We most commonly hear about ADHD in children. But it affects adults too: up to 5% of adults, research suggests.

In the 1990s, the rate of recognising ADHD in childhood increased. But people who grew up before that are often only diagnosed in adulthood.

The characteristic symptoms of ADHD in adults are broadly similar to those in children. One of the biggest challenges with ADHD is difficulty with sustained concentration, or a short attention span, particularly for tasks that don’t have a high level of interest.

Another notable symptom is impulsiveness — reacting quickly without taking a moment to stop and think first, or making a decision based on emotion instead of thinking through the consequences.

Often, in adults, the symptoms are better managed because the person has been dealing with these problems for longer and has developed good coping strategies. But sometimes a person may have significant problems without realising these challenges are due to undiagnosed ADHD.

Read more: Andrew Laming: why empathy training is unlikely to work

Some possible explanations

I’m not Laming’s treating doctor and I don’t know all the details of his situation. However, I can offer some general observations about the link he’s proposed between ADHD and his behaviour.

There’s no doubt recent reports indicate some not very sensible behaviour. Impulsiveness — one of the key behaviours associated with ADHD — could go some way to explaining it.

For example, if he’d thought a little longer before taking the photograph, or publishing a disrespectful post online, perhaps he might have reconsidered and come to the decision these actions were inappropriate.

That’s not to say having ADHD excuses these behaviours, or that other people with ADHD necessarily behave in this way. ADHD presents in a wide variety of different ways, and this unfortunate behaviour could be the way it presented for Laming.

Another characteristic worth considering is what’s called the reward mechanism. If you think about what keeps you in a good mood, it’s largely about all the positive achievements you have in a day. But for people with ADHD, their reward mechanisms may not work as well as they should.

This reward mechanism imbalance in the brain means a person with ADHD may not feel the same level of satisfaction from completing a particular task as a person without ADHD would. And if they don’t get that sense of satisfaction, they may go looking for quicker or bigger rewards.

Humans are a social species, so the big rewards are often social rewards — that is, getting a response from other people. Generating an emotional response, even a negative one, can provide a bit of a buzz, and lift one’s mood.

We might call on this mechanism to understand some instances of Laming’s poor behaviour. It’s possible he was subconsciously looking for a quick reward, and has sought this by shocking people or doing something outrageous, and generated that emotional response.

Again, this doesn’t justify his behaviour.

Read more: No Don Burke, there is no link between autism and harassing behaviour

A high achiever

Notwithstanding the recent scandals, a bit of research into Laming’s life points to a terrific achiever.

He studied medicine, specialising in both ophthalmology and obstetrics and gynaecology. He has several Masters degrees, including one from Harvard University. He spent a short stint clearing landmines and providing medical aid in Afghanistan. After several years working in medical research, practice and policy, he of course turned to politics.

A couple of things stick out to me. First, he is obviously very intelligent. What I find in children is the smarter someone is, the further they can go in life before ADHD starts to impinge on their functioning, and becomes apparent. But if a person with ADHD wants to achieve their full potential, sooner or later their ADHD is likely to cause problems and can hold them back.

And second, he’s changed track a lot of times. This is a pattern we see in many people with ADHD, perhaps because they get bored and start looking for a new challenge that can hold their attention.

What now?

ADHD may go some way to explaining Laming’s behaviour, but it doesn’t justify it. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their behaviour. Everyone is born with different strengths and weaknesses, and must understand these within themselves and learn how to manage them.

Now he has a diagnosis, Laming will need to get to know himself all over again. He will need to get to know himself on medication, and that’s going to be a slightly different Andrew Laming to the one he’s known all these years.

Hopefully it will be a different Andrew Laming to the one we’ve known in recent times, too. I wish him well and congratulate him for being open about his diagnosis.

Read more: Is it adult ADHD? COVID-19 has people feeling restless, lacking focus and seeking diagnosis

– ref. Yes, ADHD could explain some of Andrew Laming’s behaviour. But it doesn’t make it OK – https://theconversation.com/yes-adhd-could-explain-some-of-andrew-lamings-behaviour-but-it-doesnt-make-it-ok-159921

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meera Atkinson, Adjunct Lecturer in Writing, University of Notre Dame Australia

When I began researching the transmission of transgenerational trauma and literary trauma testimony in 2010, I rarely encountered the word “trauma” in the media and national conversation.

Trauma as a concept mostly only preoccupied trauma studies researchers, trauma-educated survivors, and those working on trauma’s front lines, such as mental health professionals.

Now, for the first time in Australian history, trauma is trending in the wider public discourse.

Brittany Higgins’ rape allegation and the historic rape allegation against Christian Porter have ignited a firestorm of discussion about sexual assault. A Royal Commission into veteran suicide is expected to highlight veteran post-traumatic stress disorder. Seven Indigenous Australians have died in custody since the start of March. And we’re finally naming trauma when we talk about these kind of crimes and realities.

But what, exactly, is trauma? What does this shift in public consciousness mean, and where is it taking us?

Read more: Brittany Higgins’ memoir will join a powerful Australian collection reclaiming women’s stories of trauma. Here are four

Trauma defined

The English word “trauma” comes from the Greek word for “wound”: traumatikos, which referred to physical injury. Western conceptualisation of psychological trauma is relatively recent, with understanding progressing since the explosion of interest in the origins of “neurosis” toward the end of the 19th century.

Trauma occurs when the psyche fails to register and process an experience because it happens too fast or too forcefully, overwhelming the thinking brain and the nervous system.

It is closely related to, but distinguished from, stress and distress. Crucially, traumatic experience alters brain function.

Elizabeth Stanley, Associate Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University, offers a pithy description of the difference in her mindfulness-based mind fitness training. She explains stress becomes trauma when a threatening experience exceeds an individual’s stress capacity threshold in the context of perception of powerlessness or a lack of agency, and that stress arousal is not able to be regulated so the body can return to a state of balance.

This process is not fully conscious or subject to conscious control. Traumatic experience reverberates as if the event is not over, and emotional dysregulation and other symptoms can appear long after the disturbing event has ended. There is growing evidence trauma can be transmitted.

Post-traumatic conditions have historically gone by various names, including hysteria and shell shock. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders added Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in 1971. PTSD features four symptom clusters: intrusive memories, avoidance, negative changes in thought and mood, and altered physical and emotional reactions.

Judith Herman, author of the seminal Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence — From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror, coined the term Complex Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. CPSTD is a more pernicious form of PTSD resulting from chronic trauma and childhood trauma. Shame is a distinctive driver, along with dissociative symptoms and interpersonal instability.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that 57-75% of Australians will experience a traumatic event in their lifetime, and 62-68% of young people have experienced at least one event by age 17.

There is less data on CPTSD, but US researchers Cloitre et al. estimated a CPTSD community rate of between 0.5%-3.8% in 2019. Michael Salter and Heather Hall note that

‘Trauma exposure and CPSTD are not equally distributed throughout the community and are inextricably linked to social problems including gender inequality, racism, and poverty.’

What we’re getting right

Shame and confusion around trauma have led to individual and collective denial, silence and stigmatisation.

I’ve lost count of the number of times someone confided that their father or grandfather served in a war, never to speak of it despite bearing life-long psychic scars.

Silence does not stop trauma from transmitting and adversely affecting others; indeed, silence, shame, and secrecy make it more likely. Herman maintains there are three stages of recovery. The first centres on trauma identification and information, the second on remembrance and mourning, and the third on reconnection. Sufficient safety and support are necessary for all three stages.

Growing awareness, open dialogue, and shame-reduction around trauma is a desirable evolution toward comprehending the plight of people with post-traumatic conditions and associated mental illness.

Not all trauma is preventable, but much of it is. In my book, Traumata, I argue patriarchy perpetuates trauma and we need to come to terms with the collective “endemic traumata” of a society birthed by male dominance and white supremacy to achieve social justice and equity.

The link between trauma and social justice has been foregrounded over the past five years, aided by movements like #MeToo and #BLM, and the rise of climate justice activism.

Understanding the role trauma plays is essential for developing both prevention and response strategies. In the past few months, a domino of allegations, op-eds, and tweets have testified to widespread sexual assault.

Headlines stream gendered and family violence, fuelled by what writer Jess Hill calls “humiliated fury”. There is justifiable outrage in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities at the apparent apathy demonstrated by leadership and non-Indigenous Australians in the face of escalating Aboriginal deaths in custody. Youth suicide in Aboriginal communities is skyrocketing. Trauma is all around us, and we increasingly see it for what it is.

What we’re getting wrong

Trauma is still frequently misconstrued and misrepresented. Misunderstandings circulate due to a lack of trauma education and specious social conditioning. The media has an ethical responsibility to produce trauma-informed reportage and commentary, as Michael Salter and I have argued.

Trauma is also sometimes evoked in problematic ways. When Prime Minister Scott Morrison bemoaned his “traumatic month” after being confronted with a series of parliamentary-related rape and sexual misconduct allegations, he was lambasted as inaccurate and tone-deaf. Privilege does not preclude trauma. But paying lip service and trivialising trauma from a position of power is not helpful.

Many people associate trauma solely with catastrophic events like war, but research indicates that “insidious trauma” can be as detrimental.

Racial trauma tends to be repetitive and multigenerational, perpetrated by genocide, police brutality, and hate crimes. It can also be covertly perpetrated by veiled racism, minimisation, discrimination, microaggressions, and indifference. In racially structured societies like Australia’s settler-colonial nation-state, it is normalised and ubiquitous such that white people often fail to recognise it.

Conversely, dominant demographics can also stereotypically over-identify trauma with marginalised people, negating the rich, positive, and multifaceted aspects and accomplishments of individuals and communities.

Commentators should not use the acknowledgement of the profound trauma burdens some communities bear to downplay the culpability of others, as Associate Professor Chelsea Watego’s response to Esther McKay on a recent episode of The Drum makes clear.

Read more: 3 trauma takes the media gets wrong

Where to from here?

As the first order of priority, trauma survivors, especially those with CPTSD, need more equitable and long-term access to appropriate therapeutic support. And traumatising actors and institutions must be held to account, whatever sector of society they occupy.

A better understanding of the effects of intergenerational trauma is critical. In Trauma Trails, Jiman/Bundjalung trauma expert Judy Atkinson outlines how the transgenerational trauma introduced by colonialism feeds into and out of family, community, substance abuse, crime and poverty.

In my monograph, I call the autonomous force of structural trauma “cyclical haunting.” We must reckon with and tackle the social and transgenerational operations of trauma by paying attention to persistent, patterned, deeply rooted injustices and damaging attitudes and practices.

Governments should be educated about trauma. We urgently require leadership capable of examining the causes of trauma and enacting change so that we might live in a less traumatised, less suffering world.

– ref. More than half of Australians will experience trauma, most before they turn 17. We need to talk about it – https://theconversation.com/more-than-half-of-australians-will-experience-trauma-most-before-they-turn-17-we-need-to-talk-about-it-159801

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Sawyer, Lecturer in Paramedicine, Australian Catholic University

Last week, a Victorian woman died while reportedly waiting six hours for an ambulance.

Ambulance union secretary Danny Hill linked the incident to a “busy night” and ambulance ramping, which leaves paramedic crews unable to respond to other issues because they’re waiting at hospital emergency departments for their current patient to be allocated a bed.

Ramping is a serious issue within paramedicine, and it’s entirely possible this issue contributed to the delay in responding to the Victorian woman.

However, the delay may also be symptomatic of a larger issue: ambulance services being held to ransom by arbitrary performance targets set by governments, which often bear little relevance to actual health outcomes for patients.

These productivity metrics result in an overworked and exhausted paramedic workforce, which sadly means we may see more similar deaths in future, unless something changes.

What’s really happening in the ambulance sector

A “busy night” is now the norm for ambulance services. Demand for emergency ambulance services in Victoria has steadily increased. Between 2008 and 2015 it increased by almost 30%, and 2019-20 data showed life-threatening emergencies are becoming more common.

Ambulance services have taken some measures to address this rising demand, such as the recruitment of extra paramedics, and programs that divert patients with less urgent conditions to primary care services such as GPs. However, the rising demand, combined with a frequent lack of available ambulances, seems to outstrip the impact of these measures.

This issue started long before the COVID-19 pandemic. Our paramedic workforce used to have a surge capacity, but we lost this when the ambulance service began using its surge potential to meet day-to-day demand. We can no longer count on ambulance services to respond to sudden increases in demand, as they’re often already operating at full capacity.

For example, on Monday this week, Sydney’s ambulance network reached “status three”, its highest and most severe level of emergency response. It had to pull staff from elsewhere, including ambulance educators and senior graduate paramedics, to deal with the surge.

Response times aren’t necessarily the best metric

Ambulance ramping is a factor, but another is the impact of the key performance measure used by government to demonstrate the effectiveness of the sector: response times.

This is the time it takes for ambulances to arrive once called. For example, in Victoria it’s expected 85% of ambulances should arrive within 15 minutes when the patient is classified as “priority 1”, experiencing life-threatening symptoms that need immediate intervention.

Metrics such as this are used throughout Australian ambulance services despite a lack of evidence that links them to beneficial health-care outcomes for many patients.

There are some instances in which fast response times for ambulances are linked to better outcomes, such as cardiac arrest. However, a review of case records in Perth, Western Australia showed only 5.8% of patients initially classified as requiring a priority 1 response were later found to actually be time-critical. In other words, patients were incorrectly classified as priority 1 in around 94% of cases.

For many cases, the speed with which an ambulance arrives isn’t directly linked to beneficial patient health-care outcomes. One example is the dramatic growth in ambulance use for patients with mental health conditions. While a paramedic can offer initial supportive care, such cases often require input from a range of specialist mental and social health-care services.

Yet ambulance services are compelled by government to meet response targets even when the patient doesn’t require rapid care. This means tying up emergency resources to attend to legitimate but nonetheless non-emergency cases. Thus, when life threatening emergencies do occur, ambulances may not be available.

What’s more, as demand for ambulances increases beyond budgets for increased staffing, it’s the paramedics themselves who are being squeezed to make up the shortfall in response times.

According to one paramedic union, paramedics are regularly asked to skip meal breaks and do compulsory overtime.

Many paramedics have no opportunity to rest and recover. Studies consistently find high rates of fatigue and burnout among Australian paramedics. This is potentially driving increased turnover, higher numbers of people intending to leave the profession and an inability to fill staffing vacancies.

The industry is beholden to performance targets that can harm staff while doing little to benefit patients’ health. Governments can tell the public the ambulance service is meeting its response time targets, but behind the scenes it’s the paramedics who are being overworked and burnt out to tick these boxes.

Read more: Paramedics have one of Australia’s most dangerous jobs — and not just because of the trauma they witness

What has to change?

Firstly, we need to review how appropriate the metric of response times is and look for better ways to gauge the effectiveness of ambulance services. Targets should be based on evidence and reflect benefits to patient health, not arbitrary metrics designed to be easy to understand and report.

Where response times are shown to be beneficial, they may be the most appropriate measure. But for the vast majority of cases, they could be scrapped and replaced with a more appropriate measure.

Secondly, any metric used to measure the effectiveness of the ambulance service must be weighed against a measure of staff health and welfare. When productivity measures are the rule, management has an incentive to ignore their impact on staff welfare, which is possibly what we’re seeing the impacts of now. There’s a risk paramedics are operating in a highly unsafe workplace.

We need to ensure paramedic and patient welfare is equally important as productivity. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice the health of our paramedic workforce or the lives of our communities to meet arbitrary and harmful government performance targets.

– ref. Government demands for arbitrary performance targets are contributing to ambulance delays, paramedic exhaustion – https://theconversation.com/government-demands-for-arbitrary-performance-targets-are-contributing-to-ambulance-delays-paramedic-exhaustion-159823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna McIntyre, Lecturer in Media Studies, Swinburne University of Technology

RuPaul’s Drag Race Down Under will premiere on Stan this Saturday. The Australian-New Zealand version of the global reality TV juggernaut will share an Antipodean mode of drag with audiences around the world.

Veteran drag star RuPaul created Drag Race in 2009 for niche US cable channel Logo TV. It parodies reality TV competitions such as America’s Next Top Model, with a group of drag queens competing across various performance-related challenges to be (literally) crowned the next “Drag Superstar”.

RuPaul has since built up a media empire. The show, which moved to the mainstream US channel VH1 in 2017, has had successful spin offs in the UK, Canada, Thailand and Holland.

Drag Race has relocated drag culture from the fringes of society, making it a legitimate art form, lifestyle, and path to celebrity. However, the show has also been critiqued for ridiculing certain ethnicities as well as for excluding trans performers. Responding to this criticism, more recently, Drag Race contestants have included trans women and (so far) one trans man.

Until now, only the US and UK versions have featured RuPaul and his “Best Judy” Michelle Visage as judges. Drag Race Down Under will also have this fierce duo on its main judging panel along with Australian comedian Rhys Nicholson. Both Australian and New Zealand drag queens will compete, with guest judges including singer Kylie Minogue and Kiwi film director Taika Waititi.

Having been accused of mainstreaming drag, eliminating its subversive impetus, it will be intriguing to see how this slick show — built on US histories of drag — approaches the Australian drag tradition.

Read more: RuPaul’s Drag Race is inventing a whole new internet subculture and language

A blokey culture

In Australia, drag queens have tended to have an “ocker” sensibility, which has made them perhaps surprisingly welcome within a blokey culture.

There is an important difference, however, between the queer drag that drag queens perform and straight drag. Queer drag is aligned with LGBTQ+ communities and can powerfully reject the constraints of gender norms. In contrast, straight drag usually entails heterosexual men dressing up in feminine clothing for the sake of comedy — and it can be used to mock women.

