Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angela Lehmann, Honorary Lecturer, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

COVID-19 has not stopped international education. As of August 24, 524,000 international students were living among us in Australian cities and communities. They represent 78% of all student visa holders, according to data the Department of Home Affairs provided to us.

These students are potential ambassadors for Australia and our institutions. They could help shape our country’s reputation as a safe and welcoming destination in the post-pandemic world – but only if we look after them.

The numbers of students now in Australia vary across sectors. Currently, 73% of our international higher education students and 78% of postgraduate research students are here. The vast majority — 78% — of our international secondary school students are still here too.

The percentage is even higher for vocational education and training (VET): 91% of the sector’s international students are here, 159,233 in all.

Non-award programs (shorter courses that don’t lead to a degree or diploma) and English language programs (ELICOS) have the largest percentages of students now offshore.

The experiences these large numbers of students are having now will have a direct impact on their decisions and patterns of mobility once borders reopen.

However, institutions and government agencies continue to focus on outward-looking approaches to recovery, such as offshore recruitment and delivery, negotiating pilot safety corridors, and scenario planning for the reopening of borders. The onshore response to international education risks being severely neglected.

Read more: Without international students, Australia’s universities will downsize – and some might collapse altogether

Students are comparing countries’ responses

International students in Australian cities and communities are of course talking about their situation. They are using social media, creating blogs and interacting constantly with families and friends back home and around the world.

During the pandemic, this peer-to-peer form of marketing is heightened in its global reach. Our students are constantly comparing their lives with students in both their home countries and Australia’s major competitor destinations.

As a result, the crisis of international student social support is the subject of global comparisons. Students and their families are weighing up what they are going through “here” compared to what others are going through “there”.

Read more: ‘I love Australia’: 3 things international students want Australians to know

A life transformed in Melbourne

Arya is a full-time postgraduate student from India who is staying in Melbourne. We spoke with Arya as a part of a series of interviews with international students during COVID-19.

Her dream of studying in Australia was made possible through a combination of a student loan, borrowing from family, and savings after working for two years as a journalist. Prior to COVID-19, she relied on part-time jobs to support herself. This income was essential to her financial survival in Melbourne.

The first lockdown meant she lost both her jobs — one in hospitality and one at her university. As these sectors are struggling in this crisis, her prospect of finding a new job is bleak.

Arya is not eligible for federal government support such as JobSeeker. But she might be able to get Victorian government support, including a voucher to buy groceries and a one-off payment of A$1,100. She can also apply for a modest grant from her university to cover some bills.

She has struggled to pay rent, but the moratorium on evictions has prevented her from becoming homeless. Her university and local community groups in Melbourne have also provided food hampers.

Arya’s goal was to study in Australia at a world-class institution and solidify her status within the upwardly mobile middle classes in India. Her life has been transformed into a struggle to eat, pay rent and avoid homelessness while keeping her grades up. Arya observes:

It is becoming more than an education. The question is shifting to how students live and survive in a global city midst a pandemic.

Read more: ‘No one would even know if I had died in my room’: coronavirus leaves international students in dire straits

It’s even harder in the US

Arya is in contact with friends and fellow Indian students studying overseas. While her situation in Melbourne is dire, her friends in the US are struggling every day. Arya introduced us to Dhanya.

Dhanya, who moved to New York in 2017 to study, says she is struggling “despite doing everything right”. After recently graduating and finding a job, Dhanya lost her H1B sponsored visa for skilled workers as a result of the Trump administration’s recent freeze on visas. “The US government has not considered that we can’t get home,” Dhanya says.

She reports that she and many of her friends in similar situations have been told they can choose to work as unpaid interns.

Many American states enacted a patchwork of temporary eviction moratoriums and the federal government issued a partial ban on evictions. These moratoriums have now largely expired, forcing students to rely on the discretion of landlords. As a non-citizen, Dhanya cannot receive unemployment benefits or a stimulus cheque.

Dhanya is unaware of any non-monetary support from her university or the government for international students. There are no free meal plans, grocery vouchers, or community-based food schemes.

Despite our Melbourne-based student living with the daily anxiety about her finances, she is comparing her experience relatively positively to her friends in the US.

Some countries are enhancing reputations

Students are paying attention to countries that are including international students and temporary migrants in their social policy response to COVID-19. Arya says:

The way countries handle this now is definitely going to impact how students see your country as a destination in the future.

Arya and her friends are keeping a keen eye on European destinations such as Germany and Sweden. They have also been impressed by Canada’s timely support for international students during this crisis.

Read more: Coronavirus: how likely are international university students to choose Australia over the UK, US and Canada?

It is not enough for Australia to rely on other nations doing badly on social welfare and support. We need to do more than aim to receive a comparatively “good” score on poverty, exploitation and vulnerability based on others doing worse.