Australian screen culture reflects the place of both these forms of drag in broader Australian society.

Australian TV has long featured straight drag. Early on, it often did so by imitating the English tradition of pantomime dames.

For instance, in the 1970s, the TV character Aunty Jack sported a blue velvet dress, a moustache and one golden boxing glove.

Dame Edna Everage was also born of this tradition. Played by straight cis man Barry Humphries, Edna first appeared on TV in the 1950s as a character satirising suburban Australian housewives. She went on to become a larger-than-life “Dame” with sequined cat-eye glasses.

Read more: Friday essay: Barry Humphries’ humour is now history – that’s the fate of topical, satirical comedy

In Australia the practice of straight drag is also associated with laddish behaviour. Certainly, the burly blokes on The Footy Show were notorious for donning women’s garb for comedy sketches.

Despite stark differences between the two, queer drag and straight drag are often unusually interconnected in Australia because both feature aspects of the “ocker”.

While queer drag is celebrated in LGBTQ+ bars and clubs every night, straight venues around Australia — including RSLs and rural pubs — also regularly host queer drag queens.

Queer drag also looms large in Australia’s collective consciousness. Notably, in the 1960s, the queer cabaret troupe Les Girls in Sydney’s Kings Cross became a “must see” spectacle for mainstream Australia. These glamorous performers appeared to be beautiful women but were all queer men dolled up in wigs, makeup, sequins and feathers.

The most famous Les Girls showgirl was the busty “bombshell” Carlotta. In the 1970s, she also became Australia’s first transgender celebrity. Carlotta has performed drag throughout the country for more than 50 years and remains a revered queer figure.

Discussing how queer drag became so accepted in blokey Australian contexts, Carlotta has said Australian drag queens are unique because they “have that ‘ocker-ish’ sense of humour and it related to most Australians”.

Carlotta was an inspiration for the international hit film The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, in which three Sydney drag queens travel through the outback on a lavender bus, performing drag in remote locales.

It presents striking juxtapositions between the queens’ elaborate, shiny costumes and the red Australian desert.

These iconic drag queens also enact a conspicuously Aussie sense of irreverent humour that is validated by the “ocker” characters around them.

For instance drag queen Bernadette is enthusiastically applauded in a rural pub of rugged blokes when she retorts to an aggressive woman:

Now listen here, you mullet. Why don’t you just light your tampon and blow your box apart, because it’s the only bang you’re ever going to get, sweetheart.

Priscilla solidified “ocker” drag queens as representative of an Australian brand of queer drag.

Drag Race Down Under’s trailer directly invokes imagery from Priscilla, positioning the flamboyant contestants against a desert highway with a yellow road sign warning of kangaroos.

However, this new season is yet to reveal just how “ocker” Aussie Drag Race queens can be.

– ref. Sashay or stay — will RuPaul’s Drag Race Down Under erase Australia’s ‘ocker’ drag past? – https://theconversation.com/sashay-or-stay-will-rupauls-drag-race-down-under-erase-australias-ocker-drag-past-159918

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duncan Keenan-Jones, Lecturer in Ancient History, The University of Queensland

In the second episode of the current season of the TV show Lego Masters, contestants were asked to build a castle — then watch it be destroyed by a bowling ball.

In the lucky dip that followed, teammates Fleur and Sarah drew a Spartan figure to signal their theme for the task (others worked on Viking, Medieval or samurai strongholds). They went on to build a giant Spartan warrior, standing protectively against white city walls.

The inclusion of Sparta in a gathering of Lego warrior figurines might seem incongruous to those familiar with ancient history. Sparta, located in Greece’s southern peninsula, the Peloponnese, was one of the oldest and most powerful Greek city-states. Helen, whose abduction started the Trojan War, was married to the king of Sparta in Homer’s Illiad (probably composed in the 8th century BCE).

Read more: Guide to the classics: Homer’s Iliad

Sparta was eventually absorbed into the Roman Empire in the 2nd century BCE. But the Spartans are now a touchstone of popular culture: portrayed in movies such as 300 and Troy, and video games such as Assassins’ Creed: Odyssey and Rome: Total War.

Unfortunately for these hopeful Lego Masters, the city of Sparta was not famous in the ancient world for its walls — but for its lack of them.

Read more: Structuring thought and imagination brick by brick, Lego is more than child’s play

Surrounded by men, not bricks

The Athenian historian Thucydides was probably alluding to this lack of walls when he described the primitive urbanism of Sparta. Later Greek and Roman authors, including the philosopher Plato, considered Sparta’s lack of walls to be a reflection of Sparta’s belief in the superiority of its justly famed soldiers.

As Sparta’s mythical founder Lycurgus is reputed to have said: “A city will be well fortified which is surrounded by brave men and not by bricks.”

Other Spartan notables insulted (in the ancient Greek mindset, at least) cities with impressive walls by describing them as “fine quarters for women”.

Archaeological excavations in 1906–7 confirmed walls were not built around the town until shortly after 184 BCE, long after the height of Sparta’s power during the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars in the 5th century BCE.

Read more: Curious Kids: who were the Spartans?

And yet, while Sparta was protected by an army and not a castle, Sparta and her Peloponnesian allies did seek to shelter behind a set of walls. Not walls around the city of Sparta, but the walls across the Isthmus of Corinth: the narrow strip of land joining the Peloponnese to the rest of Greece.

This was the fall-back position argued for by many Peloponnesians before and after the eventual defeat of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans by the Persians at Thermopylae in 480 BCE.

The Peloponnesians even offered for other city-states to move their families behind the walls.

Looking for weaknesses

This isn’t to say Spartans didn’t recognise the value of a good wall. They saw them as a barrier to other Greek city-states.

The Spartans attempted to convince the Athenians not to rebuild their city wall after it had been torn down by the Persians when they occupied the city after Thermopylae. Once the Persian threat was reduced after Greek victories at Salamis (480), Plataea and Mycale (479), Sparta began to fear the growing power of Athens.

An unfortified Athens would be at the mercy of Sparta’s dominant land army. A fortified Athens, however, could rely on its dominant navy to supply itself by sea and hold out for a long time against a future Spartan siege.

Cannily, Sparta argued Athens should join with them to fund the building of walls around other, less powerful, city-states (who also happened to be less of a threat to Spartan dominance).

Athens delayed their answer to the Spartans, giving themselves time to hastily erect a wall of sufficient height to withstand a siege.

In the 5th century BCE arms race between Greek city-states, Athens wanted their own set of walls to keep pace with other members of the confederacy.

According to Thucydides (an excellent source, even if he treated his speeches and statistics a bit liberally at times), the Spartans eventually became so fearful of Athens’ growing power they fell into the “Thucydides’ trap” — where a dominant power allows its fear of a rising power to result in conflict — resulting in the Peloponnesian War (c. 431–404 BCE).

Read more: Guide to the classics: Thucydides’s History of the Peloponnesian War

Lycurgus, is that you?

Today’s brick-builders on Lego Masters surrounded their Spartan stronghold with protective walls.

Although this isn’t quite how Sparta was built, Fleur and Sarah’s creation of a giant Spartan warrior towering over the fortifications and facing off invaders (or bowling balls) was an inspired choice. Their work echoed the words of famous Spartans including Lycurgus, Agesilaus and Antalcidas: Sparta’s walls were its warriors.

– ref. What were the Spartans like? Note to Lego Masters: they didn’t build city walls – https://theconversation.com/what-were-the-spartans-like-note-to-lego-masters-they-didnt-build-city-walls-159910

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sukhbir Sandhu, Associate Professor in Sustainability and Ethics, University of South Australia

More than half of Australian companies plan to scale back environmental initiatives to weather the financial harm caused by the COVID pandemic, a report released this month suggests. But such a move would be bad for business, and the planet.

Over the past few decades, regulatory and societal pressures have prompted businesses to adopt environmental initiatives at a growing rate. The measures may involve divesting from fossil fuels, preventing pollution, developing eco-friendly products or even collaborating with competitors to help other organisations in their supply chains, such as distributors and retailers, become sustainable.

My research focuses on social and environmental sustainability issues confronting organisations. Environmental initiatives require a long-term focus, and in my view, businesses would be unwise to scale back these measures in response to the pandemic. Research by myself and colleagues suggests most firms with good environmental performance also do well financially. And firms that ignore environmental issues face enormous risk.

Renowned US economist Milton Friedman famously argued, “the only social responsibility of business is to make profits”. But even Friedman suggests firms are better off dealing with environmental issues when they become a risk.

Business can be a force for good

Sustainability measures by business are crucial in helping mitigate and adapt to climate change. Production processes creating fewer greenhouse gas emissions help slow global warming. And when firms make products that require fewer natural resources (such as by using recycled materials), this lowers stress on global ecosystems.

In fact, our research shows businesses can be one of society’s most powerful actors in bringing about fast and furious change on environmental and social sustainability.

However a recent international survey by Deloitte found 54% of 75 surveyed Australian companies were downgrading sustainability initiatives during the pandemic.

This is a troubling figure, but below the global average of 65%. And, it should be noted, no surveyed organisation planned to stop their efforts completely and not resume, indicating the changes will not be permanent.

The results are not necessarily representative of the entire Australian business sector. But as a general rule, slowing the momentum on environmental initiatives increases business exposure to climate risk – and may affect future profitability. A firm’s environmental capabilities can take decades to hone. They can involve complex strategies and years of consultations inside and outside the company. Stopping or slowing these actions can undo hard-earned gains.

In recent years, the business community has increasingly recognised how climate change and other environmental damage poses a risk to their returns. These risks include:

• extreme weather which disrupts operations, damages infrastructure and increases insurance costs
• increased business costs due to scarcer resources
• lower consumer demand for unsustainable products
• stranded assets (those that can’t make a financial return due to changes in technology, regulation or the market)
• reputation damage and shareholder backlash.

Read more: Cyclone Seroja just demolished parts of WA – and our warming world will bring more of the same

Rio Tinto experienced the latter last year after its disastrous decision to blow up two ancient rock shelters at Juukan Gorge. The move prompted public outrage and enraged shareholders forced the resignation of Rio’s chief executive, Jean-Sébastien Jacques.

And shareholders in Australian energy giant AGL have urged its board to hasten the closure of its coal-fired power stations.

Sustainable business activities need not damage a business’ financial returns. This month it was reported that BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, had examined divestment by hundreds of funds and concluded the portfolios experienced “modest improvement in fund return”.

Flattening the climate curve

Rather than abandoning environmental initiatives, governments, businesses and societies should use the pandemic to reset our collective response to climate change.

For businesses, the pandemic presents a unique opportunity to rethink how they engage with their workforce. Do businesses really need all their energy-guzzling office buildings? Do their employees need to commute to work every day? Is international travel necessary? Can they pool scarce resources and work with competitors to gain traction on environmental issues?

For governments, this is a good time to seriously consider pricing carbon, which financially penalises high-emitting companies. Renewable energy is becoming more reliable each year – strengthening the case to move to a low-carbon economy.

Governments should also consider earmarking a decent fraction of further stimulus payments to encourage business action on climate change. After the global financial crisis in 2007-09, many national governments issued financial stimulus to kickstart economies. Pioneering electric carmaker Tesla emerged from one such stimulus loan in the United States.

And more broadly, as a capitalist society, must we continue on the path of incessant economic growth that is making our planet sick? Or can we use the pause caused by this pandemic to take a more sustainable route?

Read more: I’ve seriously tried to believe capitalism and the planet can coexist, but I’ve lost faith

A dry run

The COVID-19 pandemic can be viewed as a dry run for the impending climate crisis. But the size and scale of climate change demands much more sustained commitment and action than the pandemic. Successfully flattening the emissions curve will take decades, not months.

And the pain from climate change, while slower to arrive, will last much longer, and perhaps forever change civilisation as we know it.

Businesses have long been a big part of the climate problem. They, along with governments and society, cannot continue their uncoordinated, piecemeal response to climate change. This includes not dumping environmental initiatives when it all feels too hard.

Read more: Spot the difference: as world leaders rose to the occasion at the Biden climate summit, Morrison faltered

– ref. Risky business: 54% of Australian companies plan to slow ‘green’ initiatives due to COVID – https://theconversation.com/risky-business-54-of-australian-companies-plan-to-slow-green-initiatives-due-to-covid-158532

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Barbara Pocock, Emeritus Professor University of South Australia, University of South Australia

If you have been in a children’s playground recently, you may have seen a distracted parent absorbed in an intense phone conversation, swatting a child away.

Sure, some are ordering tickets for The Wiggles, but most are not — they are working. They might have officially knocked off, be on leave or it might be a weekend. But as surely as if they were in the office, they are at work.

Many of us know that tug of double consciousness: the child’s pressing need pitted against a complex issue on the other end of the phone demanding every neurone we can muster.

You do not have to be a carer to feel this tug. It still finds plenty of people who just want some quiet time, an uninterrupted run, a life beyond work.

It’s the growth of this tug, affecting more and more women and men, which has fuelled the push for a “right to disconnect” from work. This includes a recent significant victory for Victoria Police employees to protect their time away from work.

Availability creep

Our forebears would not recognise the ephemeral way we work today, or the absence of boundaries around it. But powerful new technologies have disrupted last century’s clearer, more stable, predictable limits on the time and place of work.

This is called “availability creep”, where employees feel they need to be available all the time to answer emails, calls or simply deal with their workload.

And that was well before a pandemic that piled revolution upon revolution on the way we work. A 2020 mid-pandemic survey showed Australians were working 5.3 hours of unpaid overtime on average per week, up from 4.6 hours the year before.

These longer hours are often associated with job insecurity. In a labour market like Australia’s, where insecure work is widespread, there are strong incentives to “stay sweet” with the boss and work longer, harder and sometimes for nothing.

Health implications

So, work is now untethered from a workplace or a workday, and our workplace regulation lags well behind. This has serious implications for our mental health, work-life stress, productivity and a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.

Of course, flexibility is not all bad. As a researcher collecting evidence for decades about the case for greater flexibility for employees, I see silver linings in a pandemic that achieved almost overnight what decades of data-gathering could not: new ways of working that can suit workers (especially women) and their households.

Read more: Forget work-life balance – it’s all about integration in the age of COVID-19

However, this change has a dark side. Digital work and work-from-home have shown themselves to drive long hours of work, and to pollute rest and family time. Poor sleep, stress, burnout, degraded relationships and distracted carers are part of the collateral damage.

Disconnecting in Australia and internationally

A growing international response attests to the importance of disconnection. And it has now reached our shores.

Last month, Victoria Police’s new Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) included the “right to disconnect” from work. It directs managers to respect leave and rest days and avoid contacting police officers outside work hours, unless in an emergency or to check on their welfare. The goal is to ensure that police, whose jobs are often stressful, can switch off from work when they knock off and get decent rest and recovery time.

The “right to disconnect” has taken several forms internationally in recent decades. At individual firm level, some large companies such as Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler now simply stop out-of-hours or holiday emails or calls.

Goldman Sachs has also recently re-stated its far from radical “Saturday rule”, under which junior bankers are not expected to be in the office from 9pm Friday to 9am Sunday.

The French example

Some countries now regulate the right nationally.

Since 2017, French companies employing more than 50 people have been required to engage in an annual negotiation with employee representatives to regulate digital devices to ensure respect for rest, personal life and family leave. If they can’t reach agreement, the employer must draw up a charter to define how employees can disconnect and must train and inform their workers about these strategies.

While enforcement of the French law has attracted criticism (as penalties are weak), it has fostered a national conversation —now reaching other countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland. In early 2021, the European Parliament voted to grant workers the right to refrain from email and calls outside working hours, including when on holidays or leave, as well as protection from adverse actions against those who disconnect.

What’s next for Australia?

The Victoria Police EBA has encouraged a new level of discussion in Australia. The ACTU has backed a right to disconnect, especially for workers in stressful jobs.

Individual businesses will now be examining their obligations to ensure maximum hours of work are adhered to and “reasonable” overtime and on-call work is managed to avoid possible claims for unpaid work.

Read more: A life of long weekends is alluring, but the shorter working day may be more practical

This week, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that supermarket giant Coles is trying to prevent out-of-hours work.

The consequences for companies can be expensive when digital work is not well managed. In 2018, the French arm of Rentokil was ordered to pay an ex-employee the equivalent of $A92,000 because it required him to leave his phone on to talk to customers and staff.

Beyond fair remuneration, a duty of care to provide a safe and healthy workplace is also implicated in digital work that leaks beyond working hours.

What needs to happen now

Large public sector workplaces are likely to follow Victoria Police’s example. However, EBAs now cover just 15% of workers, so this pathway won’t help most workers, many of whom are instead covered by one of the 100 or so industry or occupational modern awards.

These awards could be amended to include a right to disconnect. But more simply and comprehensively, the National Employment Standards (which apply to all workers regardless of whether covered by an award or an EBA) could be amended to provide an enforceable right to disconnect with consequences for its breach, alongside existing standards of maximum hours of work, flexibility and other minimum rights.

Given many women, low paid, private sector, un-unionised and relatively powerless workers in smaller workplaces have little chance of negotiating or enforcing a right to disconnect, it is vital the right to disconnect applies across the whole workforce.

– ref. As boundaries between work and home vanish, employees need a ‘right to disconnect’ – https://theconversation.com/as-boundaries-between-work-and-home-vanish-employees-need-a-right-to-disconnect-158897

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Calgaro, Research Associate, Sydney Policy Lab, University of Sydney

Deaf people are highly vulnerable to disaster risk but tend to be excluded from programs aimed at boosting preparedness and resilience, our research has found.

Our study, published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, examined the challenges the New South Wales Deaf community faces in accessing the support they need to effectively respond to disaster risk.

Our research showed Deaf people are vulnerable to disasters for various reasons, including:

• low disaster awareness and preparedness

• poor knowledge of emergency services roles and responsibilities

• dependency on family and friends for help.

Read more: You can’t talk about disaster risk reduction without talking about inequality

Why are Deaf people vulnerable and excluded?

Via a mix of focus group discussions and interviews with 317 Deaf people, approximately 11.8% of the identified Deaf population in NSW, Deaf people shared their experiences of bushfires, floods, hailstorms and severe storms, tropical cyclones, and earthquakes.

Communication issues are the biggest barrier:

• Deaf people have limited access to disaster information in Auslan (Australian sign language), in plain English or in pictorial form

• emergency messages are usually communicated via TV and radio, door-to-door messaging, loudspeaker alerts and social media which are either audio in form or too complicated for many Deaf people to understand

• emergency personnel and emergency shelter staff can find it hard to communicate with Deaf people due to language barriers.

Consequently, Deaf people are frequently unaware of evacuation shelter locations, unsure of whom and how to ask for help, and more likely to return to unsafe homes and conditions.

This marginalises them further and increases vulnerability. They also have difficulties in getting information on how to access recovery resources.

Trust in emergency services was often low

Good communication requires trust between everyone involved but Deaf peoples’ trust in the emergency services was low due to past bad experiences.

Deaf people reported that emergency services personnel were often uncomfortable communicating with them directly and lack the patience to use non-verbal communication methods.

Deaf people with disaster experience told us they had not received warnings prior to those disasters. This resulted in confusion, feelings of helplessness, panic, and a state of total unpreparedness. There was a sense that “we always come last”.

Consequently, Deaf people often rely on neighbours for assistance, but the help is not always there. One Deaf Central Coast resident told us:

In Berowra [Sydney suburb], we had great neighbours because we created and exchanged a list with our names, emergency contacts, phone numbers, email addresses, etc. as a way to communicate [with] each other on evacuation plans, emergency warnings, where to go and when to come back…[in] future emergencies. That concept was lovely […] but here in Ourimbah [on the Central Coast] it is different […] Here, in Ourimbah, no one bothers to check or share any updates with us.

High levels of isolation in rural areas left people without adequate support, with one person saying:

Contacting people who live far in the country is very difficult. It’s very sad. This is something that needs to be improved.

But the root cause of their vulnerability does not stem from their disability as is often assumed. It comes from a mismatch of cultures between the Deaf Community, the dominant English-speaking hearing world and institutional cultures found in the emergency services.

This creates misunderstandings on all sides and erodes trust.

Understanding and engaging with Deaf culture is key

Deaf people are a cultural and linguistic minority with an invisible disability. Being culturally d/Deaf is not determined by degrees of hearing loss – it’s about belonging to a distinctive cultural group.

Globally, there are about 70 million Deaf people, using approximately 300 sign languages. They are united together by various cultures, beliefs, experiences and practices.

Deaf community members often experience alienation and marginalisation from the dominant hearing population that misunderstands them. This divide excludes them from the everyday workings of society and increases their vulnerability to disasters. As one New England resident told us:

Deaf people know how I feel, what my frustrations are and my feelings. Hearing people do not know or will never understand that.

Deaf people’s weariness and mistrust of hearing people, including emergency responders, is the result of exclusionary processes that begin in childhood.

Education and literacy levels are low because of inadequate Auslan support in schools, making disaster preparedness information written in technical English inaccessible.

Poor support leads to isolation at school, at home and in the workplace. Deaf people are therefore used to working in isolation, feel insecure in the hearing world and often turn to hearing people for help.

This dependency on hearing people is learned and reinforced as a survival technique. This can lead to a degree of passivity within the Deaf Community and mistrust in their own capabilities as leaders.

Disaster management processes don’t help either. In Australia special services are “added onto” mainstream disaster management to cater for those with “special needs” without fully understanding what those needs are.

This accidentally excludes Deaf people more. A lack of Deaf awareness among emergency services leaves them without the knowledge and skills needed to support Deaf people, entrenching the cultural divide.

Change is underway but there’s much work to do

There’s an urgent need for greater and sustained engagement and support with the Deaf community. The Deaf community also need to step forward into leadership roles.

Inclusive projects like the Deaf Society’s Get Ready Deaf Society of NSW project (in which we were involved) are increasing the preparedness of NSW’s Deaf community by bridging the cultural divide between the Deaf Community and the emergency services.

Its greatest achievements were the translation of the Australian Red Cross’ national RediPlan into a series of videos in Auslan and the training of Deaf Liaison Officers (DLOs) who deliver Deaf Awareness training to emergency services and emergency preparedness workshops to Deaf people, and sharing disaster preparedness information with their community. One Disaster Liaison Officer told us:

One achievement from this was the change in perceptions. Deaf people realised they cannot play the ‘deaf card’ where they automatically assume someone will be there to help or save them. They need to understand that it is them that needs to be proactive in preparing themselves for natural disasters and hazards otherwise their [vulnerability to] risks will be high.

Thankfully, the inclusion of Auslan interpreters live on TV during emergency broadcasts is now mainstream helping to provide more consistent access to timely information. But this is still not enough.

Providing Auslan interpretation does not empower or equip Deaf community members with the skills they need to prepare, respond to and recover from disasters.

Mainstream Australia must do more to understand the deep-rooted cultural barriers to communication that disadvantage Deaf people. We urgently need sustained engagement and funding of initiatives that support Deaf people prepare for disasters and to lead within their own communities.

Nick Craig and Julia Allen coauthored this article and contributed to the original research.

– ref. ‘We always come last’: Deaf people are vulnerable to disaster risk but excluded from preparedness – https://theconversation.com/we-always-come-last-deaf-people-are-vulnerable-to-disaster-risk-but-excluded-from-preparedness-158213

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Celeste Young, Collaborative Research Fellow, Sustainable Industries and Liveable Cities (ISILC), Victoria University

Overcoming the odds is second nature to the Gippsland community. The people in this region have seen it all — fires, floods, droughts and extreme weather. And every time, these capable, resourceful and independent communities bounce back.

However, recovery from bushfires of the 2019/2020 Black Summer followed by the COVID-19 pandemic has been different.

Even before these events, we were researching vulnerability to natural hazards, risk ownership and diversity and inclusion nationally as part of our work with the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre.

Through a mix of interviews, focus groups and surveys, we sought insights about communities, how they recover after disaster and what factors have the greatest impact. We focused on community strengths and how to build on them.

Our recently released report, Growing the seeds: recovery, strength and capability in Gippsland communities, highlights that recovery is often non-linear. It’s not just the damage to infrastructure, houses, environment and farmland that makes recovery difficult; the emotional and physical toll is often gruelling as well.

The report identifies several opportunities for change, including the need for a long-term plan (five years minimum) for building community emergency management capability in the region — well before the next disaster strikes.

A brutal time

The 2019–20 fires damaged over half of the East Gippsland Shire, an area of over 1.16 million hectares. Over 400 dwellings and businesses were lost and four people lost their lives. Areas like Mallacoota were at acute risk. In some areas, communities were under threat for weeks and evacuated repeatedly, exhausting them before the recovery process began.

Then, the pandemic hit, disrupting the established pattern of recovery where people get together to make sense of what has happened and start to rebuild their communities. One person describe the timing as “brutal”. Another said:

When the fires happened, you had a couple of amazing people who stepped up, opened the hall, and everyone was coming in, and they started doing Friday night dinners and everyone was there. There were 200-odd people every Friday night and then COVID ended it.

Via online community consultations, interviews and focus groups, we asked community members to identify strengths that supported recovery and opportunities for change.

We also surveyed 614 people during October 2020 in fire-affected regions of Victoria and New South Wales, with 31% of respondents coming from Victoria and 69% from NSW.

When asked what strengths their community showed following the bushfires, they included generosity and kindness (69%), resilience (61%) and active volunteering (59%).

When asked to identify the main challenges since the bushfire, COVID was named as the main challenge (49%), followed by damage to the environment (39%), anxiety (31%) and overall fatigue (26%).

The combination of bushfires and the pandemic also created economic risks and disrupted supply chains. Small businesses make up 98% of the local economy, and many are heavily reliant on tourism.

Recovering through community strength and capability

Many of the strengths needed to drive recovery and resilience are already at the heart of these communities. These capabilities are more diverse and widespread than is often assumed.

There is considerable wealth and capacity in some areas, but also a high level of social and economic vulnerability, with some living hand-to-mouth.

There is significant local knowledge of risk management and recovery, which is often overlooked by experts coming in from outside. As one person told us:

You’ve got bureaucracy coming in from Melbourne who think that we’re just a bunch of country bumpkins who don’t quite know what we’re doing, yet we know our community better than they do.

Volunteer and informal economies are significant and underpin community resilience. Yet formal recovery strategies don’t target these areas very well; some people in the informal economy found they did not qualify for economic or business support at all.

The JobSeeker and JobKeeper programs helped maintain employment (albeit at levels of productivity that were lower than in the past). JobKeeper has now ended but support is still needed to boost productivity and help the local economy recover.

We also found:

• government and some supporting agencies often lacked knowledge about the cultural, physical and social structures of different communities

• some policies had perverse effects (for example, the HomeBuilder grant resulted in a lack of available builders)

• programs and communication were often not tailored and did not accommodate the diverse needs of communities or specific cohorts within them

• a lack of clarity as to what role the community have in response and recovery, and what risks they are responsible for

• short-term allocation of resources and funding sometimes created an environment of uncertainty; for example, some participants raised concerns vulnerable community members may at risk when contracts for certain programs ran out, as the service offered would either cease or be led by a new contract-holder. As one person told us:

You can’t just bring someone in now and go, ‘Here you go, you take over all my people’, because the relationships and the trust that you build over this time, it’s not something you can hand over to someone else.

Knowing community strengths and supporting them

Recovery processes will never be perfect and we can also no longer assume communities will have time to recover from one disaster before the next arrives. As one person said:

People are suffering collective trauma, which creates anxiety and irritability. So, it is going to be difficult to move forward and I believe [name removed] will be a really changed place, this is something that will echo up and down along all fire-ravaged communities.

In natural hazard prone areas like Gippsland, it’s crucial to know what strengths already exist in the community so they can be harnessed when disaster hits. In other words, we need to find ways to support and grow community capabilities.

Listening to communities

It’s crucial communities, governments and the emergency services have a shared understanding of what the priorities are after a disaster and what can be realistically achieved.

A database of community capabilities would support more effective planning, policy-making and program development, as would a longer term collaborative project to identify and develop community capability.

Through listening to these communities we can learn from their experiences and support the development of community-led pathways to recovery.

Read more: More than a decade after the Black Saturday fires, it’s time we got serious about long-term disaster recovery planning

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. You can read the rest of the stories here.

– ref. ‘We know our community better than they do’: why local knowledge is key to disaster recovery in Gippsland – https://theconversation.com/we-know-our-community-better-than-they-do-why-local-knowledge-is-key-to-disaster-recovery-in-gippsland-158703

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul X. McCarthy, Adjunct Professor, UNSW

The online world is continuously expanding — always aggregating more services, more users and more activity. Last year, the number of websites registered on the “.com” domain surpassed 150,000,000.

However, more than a quarter of a century since its first commercial use, the growth of the online world is now slowing down in some key categories.

We conducted a multi-year research project analysing global trends in online diversity and dominance. Our research, published today in Public Library of Science, is the first to reveal some long-term trends in how businesses compete in the age of the web.

We saw a dramatic consolidation of attention towards a shrinking (but increasingly dominant) group of online organisations. So, while there is still growth in the functions, features and applications offered on the web, the number of entities providing these functions is shrinking.

Web diversity nosedives

We analysed more than six billion user comments from the social media website Reddit dating back to 2006, as well as 11.8 billion Twitter posts from as far back as 2011. In total, our research used a massive 5.6Tb trove of data from more than a decade of global activity.

This dataset was more than four times the size of the original data from the Hubble Space Telescope, which helped Brian Schmidt and colleagues do their Nobel-prize winning work in 1998 to prove the universe’s expansion is accelerating.

With the Reddit posts, we analysed all the links to other sites and online services — more than one billion in total — to understand the dynamics of link growth, dominance and diversity through the decade.

We used a measure of link “uniqueness”. On this scale, 1 represents maximum diversity (all links have their own domain) and 0 is minimum diversity (all links are on one domain, such as “youtube.com”).

A decade ago, there was a much greater variety of domains within links posted by users of Reddit, with more than 20 different domains for every 100 random links users posted. Now there are only about five different domains for every 100 links posted.

In fact, between 60—70% of all attention on key social media platforms is focused towards just ten popular domains.

Beyond social media platforms, we also studied linkage patterns across the web, looking at almost 20 billion links over three years. These results reinforced the “rich are getting richer” online.

The authority, influence and visibility of the top 1,000 global websites (as measured by network centrality or PageRank) is growing every month, at the expense of all other sites.

Read more: The internet’s founder now wants to ‘fix the web’, but his proposal misses the mark

App diversity is on the rise

The web started as a source of innovation, new ideas and inspiration — a technology that opened up the playing field. It’s now also becoming a medium that actually stifles competition and promotes monopolies and the dominance of a few players.

Our findings resolve a long-running paradox about the nature of the web: does it help grow businesses, jobs and investment? Or does it make it harder to get ahead by letting anyone and everyone join the game? The answer, it turns out, is it does both.

While the diversity of sources is in decline, there is a countervailing force of continually increasing functionality with new services, products and applications — such as music streaming services (Spotify), file sharing programs (Dropbox) and messaging platforms (Messenger, Whatsapp and Snapchat).

Website ‘infant mortality’

Another major finding was the dramatic increase in the “infant mortality” rate of websites — with the big kids on the block guarding their turf more staunchly than ever.

We examined new domains that were continually referenced or linked-to in social media after their first appearance. We found that while almost 40% of the domains created 2006 were active five years on, only a little more than 3% of those created in 2015 remain active today.

The dynamics of online competition are becoming clearer and clearer. And the loss of diversity is concerning. Unlike the natural world, there are no sanctuaries; competition is part of both nature and business.

Our study has profound implications for business leaders, investors and governments everywhere. It shows the network effects of the web don’t just apply to online businesses. They have permeated the entire economy and are rewriting many previously accepted rules of economics.

For example, the idea that businesses can maintain a competitive advantage based on where they are physically located is increasingly tenuous. Meanwhile, there’s new opportunities for companies to set up shop from anywhere in the world and serve a global customer base that’s both mainstream and niche.

The best way to encourage diversity is to have more global online businesses focused on providing diverse services, by addressing consumers’ increasingly niche needs.

In Australia, we’re starting to see this through homegrown companies such as Canva, SafetyCulture and iWonder. Hopefully many more will appear in the decade ahead.

Read more: If it’s free online, you are the product

– ref. We spent six years scouring billions of links, and found the web is both expanding and shrinking – https://theconversation.com/we-spent-six-years-scouring-billions-of-links-and-found-the-web-is-both-expanding-and-shrinking-159215

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vera Weisbecker, Associate Professor, Flinders University

If a friend boasts of having a “big-brained” dog, your reaction is probably not to ask “relative to what?”. You would simply assume your friend thinks their dog is pretty smart. But are we always right to equate big brains with greater intelligence?

In a study published today in Science Advances, we and our colleagues describe how the relationship between large brains and “intelligence” in mammalian evolution isn’t as straightforward as you might assume.

A key problem is that, in evolutionary terms, a “large brain” doesn’t just refer to the absolute size of the brain. Rather, we refer to mammals as big-brained when their brain volume is large relative to their body mass.

There are many examples of intelligent animals that are also large-brained for their size. Humans are a particularly extreme case; our brains are roughly seven times larger than expected for an animal of our size. Dogs are also famously large-brained and smart, as are whales, dolphins and elephants.

This big-equals-smart equivalence has also been applied in research on mammalian brain size evolution, under the assumption that relatively large mammalian brains evolve in situations where natural selection favours greater intelligence. But what if it’s not brain size that became larger, but body size that became smaller?

To investigate this question, we assembled the largest data set of brain and body masses of mammals from the existing literature. In total, we compiled size data for 1,400 mammal species, including 107 fossils.

We then assembled an evolutionary tree for these species. This allowed us to ask how brain and body size have related to each other throughout the evolution of mammals, starting from before the extinction of dinosaurs.

Our analysis revealed a mixed bag of evolutionary trajectories in brain and body sizes. For example, elephants are large, large-brained, and also known to be very intelligent. We saw that this combination arose through the elephants undergoing an even greater increase in brain size than expected for their large body size.

In contrast, the evolutionary lineages for humans and dolphins – both among the largest-brained mammals on Earth – were particularly unique in having larger brains but smaller bodies compared with their close relatives (chimps and gorillas for humans; other toothed whales for dolphins). This unusual combination makes their brains spectacularly large among mammals.

Read more: Curious Kids: which is smarter – a blue whale or an orca?

Strikingly, some mammals that are known to be very intelligent underwent stronger natural selection on body size than on brain size. The California sea lion, for example, famous for its circus-trick smarts, has an unusually small brain relative to its body mass. This is because when the evolutionary ancestors of seals and sea lions began living in water, evolution favoured massive increases in body size — perhaps to conserve body heat, to ward off predators such as sharks, or more generally because gravity is less of an impediment to large body size in water than in air.