Australia urgently needs to actively reshape international education market perceptions by demonstrating that we offer not only world-class education, but also world-class student support. And that starts with helping the cohort of more than half-a-million international students who currently call Australia home.

– ref. 4 out of 5 international students are still in Australia – how we treat them will have consequences – https://theconversation.com/4-out-of-5-international-students-are-still-in-australia-how-we-treat-them-will-have-consequences-145099

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Penny Van Bergen, Associate Professor in Educational Psychology, Macquarie University

Most of us can remember a favourite teacher. Some of us can also remember a teacher we didn’t get on with or with whom we always seemed to get in trouble.

Relationships between students and teachers at school are important. They predict students’ motivation, performance, and expectations of future relationships.

We interviewed 96 students from a range of schools in Years 3 to 9. We wanted to find out who students remember as their favourite and least favourite teachers. We also wanted to find out what made those relationships positive or negative.

In our study, published in the journal School Psychology Review, all students described similar factors that made them like their teachers — care, kindness and humour.

What we wanted to find

Past research shows students with disruptive behaviour are more likely to experience negative relationships with their teachers than their less disruptive peers. Teachers often rate relationships with such students to be low in closeness and high in conflict.

But these relationships aren’t always negative. Even self-described troublemakers and class clowns often remember a specific teacher who stood up for them, who took them under their wing, or who changed their perceptions of school for the better.

Read more: Group punishment doesn’t fix behaviour – it just makes kids hate school

The first group we interviewed consisted of 54 students who had a history of disruptive behaviour, such as acting out in class or being frequently suspended. Around half were in a special behaviour school for disruptive behaviour, and the remainder attended a mainstream school.

The second group consisted of 42 students with no history of disruptive behaviour. They were often high achieving (such as school prefects or A-students), and all attended a mainstream school.

We were particularly interested in the “magic ingredients” that would support positive student-teacher relationships, even for disruptive students. We also wanted to determine if there were “contaminating ingredients” that could sour these relationships, even for exemplary students.

Who is your favourite teacher?

We first asked students if they could remember any teachers they’d had a really good relationship with. If the student replied yes, we then asked what made the relationship good.

The reasons students liked teachers were almost identical across groups. Even highly disruptive students bonded with teachers who were caring, kind and funny.

One 13-year-old with disruptive behaviour (in a special school) said of their favourite teacher:

Every time I’d go there without food … Miss H always used to buy me lunch, let me go on excursions. … I was never allowed to go on an excursion [before] because of my ADHD.

A 15-year-old with disruptive behaviour (also in a special school) said of their favourite teacher:

Mr M, he’s just hilarious. He’s the funniest man on earth. He’s always saying this weird stuff […] walking around with this big puffy jacket, like some kind of Russian guard […] pretending his pencil is a cigar […] we just laugh.

These answers show how important it is for teachers to separate student disciplinary matters from relationship matters.

Around 16% of students highlighted teacher helpfulness, while 10% highlighted effective teaching, as a key advantage of their favourite teachers.

One 12-year-old without disruptive behaviour said about their favourite teacher:

She gave me and some of the other smart kids harder work. [I liked that] because it challenges me.

What causes conflicts?

We next asked students if they could remember any teachers they really didn’t get on with or clashed with. If a student replied yes, we asked what sort of things would bring that on.

While not all students could remember a teacher they clashed with, a large proportion of each group could.

Students in both groups overwhelmingly agreed on the key factors contributing to negative relationships.

Across groups, 86% highlighted instances where they had perceived the teacher being unnecessarily hostile towards them, or where they felt they were treated unfairly.

One 13-year-old with disruptive behaviour (in a mainstream school) said:

I usually have my earphones in and I just sit there and just listen to music […] she just like opened the door, seen me listening to music […] She comes up, grabs the earphones, she just rips them out of my ear [pretend shouting] ‘Listen to the teacher!‘

A 16-year-old with disruptive behaviour (in a special school) said:

She just used to pin stuff on me. If I done the littlest thing wrong and someone done somethin’ major wrong, she would […] go for me first […] She just hated me, and I hated her.

Another 10-year-old with no disruptive behaviour said:

She was always yelling […] Because she gave us a real hard book, and we were only in Year 1, and we couldn’t really read it that good […]

Frequently, students’ descriptions of unfair treatment included pre-emptive punishments and reprimands:

One 15-year-old with disruptive behaviour (in a special school) said:

Well, I remember one time that, like, I went inside the classroom and she just, like, came up to me and she was like, you had better not talk this lesson and I wasn’t even talking at all.

Another 15-year-old with disruptive behavior (in a mainstream school) said:

Well, she always picked me out, as well, for misbehaving, so I got in a lot of trouble for that, but […] like, a lot of people were just doing a lot worse than I was doing, but she was like, no, no, you’ve been bad before.