This means California sea lions’ relative brain size is much smaller than expected, given their intelligence. So how are they so smart? One possible explanation is that, despite their relatively smaller brain size compared with their close relatives, California sea lions have up to four times more volume dedicated to brain areas that support intelligent behaviour, such as learning complicated tricks.

This seems to make them much smarter than other mammals with comparable brain sizes, such as bears, and shows why sea lions can learn skills that are not in their innate repertoire of behaviours, such as making vocalisations on command.

Evolutionary upheavals

Our analysis also revealed that cataclysmic events in evolutionary history left their hallmarks in mammals’ brains. For example, there was an acceleration in increases in brain size relative to body mass after the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. We think this may be due to the fact many mammals found new habitats to live in that were previously occupied by dinosaurs, often requiring new adaptations in either brain or body size.

Another intriguing pattern is a substantial rearrangement of the relationship between brain and body sizes between 30 million and 23 million years ago, when Earth cooled rapidly and some big evolutionary changes (such as the evolution of seals and sea lions) happened.

Some of these changes left legacies that still endure today. They have resulted in some of the biggest (elephants and whales) and smallest (bats and shrews) mammal brains on Earth.

Read more: Brain versus brawn: the evolution of humans and other animals

Given that the evolution of brain size and intelligence is even more complex than we realised, how do we go about trying to understand it more fully? We definitely need to consider the evolutionary background of present-day mammals. However, it is also important to understand how the various parts of the brain evolve relative to one another.

For example, humans and dolphins not only have large brains overall, but also an astoundingly large neocortex, which is the powerhouse of mammal intelligence.

In the meantime, next time your friend boasts about their big-brained dog, remind them size isn’t everything.

– ref. Mammals’ brains: new research shows bigger doesn’t always mean smarter – https://theconversation.com/mammals-brains-new-research-shows-bigger-doesnt-always-mean-smarter-159141

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Spinks, Senior Professor, Australian Institute for Innovative Materials, University of Wollongong, University of Wollongong

The double helix of DNA is one of the most iconic symbols in science. By imitating the structure of this complex genetic molecule we have found a way to make artificial muscle fibres far more powerful than those found in nature, with potential applications in many kinds of miniature machinery such as prosthetic hands and dextrous robotic devices.

The power of the helix

DNA is not the only helix in nature. Flip through any biology textbook and you’ll see helices everywhere from the alpha-helix shapes of individual proteins to the “coiled coil” helices of fibrous protein assemblies like keratin in hair.

Some bacteria, such as spirochetes, adopt helical shapes. Even the cell walls of plants can contain helically arranged cellulose fibres.

Muscle tissue too is composed of helically wrapped proteins that form thin filaments. And there are many other examples, which poses the question of whether the helix endows a particular evolutionary advantage.

Many of these naturally occurring helical structures are involved in making things move, like the opening of seed pods and the twisting of trunks, tongues and tentacles. These systems share a common structure: helically oriented fibres embedded in a squishy matrix which allows complex mechanical actions like bending, twisting, lengthening and shortening, or coiling.

This versatility in achieving complex shapeshifting may hint at the reason for the prevalence of helices in nature.

Fibres in a twist

Ten years ago my work on artificial muscles brought me to think a lot about helices. My colleagues and I discovered a simple way to make powerful rotating artificial muscle fibres by simply twisting synthetic yarns.

These yarn fibres could rotate by untwisting when we expanded the volume of the yarn by heating it, making it absorb small molecules, or by charging it like a battery. Shrinking the fibre caused the fibres to re-twist.

Read more: Show us your (carbon nanotube artificial) muscles!

We demonstrated that these fibres could spin a rotor at speeds of up to 11,500 revolutions per minute. While the fibres were small, we showed they could produce about as much torque per kilogram as large electric motors.

The key was to make sure the helically arranged filaments in the yarn were quite stiff. To accommodate an overall volume increase in the yarn, the individual filaments must either stretch in length or untwist. When the filaments are too stiff to stretch, the result is untwisting of the yarn.

Learning from DNA

More recently, I realised DNA molecules behave like our untwisting yarns. Biologists studying single DNA molecules showed that double-stranded DNA unwinds when treated with small molecules that insert themselves inside the double helix structure.

The backbone of DNA is a stiff chain of molecules called sugar phosphates, so when the small inserted molecules push the two strands of DNA apart the double helix unwinds. Experiments also showed that, if the ends of the DNA are tethered to stop them rotating, the untwisting leads to “supercoiling”: the DNA molecule forms a loop that wraps around itself.

Read more: Fishing for artificial muscles nets a very simple solution

In fact, special proteins induce coordinated supercoiling in our cells to pack DNA molecules into the tiny nucleus.

We also see supercoiling in everyday life, for example when a garden hose becomes tangled. Twisting any long fibre can produce supercoiling, which is known as “snarling” in textiles processing or “hockling” when cables become snagged.

Supercoiling for stronger ‘artificial muscles’

Our latest results show DNA-like supercoiling can be induced by swelling pre-twisted textile fibres. We made composite fibres with two polyester sewing threads, each coated in a hydrogel that swells up when it gets wet and then the pair twisted together.

Swelling the hydrogel by immersing it in water caused the composite fibre to untwist. But if the fibre ends were clamped to stop untwisting, the fibre began to supercoil instead.

As a result, the fibre shrank by up to 90% of its original length. In the process of shrinking, it did mechanical work equivalent to putting out 1 joule of energy per gram of dry fibre.

For comparison, the muscle fibres of mammals like us only shrink by about 20% of their original length and produce a work output of 0.03 joules per gram. This means that the same lifting effort can be achieved in a supercoiling fibre that is 30 times smaller in diameter compared with our own muscles.

Why artificial muscles?

Artificial muscle materials are especially useful in applications where space is limited. For example, the latest motor-driven prosthetic hands are impressive, but they do not currently match the dexterity of a human hand. More actuators are needed to replicate the full range of motion, grip types and strength of a healthy human.

Electric motors become much less powerful as their size is reduced, which makes them less useful in prosthetics and other miniature machines. However, artificial muscles maintain a high work and power output at small scales.

To demonstrate their potential applications, we used our supercoiling muscle fibres to open and close miniature tweezers. Such tools may be part of the next generation of non-invasive surgery or robotic surgical systems.

Many new types of artificial muscles have been introduced by researchers over the past decade. This is a very active area of research driven by the need for miniaturised mechanical devices. While great progress has been made, we still do not have an artificial muscle that completely matches the performance of natural muscle: large contractions, high speed, efficiency, long operating life, silent operation and safe for use in contact with humans.

The new supercoiling muscles take us one step closer to this goal by introducing a new mechanism for generating very large contractions. Currently our fibres operate slowly, but we see avenues for greatly increasing the speed of response and this will be the focus for ongoing research.

– ref. DNA-inspired ‘supercoiling’ fibres could make powerful artificial muscles for robots – https://theconversation.com/dna-inspired-supercoiling-fibres-could-make-powerful-artificial-muscles-for-robots-159714

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Gleeson, Associate Professor in Public Health, La Trobe University

Today, we are joining over 700 health professionals and academics in sending an open letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison urging him to take a leadership role in expanding the global production of COVID-19 vaccines and other medical tools to fight the pandemic.

The letter, signed by 207 doctors, 177 academics and 111 public health professionals, asks the government to help remove legal and technical barriers to increasing the production of COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostic tests, treatments and other equipment.

We argue there is more Australia — and other wealthy nations — can and should be doing to end the pandemic.

The need to act urgently

The COVID-19 pandemic is escalating sharply in the developing world. In addition to India’s spiralling infections, cases are surging across the globe in countries like Argentina, Uruguay, Sweden, France, Turkey, Mongolia, and Costa Rica.

The roll-out of vaccines must rapidly accelerate. Uncontained transmission will inevitably lead to the emergence of new variants that may be more infectious and resistant to vaccines.

Read more: India’s staggering COVID crisis could have been avoided. But the government dropped its guard too soon

As of today, more than 1.06 billion vaccine doses have been administered worldwide. However, 37% of these doses have been given in the world’s 27 wealthiest countries. Those countries represent just 10.5% of the global population.

Meanwhile, countries making up the least wealthy 11% have received just 1.6% of the vaccine doses so far. At this pace, most of the world’s population will remain unprotected at least until 2023.

Monopolisation of vaccines

Two of the chief obstacles to vaccinating the world are the monopolisation of vaccines and the means of producing them. The world is relying on the pharmaceutical industry and market forces to solve the problems of inadequate supply and inequitable distribution — and this won’t work.

Rich countries have monopolised the world’s supply of vaccines by pre-purchasing doses in bulk. By November 2020, 7.5 billion doses had been reserved, half of these by rich countries making up only 14% of the global population.

Rich countries have also under-invested in COVAX, the global program for equitably distributing vaccines. COVAX needs an additional US$3.2 billion just to meet its target of vaccinating 20% of populations of participating countries.

Added to this, countries faced with large outbreaks have erected export restrictions to bolster their own supply of vaccines, excluding others.

This includes the European Union’s refusal to release 3.1 million doses to Australia this year. India has also restricted vaccine exports, resulting in delays in delivering 90 million doses to low-income countries.

The US, too, has been stockpiling its supplies, though the Biden administration announced this week it will now allow the export of raw materials needed to manufacture vaccines in India.

Monopolies on the means of producing vaccines

While the hoarding of vaccines is a concern, the monopolies on the rights to produce them is an even bigger problem.

The exclusive rights to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines are currently held by a small number of companies. These intellectual property rights are enshrined in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, otherwise known as TRIPS.

Under TRIPS, WTO members must allow patents of at least 20 years for new pharmaceutical products, along with other types of intellectual property protection.

Read more: Whoever invents a coronavirus vaccine will control the patent – and, importantly, who gets to use it

TRIPS allows nations to invoke compulsory licensing of pharmaceutical products, which enables patented inventions to be produced without the consent of the patent owner in an emergency.

But compulsory licensing can only be applied on a product-by-product basis, and it only applies to patents, not the other types of knowledge and data needed to manufacture vaccines.

Countries also tend to face diplomatic and trade pressure not to enact such licenses. To our knowledge, no country has yet issued a compulsory licence for a COVID-19 vaccine.

Reliance on the pharmaceutical industry and market forces

So far, the world has placed its trust in the pharmaceutical industry and market forces to solve the problem, hoping vaccine makers would voluntarily enter into licensing arrangements with other manufacturers to increase supply.

But voluntary licensing has been little used to date. When it has been used, it has been done in an ad hoc and opaque way, with restrictive conditions.

AstraZeneca, Gamaleya/Sputnik V and Sinopharm are so far the only companies to implement voluntary licensing for COVID-19 vaccines. AstraZeneca, for instance, has licensed SK Bio in South Korea, the Serum Institute of India and CSL in Australia to manufacture the vaccine.

Read more: The global approach to vaccine equity is failing: additional steps that would help

Other companies’ reluctance to enter into these arrangements means available manufacturing capacity in Asia, Africa, and Latin America is not being used.

The pharmaceutical industry is heavily invested in the status quo. Pfizer and Moderna expect to generate US$15 billion and US$18.4 billion in revenue respectively in 2021, just based on existing supply agreements.

The People’s Vaccine Alliance estimates Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca have distributed US$26 billion to their shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks in the past 12 months – enough to cover the cost of vaccinating 1.3 billion people.

What Australia has done to help so far

Australia has been generous to date, providing AU$80 million to COVAX (specifically for low-income countries).

It has also pledged $523 million to the Regional Vaccine Access and Health Security Initiative, which provides health system support for vaccinations and $100 million to the Quad initiative by India, Japan, Australia and the US, which aims to distribute 1 billion doses in the Indo-Pacific region by 2022.

Australia has also provided 8,840 doses of AstraZeneca vaccine to PNG for frontline health workers and negotiated with the EU to free up 1 million of its own doses on order for PNG. Canberra has also pledged doses to Timor-Leste, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

These contributions are important stop-gaps to help address immediate needs. But they won’t go far enough on their own.

Further steps Australia needs to take

Increasing the global supply of vaccines will require governments to remove legal and technical barriers to their production.

To help remove legal barriers, the Australian government should support a proposal by India and South Africa in October 2020 to waive certain intellectual property rights for COVID-19 medical products.

This proposal, known as the “TRIPS Waiver”, is now supported by more than 100 of the WTO’s 164 member states. However, it has been blocked or stalled by the US, EU, Japan, Canada, and Australia.

Australia will have another chance to support it when it’s discussed at a TRIPS council meeting later this week.

To remove technical barriers, Australia must use its leverage to persuade pharmaceutical companies to share their knowledge and transfer technology to low and middle-income countries.

Australia should also endorse the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP), which was established last May by the World Health Organization but has so far been unused.

C-TAP relies on voluntary commitments by pharmaceutical companies. For it to work, governments need to provide incentives or require pharmaceutical companies to share their IP, data and know-how as a condition of public funding for research and development.

Over 700 health professionals and academics see the government’s leadership in these areas as a critical part of our pandemic response.

It’s time for Australia to act, and to encourage regional allies such as New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore to do the same.

– ref. Over 700 health experts are calling for urgent action to expand global production of COVID vaccines – https://theconversation.com/over-700-health-experts-are-calling-for-urgent-action-to-expand-global-production-of-covid-vaccines-159701

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Hicks, PhD / Dr. iur. candidate, The University of Melbourne

The federal government’s suspension of flights from India leaves some 9,000 Australian citizens stranded, 650 of whom are registered as financially or medically vulnerable. They are trapped in a country where hospitals are running out of oxygen, and where the number of new infections is more than 300,000 per day.

Along with the unfolding humanitarian disaster, the suspension of flights is yet another example of the ongoing dysfunction of Australia’s repatriation system.

As I have explained in my recent research, the pandemic has created a temporary, but desperate minority in Australia. These are the roughly 34,000 citizens abroad who are currently registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs as wanting help to get home, though the true number is likely far higher.

Australia continues to have a large diaspora living and working abroad, who cannot register with the government until they have attempted to return home of their own accord.

So how did we end up here?

A consistent theme of Australia’s response to COVID-19 — including leaks in hotel quarantine — has been to blame individuals (be they guards or travellers), rather than the way the system is designed.

At the time of writing, Australia’s hotel quarantine programs have “leaked” 16 times. Many have come from poor ventilation and inadequate protocol for personal protective equipment. Experts say more must be done to prevent aerosol transmission of the virus.

When leaks have occurred, the political instinct of Australian governments has been to reduce the caps on overseas arrivals and — increasingly — point the finger at members of the public who have left Australia on federal government-approved exemptions.

The West Australian government’s response to its most recent leak is a useful case study. Despite warnings in March the Mercure hotel was “high risk”, it was not pulled from operation. Amid Premier Mark McGowan’s criticism of people travelling to India for family events, Western Australia has now halved its cap.

But a defective system not designed to accommodate aerosol transmission will continue to leak even with the reduced cap. It will merely do so at a lower rate.

Banning flights from India follows this logic. Australian governments have argued it is necessary to reduce the number of positive cases in quarantine. This implicitly acknowledges fundamental flaws in Australia’s hotel quarantine programs.

No constitutional right to return

Australians abroad have limited protection in this situation.

Australia is one of the only liberal democracies in the world without a bill of rights. Minority rights were explicitly rejected during the constitutional conventions during the 1890s, with a view that minorities

must trust to the sense of justice of the majority.

The lack of a rights framework creates particular problems during crises, when popular responses emerge in an atmosphere of fear and urgency. For a majority unaffected by travel bans, halving caps and suspending flights is an easy solution in the face of government failures. It also appeals to Australia’s cultural and historical reflexes regarding border control.

It also means Australia doesn’t necessarily prioritise its citizens or residents amongst arrivals. In February, only 44% of Australian arrivals were citizens. Victoria has now proposed introducing a separate stream for “economic cohorts”, even as it insists members of the public should only be allowed to leave and return for “genuinely urgent or compassionate reasons”.

Quarantine confusion

To make matters more complicated (and tougher for Australians trying to get home), we have a federal framework for quarantine. Quarantine is a “concurrent legislative power”. This means the federal government may assume responsibility for running quarantine, or it may leave it to the states. Ideally, the federal and state governments would work together and pool resources based on their respective strengths to maximise capacity and safety.

At an initial National Cabinet meeting, it was agreed the states would assume responsibility for running quarantine. The public has no insight into the reason for this decision, with National Cabinet deliberations remaining secret. It is likely the Commonwealth lacked short-term capacity, having dismantled quarantine infrastructure over many decades.

But with little public understanding of the complexities of federalism, governments of all levels have deflected responsibility to one another. Labor governments and oppositions at state and federal level claim quarantine is a “federal constitutional responsibility”. The federal Coalition claims responsibility lies with the states.

A need for leadership

As we move into the second year of travel bans, there are real questions about Australia’s longer-term strategy for facilitating essential travel in and out of the country — particularly for the 30% of Australians born overseas with family and significant ties elsewhere.

Read more: Should Aussies stranded overseas go to the United Nations for help to get home?

Within this are questions about how sustainable flight suspensions will be over coming years, with many developing countries unlikely to be vaccinated until 2024.

As the situation in India shows, there is a desperate need for leadership at both state and federal level to design systems that can facilitate essential travel until borders can safely reopen.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to occur until voters insist political leaders step up.

– ref. The crisis in India is a terrifying example of why we need a better way to get Australians home – https://theconversation.com/the-crisis-in-india-is-a-terrifying-example-of-why-we-need-a-better-way-to-get-australians-home-159917

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Toole, Professor of International Health, Burnet Institute

In the past week, at least six Australians returned home uninfected only to acquire the coronavirus while undergoing quarantine in hotels in Sydney and Perth.

One traveller left a hotel after 14 days in quarantine and moved around Perth for five days before taking a flight to Melbourne, where he tested positive to COVID-19. This led to a three-day community-wide lockdown in Perth and Peel.

By now, this is all feeling fairly repetitive. Since a COVID case leaked from the Peppers Hotel in Adelaide in November, there have been 16 leaks across Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth.

While most have led to low numbers of community cases, the Sydney leak in December led to the Avalon cluster, which infected 151 people. And of course, earlier in the pandemic, the infection of staff in two Melbourne quarantine hotels led to Victoria’s infamous second wave.

So what’s going so wrong in hotel quarantine in Australia, and is it finally time to move it out of cities?

Why is hotel quarantine failing?

Supervised quarantine was mandated by the federal government on March 28 last year. State and territory governments were given mere days to set up hotel quarantine systems.

Judge Jennifer Coate cited this short notice as one of the factors that led to the failure of the system in Victoria in the hotel quarantine inquiry report.

But we’ve had time now to get it right — and we still haven’t. Importantly, despite having been mandated by the federal government, there’s no national standard for how quarantine is implemented.

During 2020, the focus of precautions was on preventing transmission via large respiratory droplets and surfaces. This was achieved through ensuring physical distancing by making hotel guests stay in their rooms, providing staff with surgical masks, and giving hand sanitiser to guests and staff.

However, an inquiry into the Peppers Hotel breach found it probably occurred by airborne transmission. This refers to very tiny virus-contaminated droplets that hang around in the air for longer, and spread further.

Two leaks in the Park Royal and Holiday Inn Airport hotels in Melbourne in February were also most likely caused by airborne transmission.

Recent transmission between residents in adjacent rooms in two hotels in Sydney and the Mercure Hotel in Perth can only be explained by airborne transmission.

Read more: Here we go again — Perth’s snap lockdown raises familiar hotel quarantine questions

Policies haven’t kept up

Evidence suggesting airborne transmission is responsible for the majority of transmission within Australia’s hotel quarantine system continues to stack up. The two main measures to prevent this are improved ventilation and the wearing of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) by staff.

In preparing this article, I reviewed the policies in each of the six states based on information on health department websites and press releases. I found significant differences between the states.

South Australia and Victoria were similar in that both states had done ventilation audits in hotels. However, SA only assessed its designated medi-hotel Tom’s Court (where COVID-positive patients stay), whereas Victoria assessed every hotel room and, where necessary, made modifications to ensure these rooms have “negative pressure”. This means when the door is opened, air flows inwards rather than outwards.

Western Australia did a ventilation audit in March and found the Mercure was high-risk. But action wasn’t taken in time to prevent the room-to-room transmission.

There’s no public evidence to suggest the other three states have conducted ventilation audits.

In South Australia, in designated orange and red zones of hotels, staff must wear respiratory masks such as N95 and P2. In Victoria, all staff in open areas must wear an N95 mask and a face shield. In the other states, staff are provided with surgical masks, which don’t protect against airborne spread as effectively as respiratory masks.

While staff in all states are tested daily, the number of times guests are tested varies considerably — four times in Victoria, three in South Australia and twice in other states.

This is important because in a state such as New South Wales where testing is done on days two and 12, guests who test negative on day two might be incubating the virus, then become positive and be infectious for up to ten days before being identified.

What’s the future of hotel quarantine?

As COVID-19 cases surge around the world, an increasing proportion of returned travellers will be infected. As of April 27, there were 255 active cases nationwide in hotel quarantine.

Given the high number of cases globally and the slow rollout of vaccines in most countries, Australia will need supervised quarantine for some time to come, most likely until 2023.

The Howard Springs facility in the Northern Territory is ideal. Single-storey cabins, separate air conditioning systems, outdoor verandas and a nearby hospital make it fit for purpose. And there have been no leaks despite high numbers of infected residents.

It’s now time to invest in similar facilities in every state and territory. Quarantine is our first line of defence against the virus. It needs to be 100% effective to maintain our hard-earned status of having zero community COVID cases. That achievement is what has put us in the enviable position of a growing economy and a public almost back to their pre-pandemic quality of life.

Read more: As international travellers return to Melbourne, will it be third time lucky for Victoria’s controversial hotel quarantine system?

In the meantime, quarantine hotels in every jurisdiction must adhere to consistent, evidence-based standards. The Australian Health Protection Principal Committee should meet urgently to develop a national code of practice, which needs to effectively address airborne transmission through attention to ventilation and the provision of fitted respiratory masks and face shields to all staff working in open areas.

Given the rate of quarantine leaks during the past six months, without improvements, the system will likely see over a dozen more leaks by October, causing frequent disruptions to our lives. The impact on the economy and public confidence will be immeasurable.

– ref. More than a dozen COVID leaks in 6 months: to protect Australians, it’s time to move quarantine out of city hotels – https://theconversation.com/more-than-a-dozen-covid-leaks-in-6-months-to-protect-australians-its-time-to-move-quarantine-out-of-city-hotels-159808

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bryan Lessard, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, CSIRO

With the global population predicted to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, one of the biggest challenges in our lifetimes will be securing enough food for everyone.

We have only finite land and water resources, and climate change, environmentally harmful practises and emerging diseases threaten supply chains.

One way to deal with this is to turn to our insect friends. But don’t baulk — more than two billion people from 130 countries already eat insects. Many Australians already do, too, in the form of natural red food colouring made from the cochineal bug, or the 5% of peanut butter that’s legally allowed to contain insect fragments.

Today, we’ve taken a leap towards bringing insects into mainstream Australian diets, with the launch of CSIRO’s Edible Insects Industry Roadmap. It carves out a comprehensive plan exploring the challenges and opportunities for Australia to become a player in a global industry worth A$1.4 billion by 2023.

The roadmap provides a handy framework for anyone interested in getting a slice of the cricket pie, including new insect start-ups, farmers, food producers, researchers, policy makers and First Nations enterprises. To unlock the farming potential of Australia’s native insect species, we need to form new collaborations, co-develop First Nations-owned initiatives, and conduct more research.

By becoming braver in our food choices and incorporating insects into our diet, we can lower our environmental footprint, improve our health and be more connected to our land and culture. We bet you, your friends and pets will really get a kick out of it.

So here are four reasons why you should throw another insect on the barbie. Go ahead, we dare you!

1. Australia has a long tradition of eating insects

We have a growing appetite for eating insects. A report from 2006 found 20% of surveyed Australians say they’re keen to eat a witjuti grub (sometimes spelled witchetty grub).

Read more: Eating insects has long made sense in Africa. The world must catch up

After all, First Nations Australians have been eating insects for tens of thousands of years, including iconic native species such as witjuti grubs that taste like nutty scrambled eggs, bogong moths that taste like peanut butter, or zesty lime green tree ants.

These are just some of the 60 native edible insect species recorded in Australia.

First Nations-owned and -led enterprises are essential to transform our native insect species into new culturally celebrated and delicious Australian-branded foods.

We need to guarantee First Nations intellectual property is protected and benefits are shared to ensure an inclusive edible insect industry.

2. Insects can help improve our health

Edible insects are not only tasty, but also are a great source of high-quality protein, omega-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, folic acid and vitamins B12, C and E.

Recent studies overseas have shown eating edible insects — such as silkworms, wax moth caterpillars and mealworms — can improve gut health, blood pressure, and reduce blood glucose levels.

More research is needed to identify species and determine the nutritional profiles of our native insects to see which ones we should be eating to maximise their benefits for human health.

(Sorry to bug-curious people with shellfish allergies, but insects are related to crustaceans and may cause similar allergic reactions).

3. Edible insect foods are already available

This might seem like a food of the future, but edible insect products are already available to buy in some Australian supermarkets.

Aussie start-ups and insect farmers working with the Insect Protein Association of Australia are farming insects and turning them into new edible products. You can even get your own insect nutritionist to help you on your edible insect journey.

If you’re feeling curious, why not try some smoked cricket and dark roasted peanut butter, and make your way up to making delicious nachos with cricket corn chips or spaghetti with cricket pasta? Perhaps wash it down with some zesty lime green tree ant-infused gin.

And when you’re feeling more adventurous, take your baking to the next level by enriching your muffins, breads or pie crusts with high protein cricket powder.

What about doggo? Try feeding your beloved pet a more sustainable pet food made from roasted black soldier flies or mealworms.

4. Farming insects is better for the environment

Compared to conventionally farmed animals like beef, pork and chicken, insects produce fewer greenhouse gases because they don’t poop nearly as much and don’t usually ferment food in their guts that produces methane (only cockroaches and termites can produce methane in this way).

They also produce minimal waste, as 80 to 100% of the animal is eaten. Even the waste from the insects (called frass) can be turned into nutrient-rich fertilisers great for the garden.

What’s more, Australian insect farmers are reducing the carbon footprint of transportation by developing urban mini farms, allowing sustainable protein to be produced closer to you. And insects may one day help farmers by supplementing farm animal feed in times of drought.

By creating new collaborations among First Nations peoples, researchers, insect farmers and policy makers, Australia can tap into its native insects to create new delicious, healthy and sustainable insect-based foods.

Read more: Insects, seaweed and lab-grown meat could be the foods of the future

– ref. 4 reasons insects could be a staple in Aussie diets, from zesty tree ants to peanut-buttery bogong moths – https://theconversation.com/4-reasons-insects-could-be-a-staple-in-aussie-diets-from-zesty-tree-ants-to-peanut-buttery-bogong-moths-159348

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lesley Andrew, Course Coordinator, Postgraduate Public Health, Edith Cowan University

The current focus on gender equity has meant universities are promoting and investing in strategies to overcome gender-related factors known to hinder women academics’ success. While these are positive steps, female university students burdened by gender inequities have been largely overlooked. Our research explored the impacts of traditional societal expectations of women’s domestic roles on mature-age nursing students. More than one in four separated from their partners, with most indicating they did this so they could complete their studies.

All our research participants were living with a male partner. In these relationships, traditional gender responsibilities associated with “being female” can threaten their ability to engage and achieve at university. At the same time, the stability of their family unit is undermined.

Read more: How COVID is widening the academic gender divide

Women students are in the majority in Australian higher education. In undergraduate nursing they account for 90% of enrolments.

Nursing degrees are steadily losing favour with school leavers but are increasingly attractive to older women. Many of them are considering a career for the first time after having children. The rise in the average age of nursing students means more are living with a partner than ever before.

‘Women’s work’ hinders study

For our research, we conducted 52 in-depth interviews with 29 participants across the degree journey at an Australian university nursing school. Analysis of their responses identified the influences on their studies off traditional societal expectations of women’s roles and responsibilities.

Every participant took main or sole responsibility for childcare and housework before they began their degree. This reflects commonly reported divisions of domestic work in Australian households.

The unequal division of duties continued during their time at university – the woman’s study commitment or the time each partner spent in paid work made no difference. Partners remained unwilling to share the domestic load.

“No he never compromised. To him all he really had as a responsibility was his work.” (Lauren*, 32).

Read more: COVID forced Australian fathers to do more at home, but at the same cost mothers have long endured

University practices add to the problem

Aspects of the degree curriculum and its delivery made the women’s situation worse. Most notable was the university’s practice of allocating clinical placements without consulting students. Some placements were far from home.

In addition, hospital placement providers often gave students minimal notice of shift patterns. They were left to struggle to reorganise paid work arrangements and secure childcare.

“Practical placements are horrendous when you’ve got a young family and you don’t get your shift roster until a week and a half before you go. I mean some hospitals, you get it on the day you turn up there.” (Candice*, 40).

Much-needed student academic and digital support workshops tended to be planned outside the curriculum. This made sessions, especially those held in the early evening, less accessible to these time-poor students. The almost ubiquitous initial lack of digital literacy among the women in this study meant online workshops were similarly inaccessible.

Read more: ‘It’s not about you’: how to be a male ally

Compromise and sacrifice

The stress of the competing demands of the women’s studies and their private lives coupled with the lack of domestic support from partners created tension in their relationships.

Partners resented the time the women took away from the family to study. They often withdrew emotional support over time. Some women described partners as “obstructive” to their academic progress. Most described periods of relationship conflict.

“It was anger and verbal abuse … He would just put me down as far as my study goes … in a way of demeaning the study, like it doesn’t really matter about my nursing degree at the end of the day.” (Jennifer*, 46).

The women described how they made compromises to remain at university and appease their partners. Some sacrificed sleep and socialising with friends and family. Most consciously lowered their personal achievement expectations.

“I had to base my course around my family. I think if I did have more time, more freedom to choose […] [it] would definitely have increased my grades.” (Georgia*, 23).

Read more: Women aren’t better multitaskers than men – they’re just doing more work

More than a quarter of the women separated from their partners later in their studies. Most of them indicated this had been a conscious decision to enable them to complete their degree.

“I realised something needs to give and it’s not going to be my degree. It just wasn’t going to work so I gave him the flick.” (Charlotte*, 30).

Implications for nursing and an ageing society

The heterosexual intimate relationship can act as a direct challenge to women nurse students’ progression and achievement. With women studying nursing later in life, this has serious implications for nurse education and the supply of fully prepared graduates to the workforce.

The rise in the nursing needs of Australia’s ageing population compounds the problem of a projected shortage of nurses. These trends heighten the significance of nursing students’ situation.

More widely, the implications of relationship breakdowns on the mental and financial health of those affected should not be forgotten.

What can universities do?

The idea of the nurse student as a single autonomous agent who can prioritise the university over “traditionally female” domestic roles at home is at odds with reality. Universities need to acknowledge the substantial impacts of gendered expectations and responsibilities on women students.

Universities are notoriously reluctant to pry into students’ private lives. They see this as outside their remit. In reality, universities can improve engagement opportunities for their women nurse students in many ways.

Some universities are beginning to offer workshops that prepare students for the digital requirements of study at the start of the degree. They are also embedding academic literacy support across the curriculum.

There is still more they can do. Simple strategies include involving students in clinical placements to ensure these are accessible, providing placement information in good time, and providing accessible childcare that meets the ad hoc and changing needs of students. Training of university counsellors could also be expanded to support students in relationship crisis.

* Pseudonyms have been used to protect study participants’ privacy.

– ref. My partner or my degree: a choice that exposes how students battle gender inequity – https://theconversation.com/my-partner-or-my-degree-a-choice-that-exposes-how-students-battle-gender-inequity-157054

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicky Morrison, Professor of Planning, Western Sydney University

You’d be forgiven for asking if living in some parts of New South Wales is actually good for your health. In the past 18 months Australia’s most populous state has been challenged like never before. Unprecedented bushfires, a global pandemic and recent flooding have posed huge questions, which sit alongside other 21st-century challenges such as increasing loneliness, rising levels of obesity and unequal access to affordable, healthy food options.

Research has shown where you live shapes how easy it is to make social connections, keep physically active, enjoy green spaces and buy healthy food. The evidence is clear. But how do we create places that help promote good health and well-being for all?

Read more: Is your ‘experience diet’ making you unwell?

In line with recent reforms, the NSW government has put delivering healthy and thriving communities at the heart of a new consolidated Design and Place State and Environmental Planning Policy.

According to the government’s planning website, the policy will apply to the creation of places at all scales: “from precincts to significant developments and buildings, to infrastructure and public spaces”.

But our newly published research shows it’s not easy to deliver healthy places. In particular, it shows the practitioners responsible for making healthy places – from designers and planners to community service providers – just don’t have the regulatory framework they need to achieve the results now demanded.

Our report highlights the stark realities of implementation falling short of rhetoric. Those designing this policy need to understand the realities built environment practitioners face.

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

This study was prompted by similar research by the UK Design Council. That study found a critical gap between aspirations for places that support healthy living and the actual delivery of those places. We sought to find out whether built environment practitioners in NSW experience similar problems.

What did the study find?

We conducted a state-wide survey to better understand any barriers, as well as enablers, these professionals face in making healthy places and how any challenges can be overcome.

Some 350 practitioners across Greater Sydney and regional NSW responded, just ahead of the 2020 global pandemic. Forty-two took part in a follow-up workshop in late 2020 to further explain their key needs, priorities and recommendations.

The participants were heavily drawn from the strategic planning profession and the local government sector. Nearly half had more than ten years’ experience.

Six out of ten said they incorporate health and well-being into their everyday language and in documents they deliver. However, we found a clear lack of interaction across the different professions involved in place-making, as well as with those in health promotion.

Surprisingly, only one in five directly engage with the local community about how to improve people’s health in their area. Yet collaborative work and local insights are crucial for the success of any place-making project.

We asked what barriers professionals faced to ensure delivery of healthy places against other competing interests. The most common responses (identified by over two-thirds of those surveyed) were:

• a lack of regulatory requirements

• a lack of clarity as to who is responsible

• developers lack motivation to provide healthy places of their own accord.

But the greatest barrier of all (cited by 68%) was the lack of prioritised budgets for making healthier places.

Read more: Some suburbs are being short-changed on services and liveability – which ones and what’s the solution?

We undertook the study with the South West Sydney Local Health District, with funding from Maridulu Budyari Gumal and support from Planning Institute Australia NSW and the Heart Foundation.

Public health needs must shape policy

As the government develops its new policy, it can be bolstered by the call from our respondents for stronger statutory mechanisms. A strong consensus was that only through stricter planning regulations and policy frameworks will health outcomes finally be integrated into planning, urban design and construction standards.