A 12-year-old with no disruptive behavior (in a mainstream school) said:

Every time I did something in the playground that was good, someone told her I’d done something bad and [Miss C] always believed them.

What teachers can take from this

Based on our research, below are some things teachers and parents can do to promote positive relationships with teachers for the young people in their care.

1. remember empathy and humour go a long way to building positive relationships with students. Caring about students as individuals genuinely does break down barriers. Most teachers already report caring deeply for their students. It may simply be a matter of making one’s acts of kindness and care more visible

2. consider how warnings are given. Students benefit when they are allowed to start the day with a clean slate, and when reprimands are held back until an offence has actually been committed

3. separate classroom management from relationship building. Students who are most disruptive are also often the ones who could use a positive relationship the most

4. parents can help by encouraging students to reflect on their relationships with teachers. Sometimes situations are ambiguous, and understanding a teachers’ perspective may help in interpreting situations that would otherwise feel unreasonable to a young person. Students and teachers both win when they work on the same team.

Read more: How teachers are taught to discipline a classroom might not be the best way

– ref. We asked kids who their favourite teacher is, and why. Here’s what they said – https://theconversation.com/we-asked-kids-who-their-favourite-teacher-is-and-why-heres-what-they-said-145093

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peta Murray, Vice-Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University

A search for “Coronavirus Diary” on Google yields 910,000 results. News outlets like the Guardian, The Atlantic and The New York Times have chronicled an increase in personal record-keeping.

Whether for future historians, self-care or to relieve feelings of isolation, we are in the middle of a diarological moment.

And today’s diaries aren’t just handwritten reflections in bound notebooks. They might be social media posts, video entries or visual collages – so long as they are regularly updated over an extended period and personal in nature, they fit the bill. The secret is in the repetition, and the pledge that drives it.

Read more: Museums are losing millions every week but they are already working hard to preserve coronavirus artefacts

On the look out

The word diary entered the English language in the late 16th century, via the Latin word, diarium, which comes from dies, meaning day. The diary asks us to attend to this day.

Diary-keeping sharpens observational skills, so it is no wonder then that cultural institutions have begun projects to crowd-source details of what otherwise might be quite banal aspects of our lives.

The State Library of Victoria has a Facebook group, Memory Bank, where posts of shopping lists and sourdough recipes have given way to more melancholy images of closed shops and empty streets in the CBD – a collective chronicle both hyperlocal and universal.

The State Library of New South Wales subtitles its Diary Files an “online community diary”, and currently contains nearly a thousand entries, searchable by keywords. School, time, home and COVID are among the most commonly written words, and the greatest number of contributions come from Sydneysiders between 10 and 15 years of age.

Video “lockdown” diaries can also be viewed online, via BBC Reel, or listened to through Corona Diaries, the interactive open source project which collects audio stories from around the world.

Social researchers have identified the diary as a tool to capture the impact of the pandemic on daily life. UK sociologist Michael Ward began his research through CoronaDiaries, where 164 participants ranging in age from 11 to 87 submit entries in a variety of forms. Ward suggests:

These entries are able to highlight the multiple different lives behind the dreaded numbers we hear announced each day.

Read more: Lockdown diaries: the everyday voices of the coronavirus pandemic

Famous diary keepers

Most of us can name some famous literary diarists of history – Samuel Pepys, Virginia Woolf, Adrian Mole. When we stray far beyond this list, it is often the times, rather than the writer, that make the diary notable.

There is Lena Mukhina’s perspective on the Siege of Leningrad, 13-year-old Anne Frank’s account of the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands and the poignant scratchings of Sir Robert Scott’s on the day he perished: “For god’s sake, look after our people”.

Nelson Mandela’s desk-calendar notes, kept in prison, speak to extraordinary experiences under extreme conditions.

Diaries from the 1918 influenza pandemic came into their own as more than ephemera for both historians and scientists in 2020.

For a book length account, we can look to Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year, about life in London in 1665 – bearing in mind the author was only five years old at the height of the epidemic, so it is likely a factual-meets-fictional rendering.

Diary-writing serves broader society, and can help individuals make sense of difficult times.

Interviewed for this story, psychologist Robyn Moffitt told us:

From a psychological perspective, keeping a diary is a really useful (and evidence-based) way to engage in healthy self-monitoring of thoughts, feelings, and behaviour … writing things down as they happen can provide some objective evidence and perspective on the frequency and severity of different events, and we can use this to correct distorted thinking.

The process of writing itself can also be quite therapeutic. It can allow us to process and reconstruct past events, problem-solve, and create new meanings, and in some ways this makes it similar to psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is often referred to as the “talking cure”, and writing can provide similar therapeutic benefits (the “writing cure” perhaps)?

Read more: Diary of Samuel Pepys shows how life under the bubonic plague mirrored today’s pandemic

What makes it a diary?