Read more: Level-crossing removals: a case study in why major projects must also be investments in health

Another pertinent finding was that government guidance is not widely consulted. Many resources are available, but very few respondents regularly made use of them or recommended them to colleagues.

A notable exception was the NSW government architect’s Better Placed design policy – 69% referred to and recommended it. This bodes well for the new policy, with the government architect to oversee its delivery.

Our research has a bearing on two key government needs and aspirations:

1. the creation of better places to live and work

2. a progressive reduction in future public health costs through supporting healthy population lifestyles, as suggested in a recent Treasury background paper for the next NSW Intergenerational Report.

The final policy is due to go on exhibition later in 2021. This will allow for further public feedback.

We advocate that everyone takes up this opportunity. Let us properly shape this review and help ensure NSW is truly a healthy state to live in.

The health of individuals and communities needs to be strongly embedded in state legislation. COVID-19 has reinforced the importance of putting health at the centre of all that we do, and in all states and territories.

– ref. Planning shake-up needed to help those whose job it is to make NSW a healthy place – https://theconversation.com/planning-shake-up-needed-to-help-those-whose-job-it-is-to-make-nsw-a-healthy-place-159638

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Brayshaw, Honorary Research Fellow, University of Technology Sydney

In this series we pay tribute to the art we wish could visit — and hope to see once travel restrictions are lifted.

The city of Stuttgart doesn’t generally come to mind when planning a jaunt to Germany. Berlin’s edgy nightclubs and rich history make it a must-see destination and of course, thousands travel to Munich for its famous annual Oktoberfest. But poor old Stuttgart isn’t usually on tourists’ radar and perhaps that’s why I love it.

Stuttgart is Germany’s fourth largest metropolitan region and a major manufacturing hub. The Daimler Group, which owns Mercedes-Benz, is headquartered there, as are the Porsche HQ and factory.

But the city has put art at the centre of its cultural life for more than 250 years with countless famous artists, from the neo-classical scupltor Johann Heinrich von Dannecker, to leading Bauhaus practitioner Oskar Schlemmer and contemporary artist Karin Sander, all calling Stuttgart home.

A 2015 study ranked Stuttgart the number one city in Germany for arts and culture.

Stuttgart’s veneration of art is reflected in the magnificent collections held in the Neue Staatsgalerie, which include works spanning more than 1,000 years. Among my favourites are paintings and sculptures by leading German Modernists. These powerful works express the joys and beauty of the world as well as the horrors of World War I.

The Staatsgalerie holds Franz Marc’s works, The Little Blue Horses (1911) and The Little Yellow Horses (1912). Marc was one of the key figures of German Expressionism, an artistic movement that broadly emphasised representing the artists’ inner emotions or ideas over replicating reality.

In 1909, Marc, along with Russian artist, Wassily Kandinsky, founded the Expressionist group, Der Blaue Reiter in Munich. The characteristics of Marc’s Expressionism included simplified shapes, bright colours and gestural marks or brushstrokes, which are seen in the beautiful, big, round rumps of Marc’s blue and yellow horses.

The pictures recall the geometry of Cubism, yet perfectly capture the spirit of relaxed horses standing in a field.

Another key work is Max Beckmann’s 1916 painting, Auferstehung (Resurrection). Beckmann had painted a neo-baroque vision of salvation in 1908-09, also entitled Auferstehung, which depicts the figures of redeemed souls reverently ascending to heaven in a column of light.

But after being discharged from the German army in 1915 following a nervous breakdown, Beckmann abandoned classical conventions in painting and turned to the distortion, angularity and exaggerated colour found in Expressionism for his 1916 Auferstehung to portray the terrible suffering of a people deceived by nationalistic promises of a glorious war.

In contrast to his earlier work of the same title, Beckmann’s 1916 Auferstehung shows dehumanised, broken people crawling from bombed out cellars onto piles of rubble and performing an apocalyptic danse macabre, or dance of death. The scale of the work, which is almost 3.5 metres high by 5 metres wide, adds to its shocking, tragic impact.

George Grosz’s 1917-1918 The Funeral Procession, Dedicated to Oskar Panizza painted the same year as his work, Explosion, also depicts the horrors of a society ruined by war.

The painting shows grotesque figures moving in a macabre funeral procession through an infernal city led by three allegorical creatures representing Drunkenness, Syphilis, and Religious Fanaticism.

To me, this painting is a bitter reminder of how humans often self-medicate with alcohol, unsafe sex and religious zeal to try to cope with trauma.

The Staatsgalerie, however, also contains beautiful, strange and compelling works that exemplify Modernity in post-World War I Germany, including the original costumes for the Triadic Ballet (1922) by Oskar Schlemmer, and the Head in Brass (Portrait Toni Freedan) (1925) by the sculptor Rudolf Belling.

Schlemmer’s costumes point to the ideals of play and fun — so important to the ethos of the Bauhaus movement — particularly after the brutal war. The costumes are also a complex exploration of the relationships between the body and space.

Seeing them up close lets the viewer appreciate not just Schlemmer’s aims and work, but how important it must have been for artists to create something completely unrelated to war.

Belling’s brass head perfectly captures the Zeitgeist of mid-1920s Germany. Its lines point to styles Belling explored throughout his career, including Expressionism, Futurism and traditional sculpture, as well as to his 1921 work, Fashion Sculpture A, a mannequin made in collaboration with a Berlin workshop.

The head’s enigmatic expression echoes that of the ancient Bust of Nefertiti, which was first exhibited in Berlin in 1924, and foreshadows the beautiful “Maschinenmensch” robot of Fritz Lang’s 1927 film Metropolis.

These key works are just the beginning of any visit to the Staatsgalerie and to understanding how these great artists shaped how we see the world today.

– ref. If I could go anywhere: German Modernism at the Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart — beauty, play and the horror of war – https://theconversation.com/if-i-could-go-anywhere-german-modernism-at-the-staatsgalerie-in-stuttgart-beauty-play-and-the-horror-of-war-157594

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

The government will aim at driving unemployment below pre-pandemic levels in its May 11 budget and avoid any future sharp pivots towards “austerity”, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg will say on Thursday.

Delivering his pre-budget address on the budget’s economic and fiscal strategy, Frydenberg does not give a specific unemployment target but points clearly to wanting to see it below 5%.

Unemployment was 5.1% in February last year, on the cusp of the pandemic. The Reserve Bank has put forward a case for pushing the rate down into the “low 4s”.

In his speech, released ahead of delivery, Frydenberg says a new paper by Treasury on the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment – the rate of unemployment below which inflation is expected to accelerate – puts the NAIRU between 4.5% and 5%, lower than its previous 5% estimate. (The paper will be released on Thursday, as will one on labour market participation.)

“This lower estimate of the NAIRU means a lower unemployment rate will now be required to see inflation and wages accelerate,” Frydenberg says.

“In effect, both the RBA and Treasury’s best estimate is that the unemployment rate will now need to have a four in front of it to deliver this outcome.”

Unemployment was 5.6% in March, although the April figure may be higher, after the end of JobKeeper in late March.

Frydenberg said despite doomsday predictions about the consequences of JobKeeper finishing, early signs were the labour market had remained resilient. In the fortnight to April 16, the number of people on income support fell by about 46,000.

The Treasurer said that in sharp contrast to previous recessions, following this one “we are on track for the unemployment rate to recover in around two years”.

The government’s ambitions on unemployment have shifted substantially since last year, when Frydenberg first said it would not move to fiscal consolidation until the rate was “comfortably below 6%”.

In Thursday’s speech he reaffirms that “despite the strength in our domestic economic recovery, the unemployment rate is not yet ‘comfortably below 6%’.”

He says “these are unusual and uncertain times”, so “we remain firmly in the first phase of our economic and fiscal strategy.

“We need to continue working hard to drive the unemployment rate lower.

“That is what [the] budget will do.”

Read more: Jobs for men have barely grown since the COVID recession. What matters now is what we do about it

The first stage of the government’s strategy – laid out last year – concentrates on promoting economic recovery; the second stage will look to fiscal consolidation and paying down debt.

“We will not move to the second phase of our fiscal strategy until we are confident that we have secured the economic recovery,” Frydenberg says.

“We first want to drive the unemployment rate down to where it was prior to the pandemic and then even lower. And we want to see that sustained.

“The last time Australia had a sustained period of unemployment below 5% was between 2006 and 2008, just prior to the GFC.

“Before that, you need to go all the way back to the early 1970s.”

Frydenberg says that “against the backdrop of a highly uncertain global economic environment, it is prudent to continue to support the economy and ensure that our recovery is locked in”.

Unlike before the crisis, “the Reserve Bank has reduced scope to lower interest rates to drive unemployment lower and wages higher.

“This has placed more of the burden on fiscal policy.”

“We want more people in jobs and in better paying jobs. This is what our fiscal strategy is designed to achieve,” Frydenberg says.

He repeats the government’s commitment to fiscal discipline while saying circumstances somewhat delay the fiscal recovery. For example corporate tax receipts take time to rebound after a downturn.

Frydenberg says Treasury previously estimated that because of the government’s interventions the economy “will be 4.5% larger in 2020-21 and 5% larger in 2021-22 than if we had not intervened.

“At that time, real GDP was not expected to regain its pre-pandemic level until the December quarter 2021.

“All indications are that we will actually have pushed through that milestone nine months earlier.

“This stronger than expected economic recovery means that our fiscal outlook in the 2021-22 budget will be driven off a higher economic base than expected in last year’s budget.

“This will assist us to achieve our medium-term fiscal strategy of stabilising and then reducing gross and net debt as a share of GDP over time.

“This again reinforces the point that the best way to repair the Budget is to repair the economy.”

While the challenge once the economy had recovered would be to rebuild fiscal buffers, “we won’t be undertaking any sharp pivots towards ‘austerity’”.

Read more: Josh Frydenberg has the opportunity to transform Australia, permanently lowering unemployment

– ref. Budget aims at unemployment with a ‘4’ in front of it – https://theconversation.com/budget-aims-at-unemployment-with-a-4-in-front-of-it-159923

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Professor of Environmental Science and Human Health, Macquarie University

Australians are eating and inhaling significant numbers of tiny plastics at home, our new research shows.

These “microplastics”, which are derived from petrochemicals extracted from oil and gas products, are settling in dust around the house.

Some of these particles are toxic to humans — they can carry carcinogenic or mutagenic chemicals, meaning they potentially cause cancer and/or damage our DNA.

We still don’t know the true impact of these microplastics on human health. But the good news is, having hard floors, using more natural fibres in clothing, furnishings and homewares, along with vacuuming at least weekly can reduce your exposure.

What are microplastics?

Microplastics are plastic particles less than five millimetres across. They come from a range of household and everyday items such as the clothes we wear, home furnishings, and food and beverage packaging.

We know microplastics are pervasive outdoors, reaching remote and inaccessible locations such as the Arctic, the Mariana Trench (the world’s deepest ocean trench), and the Italian Alps.

Our study demonstrates it’s an inescapable reality that we’re living in a sea of microplastics — they’re in our food and drinks, our oceans, and our homes.

Read more: We estimate up to 14 million tonnes of microplastics lie on the seafloor. It’s worse than we thought

What we did and what we found

While research has focused mainly on microplastics in the natural environment, a handful of studies have looked at how much we’re exposed to indoors.

People spend up to 90% of their time indoors and therefore the greatest risk of exposure to microplastics is in the home.

Our study is the first to examine how much microplastic we’re exposed to in Australian homes. We analysed dust deposited from indoor air in 32 homes across Sydney over a one-month period in 2019.

We asked members of the public to collect dust in specially prepared glass dishes, which we then analysed.

We found 39% of the deposited dust particles were microplastics; 42% were natural fibres such as cotton, hair and wool; and 18% were transformed natural-based fibres such as viscose and cellophane. The remaining 1% were film and fragments consisting of various materials.

Between 22 and 6,169 microfibres were deposited as dust per square metre, each day.

Homes with carpet as the main floor covering had nearly double the number of petrochemical-based fibres (including polyethylene, polyamide and polyacrylic) than homes without carpeted floors.

Conversely, polyvinyl fibres (synthetic fibres made of vinyl chloride) were two times more prevalent in homes without carpet. This is because the coating applied to hard flooring degrades over time, producing polyvinyl fibres in house dust.

Microplastics can be toxic

Microplastics can carry a range of contaminants such as trace metals and some potentially harmful organic chemicals.

These chemicals can leach from the plastic surface once in the body, increasing the potential for toxic effects. Microplastics can have carcinogenic properties, meaning they potentially cause cancer. They can also be mutagenic, meaning they can damage DNA.

Read more: Why ocean pollution is a clear danger to human health

However, even though some of the microplastics measured in our study are composed of potentially carcinogenic and/or mutagenic compounds, the actual risk to human health is unclear.

Given the pervasiveness of microplastics not only in homes but in food and beverages, the crucial next step in this research area is to establish what, if any, are safe levels of exposure.

Read more: You’re eating microplastics in ways you don’t even realise

How much are we exposed to? And can this be minimised?

Roughly a quarter of all of the fibres we recorded were less than 250 micrometres in size, meaning they can be inhaled. This means we can be internally exposed to these microplastics and any contaminants attached to them.

Using human exposure models, we calculated that inhalation and ingestion rates were greatest in children under six years old. This is due to their lower relative body weight, smaller size, and higher breathing rate than adults. What’s more, young children typically have more contact with the floor, and tend to put their hands in their mouths more often than adults.

Children under six inhale around three times more microplastics than the average — 18,000 fibres, or 0.3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per year. They would also ingest on average 6.1 milligrams of microplastics in dust per kg of body weight per year.

For a five-year-old, this would be equivalent to eating a garden pea’s worth of microplastics over the course of a year. But for many of these plastics there is no established safe level of exposure.

Our study indicated there are effective ways to minimise exposure.

First is the choice of flooring, with hard surfaces, including polished wood floors, likely to have fewer microplastics than carpeted floors.

Also, how often you clean makes a difference. Vacuuming floors at least weekly was associated with less microplastics in dust than those that were less frequently cleaned. So get cleaning!

– ref. We’re all ingesting microplastics at home, and these might be toxic for our health. Here are some tips to reduce your risk – https://theconversation.com/were-all-ingesting-microplastics-at-home-and-these-might-be-toxic-for-our-health-here-are-some-tips-to-reduce-your-risk-159537

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

“The warfare of the 21st century” is going to be “fought in cyberspace before kinetic shots are fired” says leading national security expert David Irvine.

And perhaps the fight has already begun, with Australia’s institutions, businesses, and citizens subject to a near constant barrage of cyber attacks.

Previously chair and now a board member of the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre, Irvine has a deep knowledge of the cyber risks posed to Australia and Australians by both nation states and criminals.

His career has included heading both ASIS, which manages Australia’s overseas spying activities, and ASIO, responsible for domestic protection.

Irvine describes cybercrime as a “massive issue”, and say that compared to countries like “China, Russia,[…]Iran, and North Korea” the West is lagging behind in its defensive cyber capability.

“I think almost every Western country is probably behind the game in its defences.”

Part of this is the nature of cyber incursions. “One of the rules in cybercrime is that the criminal is always half a step ahead of the protector.”

What can be done? Last year the government committed $1.67 billion over 10 years to combating cybercrime, but Irvine calls in particular for a “public awareness campaign” to get the message through strongly.

“I think back to the old days of HIV and the Grim Reaper, and my sense is that we actually need a very hard hitting campaign that brings home to individuals and businesses[…] the threat that they are under and the sort of resilience that they need to develop as individuals, as companies, and as a nation.”

Irvine is also chair of the Foreign Investment Review Board, and is a former ambassador to China. He says of the current tensions with China, and warnings about “the drums of war”:

“Ultimately, I think we depend on China and the United States to develop a modus vivendi which concedes some interests but protects others. Because the alternative is really too horrendous to contemplate.”

Additional audio

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: former ASIO head David Irvine on the cyber threats Australia faces – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-former-asio-head-david-irvine-on-the-cyber-threats-australia-faces-159931

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rajib Dasgupta, Chairperson, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health, Jawaharlal Nehru University

With more than 300,000 new COVID cases a day and hospitals and crematoria facing collapse, Director-General of the World Health Organization Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has called the situation in India “beyond heartbreaking”.

India’s government has blamed the people for not following COVID-safe public health directives, but recent data shows mask use has only fallen by 10 percentage points, from a high of 71% in August 2020 to a low of 61% by the end of February.

And the mobility index increased by about 20 percentage points, although most sectors of the economy and activity had opened up. These are modest changes and do not adequately explain the huge increase in cases.

Read more: After early success, India’s daily COVID infections have surpassed the US and Brazil. Why?

A more likely explanation is the impact of variants that are more transmissible than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Variants in India

Viruses keep changing and adapting through mutations, and new variants of a virus are expected and tracked in a pandemic situation such as this.

The Indian SARS-CoV-2 Genomics Consortium (INSACOG), a group of ten national laboratories, was set up in December 2020 to monitor genetic variations in the coronavirus. The labs are required to sequence 5% of COVID-positive samples from states and 100% of positive samples from international travellers.

The United Kingdom is currently testing about 8% of its positive samples and the United States about 4%. India has been testing about 1% altogether. INSACOG has so far tested 15,133 SARS-CoV-2 genomes. This means of every 1,000 cases, the UK has sequenced 79.5, the US 8.59, and India only 0.0552.

In the final week of December, India detected six cases of the UK variant (B.1.1.7) among international travellers.

Read more: What’s the new coronavirus variant in India and how should it change their COVID response?

The current second wave started in the northwestern state of Punjab in the first half of February and has not yet plateaued. One of the advisers to the Punjab government confirmed that more than 80% of the cases were attributed to the UK variant.

Significantly, the most affected districts are from Punjab’s Doaba region, known as the NRI (non-resident Indian) belt. An estimated 60-70% of the families in these districts have relatives abroad, mostly in the UK or Canada, and a high volume of travel to and from these countries.

Read more: India’s staggering COVID crisis could have been avoided. But the government dropped its guard too soon

B.1.617, or what has been called the “Indian double mutation”, has drawn attention because it contains two mutations (known as E484Q and L452R) that have been linked to increased transmissibility and an ability to evade our immune system.

Many experts in India now think this is driving the surge.

Even as India’s health ministry announced the detection of the mutants on March 24, it went on to add:

[…] these have not been detected in numbers sufficient to either establish or direct relationship or explain the rapid increase in cases in some states.

The head of the Indian Council of Medical Research said there was no reason for panic because mutations are sporadic, and not significant. That day, the states of Maharashtra and Punjab accounted for 62.5% and 4.5% of 40,715 new cases, respectively.

Read more: As India’s COVID crisis worsens, leaders play the blame game while the poor suffer once again

Across the world, several key mutant strains have emerged thanks to ongoing virus replication in humans. Both ability to replicate and transmit, and a better ability to escape our immune systems, led to the variants establishing themselves as dominant strains across geographies and populations.

The UK variant (B.1.1.7) is at least 30% more transmissible. At a recent webinar, Indian experts observed the “Indian strain” (B.1.617) is similarly transmissible to the UK variant, but there is little evidence so far of it being more lethal than the original virus.

Why higher transmissibility is so concerning

According to epidemiologist Adam Kucharski at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the conundrum is this:

[…] suppose 10,000 people are infected in a city and each infects 1.1 other people on average, the low end for the estimated rate of infection in England. After a month, 16,000 people would have been infected. If the infection fatality rate is 0.8%, as it was in England at the end of the first wave of infections, it would mean 128 deaths. With a variant that is 50% more deadly, those 16,000 cases would result in 192 deaths. But with a variant that is 50% more transmissible, though no more deadly, there would be 122,000 cases after a month, leading to 976 deaths.

In all likelihood, this is the current Indian scenario: a higher overall death count despite the variants being no more fatal in relative terms.

Setting up a genomic surveillance system and consistently testing 5% of the positive samples is an expensive but important tool in the journey ahead. This can help us identify emerging hotspots, track transmission and enable nimble-footed decision-making and tailored interventions.

– ref. Why variants are most likely to blame for India’s COVID surge – https://theconversation.com/why-variants-are-most-likely-to-blame-for-indias-covid-surge-159911

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Haskell-Dowland, Associate Dean (Computing and Security), Edith Cowan University

Apple users across the globe are adopting the latest operating system update, called iOS 14.5, featuring the now-obligatory new batch of emojis.

But there’s another change that’s arguably less fun but much more significant for many users: the introduction of “app tracking transparency”.

This feature promises to usher in a new era of user-oriented privacy, and not everyone is happy — most notably Facebook, which relies on tracking web users’ browsing habits to sell targeted advertising. Some commentators have described it as the beginnings of a new privacy feud between the two tech behemoths.

So, what is app tracking transparency?

App tracking transparency is a continuation of Apple’s push to be recognised as the platform of privacy. The new feature allows apps to display a pop-up notification that explains what data the app wants to collect, and what it proposes to do with it.

There is nothing users need to do to gain access to the new feature, other than install the latest iOS update, which happens automatically on most devices. Once upgraded, apps that use tracking functions will display a request to opt in or out of this functionality.

How does it work?

As Apple has explained, the app tracking transparency feature is a new “application programming interface”, or API — a suite of programming commands used by developers to interact with the operating system.

The API gives software developers a few pre-canned functions that allow them to do things like “request tracking authorisation” or use the tracking manager to “check the authorisation status” of individual apps.

In more straightforward terms, this gives app developers a uniform way of requesting these tracking permissions from the device user. It also means the operating system has a centralised location for storing and checking what permissions have been granted to which apps.

What is missing from the fine print is that there is no physical mechanism to prevent the tracking of a user. The app tracking transparency framework is merely a pop-up box.

It is also interesting to note the specific wording of the pop-up: “ask app not to track”. If the application is using legitimate “device advertising identifiers”, answering no will result in this identifier being set to zero. This will reduce the tracking capabilities of apps that honour Apple’s tracking policies.

However, if an app is really determined to track you, there are many techniques that could allow them to make surreptitious user-specific identifiers, which may be difficult for Apple to detect or prevent.

For example, while an app might not use Apple’s “device advertising identifier”, it would be easy for the app to generate a little bit of “random data”. This data could then be passed between sites under the guise of normal operations such as retrieving an image with the data embedded in the filename. While this would contravene Apple’s developer rules, detecting this type of secret data could be very difficult.

Read more: Your smartphone apps are tracking your every move – 4 essential reads

Apple seems prepared to crack down hard on developers who don’t play by the rules. The most recent additions to Apple’s App Store guidelines explicitly tells developers:

You must receive explicit permission from users via the App Tracking Transparency APIs to track their activity.

It’s unlikely major app developers will want to fall foul of this policy — a ban from the App Store would be costly. But it’s hard to imagine Apple sanctioning a really big player like Facebook or TikTok without some serious behind-the-scenes negotiation.

Why is Facebook objecting?

Facebook is fuelled by web users’ data. Inevitably, anything that gets in the way of its gargantuan revenue-generating network is seen as a threat. In 2020, Facebook’s revenue from advertising exceeded US$84 billion – a 21% rise on 2019.

The issues are deep-rooted and reflect the two tech giants’ very different business models. Apple’s business model is the sale of laptops, computers, phones and watches – with a significant proportion of its income derived from the vast ecosystem of apps and in-app purchases used on these devices. Apple’s app revenue was reported at US$64 billion in 2020.

With a vested interest in ensuring its customers are loyal and happy with its devices, Apple is well positioned to deliver privacy without harming profits.

Should I use it?

Ultimately, it is a choice for the consumer. Many apps and services are offered ostensibly for free to users. App developers often cover their costs through subscription models, in-app purchases or in-app advertising. If enough users decide to embrace privacy controls, developers will either change their funding model (perhaps moving to paid apps) or attempt to find other ways to track users to maintain advertising-derived revenue.

If you don’t want your data to be collected (and potentially sold to unnamed third parties), this feature offers one way to restrict the amount of your data that is trafficked in this way.

But it’s also important to note that tracking of users and devices is a valuable tool for advertising optimisation by building a comprehensive picture of each individual. This increases the relevance of each advert while also reducing advertising costs (by only targeting users who are likely to be interested). Users also arguably benefit, as they see more (relevant) adverts that are contextualised for their interests.

It may slow down the rate at which we receive personalised ads in apps and websites, but this change won’t be an end to intrusive digital advertising. In essence, this is the price we pay for “free” access to these services.

Read more: Facebook data breach: what happened and why it’s hard to know if your data was leaked

– ref. Apple’s new ‘app tracking transparency’ has angered Facebook. How does it work, what’s all the fuss about, and should you use it? – https://theconversation.com/apples-new-app-tracking-transparency-has-angered-facebook-how-does-it-work-whats-all-the-fuss-about-and-should-you-use-it-159916

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Fischetti, Professor, Pro Vice-Chancellor of the College of Human and Social Futures, University of Newcastle

In late 2019, New South Wales announced it would make maths compulsory all through school. Victoria will have an additional, easier, year 12 maths subject in 2023 to boost the numbers of maths students in senior levels.

Moves to push more students into senior maths partly stem from the idea students need to be equipped with skills for jobs of the future, largely driven by automation. The federal government considers STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) skills as “crucial for Australia’s changing future”. A resource kit for STEM educators, developed by the federal government, states:

It’s predicted that future workers will spend more than twice as much time on job tasks requiring science, maths and critical thinking than today.

But the number of students taking higher level maths has bottomed-out. Nationally, less than 30% of students choose upper level, calculus based, maths — down dramatically in the past 20 years.

There are many arguments for how to get more students to take senior maths. They include making the subject more engaging, ensuring enough specialist teachers and, of course, making maths compulsory.

Read more: Fewer Australians are taking advanced maths in Year 12. We can learn from countries doing it better

At the moment, only Tasmania requires students to take basic maths through to year 12. Students in the ACT and NSW can finish studying maths in year 10 if they choose to. South Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland require students to take just one unit of maths in the two final years of high school.

But how important is it for every student to have graduated school with high level maths?

Maths and the future of work

The argument every student needs advanced maths for his or her career doesn’t always hold. A 2013 study of 2,300 workers in the United States found less than 25% of them use maths beyond fractions in their current jobs.

But we’re told the nature of work is rapidly changing and that employment in jobs requiring STEM skills is growing faster than in others. This may be true. Although the federal government also highlights growing industries aren’t all focused on STEM skills. They include:

• health care and social assistance

• education and training

• construction

• customer service.

Most of these jobs will require strong numeracy and computational thinking skills, including problem-solving that can come from subjects outside maths.

A Deloitte report into the future of work also noted the importance of human skills in automated industries:

[…] jobs increasingly need us to use our hearts — the interpersonal and creative roles, with uniquely human skills like creativity, customer service, care for others and collaboration.

A federal government report echoes this by advising those looking for work to:

remember to emphasise your employability skills, rather than just the technical skills […] Communication, reliability, team work, patience, resilience and initiative are required for all jobs, and this will continue to be the case in the future […] Some 75% of employers considered employability skills to be as important, if not more important, than technical skills.

Maths is embedded in most of these skills. But it’s certainly not the only subject that teaches them.

What subjects can give students the skills they need?

Broadly speaking, some of the skills students will need in their future — in both their work and daily life — include:

• cognitive flexibility: the ability to adapt to the changing world and information around you; to be a lifelong learner

• traditional and digital literacies: basic literacy, numeracy and media literacy (including the use of technology)

• creativity and imagination: the human traits that separate us from machines and bring a human perspective to our work

• computational thinking: problem solving processes we need in our work and life

• ethical and sustainable practice: a commitment to do no harm to each other or the planet

• Indigenous perspectives and cultural competence: promoting reconciliation and working successfully and respectfully across cultures and customs

• well-being: taking care of our minds, bodies and our mob.

These skills are not taught just in maths but across the disciplines, including science, geography, visual arts, health and physical education, languages, history and design.

What kind of maths skills do students need?

In his 2016 book, The Maths Math: And Other STEM Delusions, bestselling US author Andrew Hacker proposes we allow students to explore their passions in the latter school years instead of pushing advanced maths onto them.

He also recommends we teach basic maths so well students gain computational and critical thinking skills they can use throughout their lives.

Computational skills are the ability to understand a complex problem, develop possible solutions and then present these solutions in a way a computer, human, or both, can understand.

These skills are what primary maths should aim toward, emphasising interdisciplinary connections across key learning areas. And strong basic numeracy skills build a foundation for a lifetime.

Read more: Don’t just solve for x: letting kids explore real-world scenarios will keep them in maths class

But NAPLAN numeracy results in the past decade, as well as scores in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment, indicate many teachers are not prepared to teach primary maths effectively to an increasingly diverse student population.

Current maths assessments tend to limit the possibilities and the interdisciplinary connections by teaching math discretely.

Many schools are using projects and portfolios to develop these relevant skills, with learning outcomes based on ‘doing’ rather than regurgitating facts. This is not a move away from the goal of traditional numeracy skills. Rather, it’s the way we teach them and honour their relevance in multiple contexts outside of maths that makes the subject more engaging.

It’s important then for maths-related lessons to allow students to create, design, make, build, exhibit and present.

These ideas are at the heart of the current reviews into the NSW Curriculum and the Australian curriculum.

Armed with these foundational “basics”, all students could connect their passions as teenagers with the STEM skills they need for the future they envision – and many may then choose advanced maths courses with confidence.

– ref. Not every student needs senior maths, but we can make maths more engaging in the earlier school years – https://theconversation.com/not-every-student-needs-senior-maths-but-we-can-make-maths-more-engaging-in-the-earlier-school-years-150631

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Maritz, Professor of Entrepreneurship, La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University

Bill Gates was 21 when he and Paul Allen registered Microsoft. Steve Jobs was 22 when he and Steve Wozniak launched Apple. Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook in his Harvard dormitory.

The biographies of these tech billionaires who achieved great success in their twenties has helped cement the perception that entrepreneurship is a young person’s game.

Not true. Such stories are the exception rather than the norm.

Starting young can have some clear advantages. For one thing, it gives you much more time to fail the several times most enterprenuers do before they put it all together and succeed.

But overall, the research suggests, older age is associated with higher levels of entrepreneurial success.

That’s an important policy point for governments that want people to keep working (and paying taxes) longer even though employment prospects for job seekers decline significantly from about the age of 45.

Rather than just putting money into “job ready” programs or subsidies to employers to hire older workers, more should be invested into programs to support the demographic with the best chance of successfully starting new businesses.

Read more: Employers need more than money to hire older workers

Mature-aged enterprise growing

My research with Bronwyn Eager (University of Tasmania) and Saskia De Klerk (University of Sunshine Coast) suggests mature-aged entrepreneurship – after the age of 50 – is growing faster than among any other age group in Australia.

Mature-aged entrepreneurs run about a third of all businesses that are less than three years old. (All up, mature-aged entrepreneurs have started about 380,000 businesses with a turnover of about A$12 billion a year.)

Younger entrepreneurs do have some advantages. As a group, they are healthier and tend to have fewer family obligations. They may be less risk averse, often because they have less to lose. The may also benefit from others’ positive perceptions of them as “youthful”.

But mature-aged entrepreneurs have three key advantages: human capital, social capital and financial capital.

Our research involved surveying more than 1,000 mature entrepreneurs and correlating the results to other studies on entreprenuers. Our findings indicate older entreprenuers have accumulated business and life experience, knowledge and skills, social networks and resources that better equip them for success. They tend to have better social skills, and are better able to regulate their emotions, than those younger.

They do have a lower risk tolerance than younger entrepreneurs, but that is offset by other factors, such as confidence in their abilities and experience. Their fear of failure is thus less than their younger counterparts.

Read more: Keeping mature-age workers on the job

The numbers are with them

Our research supports previous studies finding no evidence to suggest younger entrepreneurs are more likely to succeed than those in middle age.

MIT Sloan School of Management professor Pierre Azoulay and colleagues, for example, analysed the data on 2.7 million founders of US companies between 2007 and 2014 that went on to employ at least one person. The average age at founding was 41. For the “1 in 1,000” highest-growth ventures, the average age was 45.

The authors conclude “all evidence points to founders being especially successful when starting businesses in middle age or beyond, while young founders appear disadvantaged”.

Indeed, they found the “batting average” for creating successful firms rose dramatically with age. A 50-year-old founder was 1.8 times more likely to achieve “upper-tail growth” than a 30-year-old founder. Those in their early 20s had the lowest likelihood of success.

Read more: Most successful entrepreneurs are older than you think

How government can help

Entrepreneurship may therefore be a viable alternative to mature-aged unemployment.

There is, however, compelling evidence that aspiring mature-aged entrepreneurs require specialised government support and incentives, both to start their businesses and grow their businesses.

Government initiatives such as the Entrepreneur’s Program (formerly the Entrepreneurship Infrastructure Program) and Entrepreneurs Facilitators, for example, could be better designed to account for the specific needs of mature-aged entrepreneurs.

Such support will both enhance the success of these businesses – and employment prospects for young and old.

– ref. Contrary to popular belief, middle-aged entrepreneurs do better – https://theconversation.com/contrary-to-popular-belief-middle-aged-entrepreneurs-do-better-159906

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rosalie Gillett, Postdoctoral research fellow, Queensland University of Technology

Dating apps have been under increased scrutiny for their role in facilitating harassment and abuse.

Last year an ABC investigation into Tinder found most users who reported sexual assault offences didn’t receive a response from the platform. Since then, the app has reportedly implemented new features to mitigate abuse and help users feel safe.

In a recent development, New South Wales Police announced they are in conversation with Tinder’s parent company Match Group (which also owns OKCupid, Plenty of Fish and Hinge) regarding a proposal to gain access to a portal of sexual assaults reported on Tinder. The police also suggested using artificial intelligence (AI) to scan users’ conversations for “red flags”.

Tinder already uses automation to monitor users’ instant messages to identify harassment and verify personal photographs. However, increasing surveillance and automated systems doesn’t necessarily make dating apps safer to use.

User safety on dating apps

Research has shown people have differing understandings of “safety” on apps. While many users prefer not to negotiate sexual consent on apps, some do. This can involve disclosure of sexual health (including HIV status) and explicit discussions about sexual tastes and preferences.

If the recent Grindr data breach is anything to go by, there are serious privacy risks whenever users’ sensitive information is collated and archived. As such, some may actually feel less safe if they find out police could be monitoring their chats.

Adding to that, automated features in dating apps (which are supposed to enable identity verification and matching) can actually put certain groups at risk. Trans and non-binary users may be misidentified by automated image and voice recognition systems which are trained to “see” or “hear” gender in binary terms.

Trans people may also be accused of deception if they don’t disclose their trans identity in their profile. And those who do disclose it risk being targeted by transphobic users.

Increasing police surveillance

There’s no evidence to suggest that granting police access to sexual assault reports will increase users’ safety on dating apps, or even help them feel safer. Research has demonstrated users often don’t report harassment and abuse to dating apps or law enforcement.

Consider NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller’s misguided “consent app” proposal last month; this is just one of many reasons sexual assault survivors may not want to contact police after an incident. And if police can access personal data, this may deter users from reporting sexual assault.

With high attrition rates, low conviction rates and the prospect of being retraumatised in court, the criminal legal system often fails to deliver justice to sexual assault survivors. Automated referrals to police will only further deny survivors their agency.

Moreover, the proposed partnership with law enforcement sits within a broader project of escalating police surveillance fuelled by platform-verification processes. Tech companies offer police forces a goldmine of data. The needs and experiences of users are rarely the focus of such partnerships.

Read more: Australian police are using the Clearview AI facial recognition system with no accountability

Match Group and NSW Police have yet to release information about how such a partnership would work and how (or if) users would be notified. Data collected could potentially include usernames, gender, sexuality, identity documents, chat histories, geolocation and sexual health status.

The limits of AI

NSW Police also proposed using AI to scan users’ conversations and identify “red flags” that could indicate potential sexual offenders. This would build on Match Group’s current tools that detect sexual violence in users’ private chats.

While an AI-based system may detect overt abuse, everyday and “ordinary” abuse (which is common in digital dating contexts) may fail to trigger an automated system. Without context, it’s difficult for AI to detect behaviours and language that are harmful to users.

It may detect overt physical threats, but not seemingly innocuous behaviours which are only recognised as abusive by individual users. For instance, repetitive messaging may be welcomed by some, but experienced as harmful by others.

Also, even as automation becomes more sophisticated, users with malicious intent can develop ways to circumvent it.

Read more: Tinder’s new safety features won’t prevent all types of abuse

If data are shared with police, there’s also the risk flawed data on “potential” offenders may be used to train other predictive policing tools.

We know from past research that automated hate-speech detection systems can harbour inherent racial and gender biases (and perpetuate them). At the same time we’ve seen examples of AI trained on prejudicial data making important decisions about people’s lives, such as by giving criminal risk assessment scores that negatively impact marginalised groups.

Dating apps must do a lot more to understand how their users think about safety and harm online. A potential partnership between Tinder and NSW Police takes for granted that the solution to sexual violence simply involves more law enforcement and technological surveillance.

And even so, tech initiatives must always sit alongside well-funded and comprehensive sex education, consent and relationship skill-building, and well-resourced crisis services.

– ref. NSW Police want access to Tinder’s sexual assault data. Cybersafety experts explain why it’s a date with disaster – https://theconversation.com/nsw-police-want-access-to-tinders-sexual-assault-data-cybersafety-experts-explain-why-its-a-date-with-disaster-159811

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patricia A. O’Brien, Visiting Fellow in the School of History, Australian National University, and Adjunct Professor in the Asian Studies Program, Georgetown University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is fond of describing Papua New Guinea as “family”. He did so recently when announcing Australia’s assistance with PNG’s COVID-19 outbreak. The urgent support for PNG in the form of vaccines, testing kits, medical personnel and training was “in Australia’s interests”, Morrison said, because it threatens the health of Australians, “but equally our PNG family who are so dear to us”.

These familial bonds are “born of history and geography”. PNG is Australia’s closest neighbour. Only 4 kilometres separate the two countries in the Torres Strait, a fluid border that has been redefined numerous times (most recently in 1985). It is currently closed due to the COVID outbreak.

But what about the long histories Australia and PNG’s share? The fluid border acknowledges ancient, unbroken Indigenous connections. This history is deep, fraught, complex and the very foundation for the present relationship. This past needs considered attention now to strengthen ties at this pivotal time and in the future.

As early as the 1850s, nationalists envisioned “the great island of New Guinea […] will naturally […] fall into the hands” of Australia, forming part of an Australian Pacific empire. These ideas gained traction in the 1860s with the commencement of the Queensland labour trade, which controversially supplied the colony’s plantations with islander labourers.

In 1878, a Queensland gold-seeking expedition attempted to establish a colony near Port Moresby. Though Britain disallowed the venture, Queensland persisted, securing the Torres Strait Islands in 1879 and extending its border to virtually New Guinea’s shoreline, as it is today.

Politicians began championing “Australia’s Monroe Doctrine” that, like the US’s 1823 declaration for the Americas, held that Australia exclusively presided in its region. Britain relented to Australian colonial pressures in 1883. Despite Australia’s rhetorical muscle-flexing, New Guinea was partitioned three ways in 1884 into German New Guinea (the north-east and surrounding archipelagoes), British New Guinea (the south-east) and Dutch New Guinea (in the west, the present-day troubled provinces of Indonesia).

Read more: ‘A dam has been breached’: a COVID crisis on our doorstep shows how little we pay attention to PNG

Despite its name, British New Guinea was administered and funded by Australia. From the outset, a pattern of harsh colonial rule took root, exemplified by infamous episodes of collective punishment known today as massacres. Goaribari Islanders suffered three in as many years, with more than 150 dead according to contemporary accounts and inquiries.

Following Federation, Australia assumed control over this territory, renamed Papua, in 1906. Politicians debated how to govern Papua more “gently” to better reflect Australia’s modern national image. Yet Papuans were barred from entering under the White Australia policy even though some politicians argued New Guinea belonged to Australia as much as Tasmania. Even today, Australian population figures reflect New Guineans’ continuing exclusion.

Read more: Australian politics explainer: the White Australia policy

In 1908, Hubert Murray was permanently appointed lieutenant-governor of the territory to implement a more benevolent colonial rule. Though violence and exploitation reduced in Papua during Murray’s long tenure (1908-1940), the “Murray Method”, as it became known throughout the empire, was replete with paternalistic attitudes. Most damning was his belief Papuans need only be educated to elementary levels and employed in menial jobs.

In 1914, Australia’s presence in New Guinea dramatically expanded when Australian forces captured German New Guinea in the nation’s first action of the first world war. The seven-year rule (1914-1921) of the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (ANMEF) became notorious for flogging and labour recruitment practices. Murray, blaming unchecked settler colonial attitudes, was the ANMEF’s loudest critic.

Prime Minister Billy Hughes argued at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference that Australia was owed New Guinea as compensation for blood and treasure expended in the first world war. Securing it was also vital for national defences, as Australia now had a new foe: Japan.

In May 1921, the ANMEF was disbanded, when the League of Nations mandates system commenced. This meant Australia could now enact its own laws, but with international oversight. It was governed separately, and differently, from Papua until the eve of the Pacific War.

The discovery of gold in the mandate in 1926 triggered an unprecedented flood of Australians, also into back-country areas. Cycles of violence, often sparked by violations of women, escalated. A punitive expedition to avenge the killings of four prospectors (who were war veterans), known as the Nakanai Massacre, was launched. So great was the outcry, not least because a machinegun was used against people armed with spears, that many feared Australia would lose New Guinea to Germany.

Murray was again vocal in his criticism of the mandate. The mistreatment of local people was not only inhumane, it was detrimental to Australia’s interests, because New Guineans were “dying out”.

Mistreatment only accelerated this demise. Murray (and many others) were convinced “industrial races of Asia” would take their place and “menace the Commonwealth”. New Guineans did not die out, the mandate remained shadowed by colonial violence, and the predictions of New Guinea being a defence buffer for Australia came to fruition from 1942. The ensuing second world war history is the most remembered of Australia’s New Guinea past.

In 2018, Morrison made a landmark speech called “Australia and the Pacific: A New Chapter”. In it, he talked of “family” and the Pacific as “our patch” in his reworking of the 150-year-old imperial idea in the time of China’s rise. The speech was delivered in Townsville, the epicentre of the Pacific labour trade, though it or other defining histories were not mentioned. Australia’s historical debt went unacknowledged.

With PNG’s COVID crisis, Australia is commendably acting on this rhetoric. But if a truly equitable new “chapter” in the relationship is to be forged, Australia must – urgently and aggressively – confront the Pacific’s needs, especially its highest-priority concern: climate change.

– ref. If Papua New Guinea really is part of Australia’s ‘family’, we’d do well to remember our shared history – https://theconversation.com/if-papua-new-guinea-really-is-part-of-australias-family-wed-do-well-to-remember-our-shared-history-159528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

The Tasmanian election will be held on Saturday, with polls closing at 6pm AEST. A uComms poll for the left-wing Australia Institute, conducted April 21 from a sample of 1,023, gave the Liberals 41.4%, Labor 32.1%, the Greens 12.4%, Independents 11.0% and Others 3.1%.

This poll is in marked contrast to the last publicly available Tasmanian poll: an EMRS poll in February that gave the Liberals 52%, Labor 27%, Greens 14% and 7% for all Others.

The uComms poll is likely to be the only poll of the election campaign. There will be no pre-election EMRS poll, and Newspoll did not do a pre-election survey in 2018.

Analyst Kevin Bonham says there are many reasons to doubt this uComms poll. If previous uComms polls in November 2019 and 2020 are benchmarked against comparable EMRS polls, the Liberal vote is well below EMRS – and EMRS understated the Liberals by an average 1.8% at the last four Tasmanian elections.

Another reason to be sceptical is that Labor’s vote is only so high owing to the 7% who said they were initially undecided. When pushed, 67% of them backed Labor, implying a soft Labor vote. Polls that are not media-released should be treated cautiously, whether the commmissioning source is left or right-wing.

Bonham’s seat model has the Liberals winning around 12 of the 25 Tasmanian lower house seats if the uComms poll is correct, denying them a majority.

Read more: As Tasmanians head to the polls, Liberal Premier Peter Gutwein hopes to cash in on COVID management

Tasmania’s Hare-Clark system

Tasmania uses the same five electorates for federal and state elections. At state elections, five members are elected per electorate using the Hare-Clark system, for a total of 25 lower house members.

If ordered from most Liberal to least at the 2019 federal election by Liberal vs Labor two party vote, the electorates are Braddon (53.4% to Liberal), Bass (50.4%), Lyons (44.8%), Franklin (37.8%) and Clark (33.8%). Independent Andrew Wilkie won Clark, but the two party vote ignores independents. The Liberal vote in Lyons would probably have been higher if not for candidate issues.

At the 2018 Tasmanian election, the Liberals won 13 of the 25 seats, to ten for Labor and two Greens. The Liberals won three seats in each of Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and two in both Franklin and Clark (called Denison then). Statewide vote shares were 50.3% Liberal, 32.6% Labor and 10.3% Greens.

With five members per electorate, a quota is one-sixth of the vote, or 16.7%. Tasmania uses the Hare-Clark system with Robson rotation, which randomly orders candidates within a party group on ballot papers. This means there is no advantage to being the top candidate for your party.

Hare-Clark is a candidate-based system; people vote for candidates, and there is no above the line box to vote for your party. A formal vote requires at least five preferences in Tasmania.

For the distribution of preferences, all candidates who achieve a quota at any stage are elected, and their surplus over one quota transferred. When nobody remaining has a quota, candidates are eliminated, starting with the person with the lowest vote. Owing to exhaustion, final candidates elected often have less than a full quota.

Votes can leak out of a party’s ticket, costing them seats where they appeared ahead on first preferences. If votes split evenly among a bigger party’s candidates, those candidates can defeat a smaller party even if the smaller party was closer to quota. For instance, one party could have 1.8 quotas, but their two candidates have 0.9 quotas each, beating another party that had 0.85 quotas.

At this election, most electorates will feature Liberal vs Labor vs Greens contests, but Clark has two prominent independents: former lower house Speaker Sue Hickey, who sometimes opposed her Liberal party’s positions, and quit the party when she was not preselected; and local mayor Kristie Johnston.

These independents could explain the high vote for independents of 11% in the uComms poll, but Bonham is still sceptical. Polls that ask specifically for independents draw voters who will back independents if one that suits their politics stands. But as suitable independents don’t usually exist, they underperform their polling.

Read more: Coalition and Morrison gain in Newspoll, and the new Resolve poll

Upper house elections

Two or three of Tasmania’s 15 single-member upper house seats are up for election every May for six-year terms, and this time the upper house elections will occur concurrently with the lower house.

This year, elections will occur in Derwent and Windermere. In Mersey, left-leaning independent Mike Gaffney was re-elected unopposed. That means nobody else nominated to run, so Gaffney was declared elected without an election.

Derwent has been held continuously by Labor since 1979, and they outpolled the Liberals 45.4% to 41.9% in 2018, despite the statewide thrashing. Windermere was held by retiring conservative independent Ivan Dean; in 2018, the Liberals won 54.6%, Labor 30.6% and the Greens 7.5%. The most likely outcome is Labor retaining Derwent while the Liberals gain Windermere.

According to Bonham, the upper house currently has five Labor, three Liberals, four left independents, two centre-right independents and one conservative independent. The 9-6 left majority could be reduced to 8-7 if the Liberals upset Labor in Derwent.

Bonham’s Tasmanian election guide, with links to both the lower and upper house electorates, has been of great assistance for this article.

Federal Essential poll and additional Newspoll questions

In this week’s federal Essential poll, conducted April 21-26 from a sample of 1,090, 42% said they would get vaccinated as soon as possible (down five since March), 42% said they would get vaccinated but not straight away (up two) and 16% said they would never get vaccinated (up four).

The bad publicity for the AstraZeneca vaccine over the blood clots issue has had an impact, with 27% saying they would be willing to get the Pfizer vaccine, but not AstraZeneca.

43% thought the vaccination rollout was being down efficiently (down 25 since early March), 63% thought it was being done safely (down ten) and 52% thought it would be effective at stopping COVID (down 11).

In Newspoll, 70% approved of Scott Morrison’s handling of the COVID pandemic, while 27% disapproved. That’s down from 82-15 approval last June. By 53-43, voters were satisfied with the vaccine rollout.

– ref. Tasmanian election preview: commissioned poll has Liberals likely short of majority – https://theconversation.com/tasmanian-election-preview-commissioned-poll-has-liberals-likely-short-of-majority-159630

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brianna Chesser, Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Justice, RMIT University

Last week’s sentencing of a Wellington man for rape was legally significant for being New Zealand’s first successful prosecution for what is known as “stealthing”.

Stealthing occurs when a condom is removed without consent during sexual intercourse. In these cases, a person may have consented to sex but only under certain conditions — for example, with the use of a condom.

In this case, Jessie Campos was found guilty of raping a sex worker in a Lower Hutt brothel in late 2018, and sentenced to three years and nine months in prison. The court was told he was made aware on several occasions a condom was legally required and he agreed to use one.

The two had consensual sex with protection, but when they had sex again Campos removed the condom. The woman indicated he had acted inappropriately and made him put the condom back on. Without her knowledge, Campos again removed the condom and ejaculated inside her. The woman ran to her manager’s office and the police were called.

Judge Stephen Harrop said sex workers were no less victims than any other survivor. He also rejected the defence claim that the stealthing was not premeditated and that cultural factors were relevant to the sentencing (Campos arrived in New Zealand from the Philippines in 2016).

Judge Harrop said Campos was told multiple times that a condom was necessary, adding: “I can’t proceed on the basis that raping sex workers is any more acceptable [in the Philippines] than it is here.”

The judge also said the sexual assault had risked the woman’s physical health and had caused her ongoing mental harm. In her victim impact statement, she said her world view has changed, she has had to cease work and almost never leaves home alone.

Recognising stealthing as a crime

The conviction is significant because it recognises everyone has a right not only to choose to consent to sexual activity, but also to choose what conditions are placed on that consent.

This is also significant for the New Zealand police who have been accused of not taking reports of stealthing seriously in the past.

Furthermore, the landmark New Zealand judgment paves the way for other countries to reconsider their laws. There is currently a proposal to outlaw stealthing “as a factor that negates consent” before the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

Read more: Case in Victoria could set new legal precedent for stealthing, or removing condom during sex

Last year, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission also suggested changes to the state’s legislative regime. These would mean sex with a condom is legally defined as a specific activity that can be consented to, without consenting to any other sexual activity, such as sex without a condom.

So far, only one Australian case has made it to court, with a Melbourne man charged with rape in 2018 after allegedly removing a condom without consent. The trial has been delayed by the pandemic.

Further afield, Switzerland, Canada and Germany have all seen convictions for stealthing.

Physical and psychological risk

While these proposed changes are a step in the right direction, it is clear stealthing is still not well understood. This is perhaps not surprising, as issues of consent in general remain a real problem in the community and the courts.

As the acclaimed TV drama series I May Destroy You powerfully depicted, stealthing is about dominance and power and can happen to anyone. While most people will agree that “no means no”, it’s less clear what “yes” can mean.

Specifically, what conditions have been placed on that “yes”? Situations where the agreed conditions have changed – such as when a condom has been removed – should require “fresh consent” from both partners.

Read more: Teaching young people about sex is too important to get wrong. Here are 5 videos that actually hit the mark

Beyond the moral, ethical and legal considerations, stealthing poses real risks to the physical and psychological well-being of the survivor, including sexually transmitted infections, HIV, unplanned pregnancy, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Fundamentally, stealthing violates the dignity and autonomy of survivors and is a violation of a person’s right to self-determination. The apparent unwillingness of police to prosecute, combined with a lack of public awareness, has undoubtedly meant stealthing has been under-reported in the past.

It is to be hoped the recent New Zealand conviction increases community awareness and encourages other survivors to come forward and tell their stories. Ultimately, it should lead to other jurisdictions recognising stealthing as a sexual crime and changing their laws to reflect this.

– ref. New Zealand’s first successful ‘stealthing’ prosecution leads the way for law changes in Australia and elsewhere – https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-first-successful-stealthing-prosecution-leads-the-way-for-law-changes-in-australia-and-elsewhere-159323