The turn of the 21st century saw a resurgence of the diary in public reading events such as Mortified, Salon of Shame and our own experiments with The Symphony of Awkward.

It might be argued that social media has since overtaken the diary as a means to chronicle one’s life. Indeed, there is crossover in the ways lives are shared and curated across different media, from the handwritten diary to blogs.

The ritualistic structure offered by the personal diary can be repurposed in digital spaces. The notion of publicly committing to post something – an image, a video, a song – every day offers another way of marking out time when every day is Blursday the fortyteenth of Aprilay.

Read more: What Groundhog Day (and my time in a monastery) taught me about lockdown

We have experimented with each recording a sound a day, collected from the few spaces we were still able to inhabit.

A diaristic practice, whether written or not, supports us to stay in the moment, as psychotherapists and life coaches exhort us to do.

And it’s never too late to start diarising. Here are some tips:

1. Decide on your platform

Digital or analogue? Decide on your medium. The written or spoken word? A photo? A sound? A song? Choose something that pleases you (a special pen, a fancy notebook) to heighten the experience.

2. Make a vow

Make an entry every day, or on a set number of days for four weeks. 28 days is said to be a good target if aiming to break or start a habit – though it may take longer.

3. Make time

Set aside time at the same hour each day to capture your experience.

4. Rinse and repeat

Carpe diem. Seize the day!

The Symphony of Awkward is hosting a free online forum on September 24, 2020 to discuss diary practices.

– ref. Note to self: a pandemic is a great time to keep a diary, plus 4 tips for success – https://theconversation.com/note-to-self-a-pandemic-is-a-great-time-to-keep-a-diary-plus-4-tips-for-success-144063

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

Six out of every ten of the 2.24 million people set to be on JobKeeper in the December quarter are expected to be in Victoria, according to estimates issued by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

Looking ahead to the 2021 March quarter, Treasury estimates about 60% of 1.75 million expected to be on the scheme will be in the state which is currently under a hard lockdown. Parliament this week is set to extend the scheme, in a scaled down version, for six months from the end of September.

Releasing the Treasury analysis of data on spending from the Commonwealth Bank and unemployment benefits Frydenberg said: “Restrictions imposed by the Victorian government have had a devastating impact on the economy.

“The number of Victorians on unemployment benefits has significantly increased with the impost of restrictions while numbers in other states have declined.

“At the same time household spending in Victoria is down more than 30% through the year while the rest of Australia is only down around 3%.

“The accommodation and hospitality sector has borne the brunt of the restrictions with the growth in spending in dining and takeaway down more than 60% and in the accommodation sector more than 80%.

“In July the effective unemployment rate in Victoria, before the stage four lockdown, was around 10.5%, while it was around 8.5% in NSW where they are managing the virus and have reopened their economy.”

Earlier Frydenberg, criticising Premier Daniel Andrews, told Sky, “I want to hear more about a message of hope for the people of Victoria. Daniel Andrews and the Victorian government need to be talking more about the road out than about a longer road in”.

He attacked the “over-reach” and “very bad call” by Andrews in seeking a year’s extension of the state’s emergency powers legislation. This is now being negotiated with the Victorian upper house crossbenchers for a reduced length of time.

Frydenberg said there had been a “litany” of failures in Victoria.

It was only a fortnight from the scheduled end of the stage 4 restrictions and “businesses are in the dark as to how they’ll get their workers back and their doors open,” he said.

But with the latest Victorian tally of 114 new cases and 11 deaths, Andrews on Sunday said it was too early to put forward a definitive plan for reopening.

The Treasury analysis shows that through May, as restrictions eased in Victoria, numbers on unemployment benefits fell and spending recovered, as elsewhere in the country. But since July Victoria’s story has been different from that of other states.

Since late June Victorians on unemployment benefits rose by 27.600 (7.2%). More than half the increase was in the three weeks to August 21, when the stage 4 lockdown was operating.

According to Treasury’s analysis of the Commonwealth Bank data, since the Victorian lockdown was reimposed, there has been a large fall in Victorian household spending growth relative to elsewhere.

It has declined from about 0% through the year in mid-July, to be down about 30% through the year in recent weeks.

In contrast, spending growth was 3% down over the year in the rest of the country.

As with the initial lockdown, the reimposition of restrictions in Victoria led to a significant fall in discretionary spending growth – but the move to stage 4 hit spending harder. Growth in discretionary spending in the state was about minus 40% through the year in mid-April. As things eased it improved to about minus 5% through the year in mid-June. Then it has fallen to about minus 45% through the year in recent weeks.

The metropolitan area has been harder hit than regional areas of Victoria.

The number on unemployment benefits has risen by 7-8% across Melbourne since restrictions started to be reimposed, compared with 3% in regional Victoria.

Over the same time, household spending growth across Melbourne and regional Victoria has fallen by similar amounts. But because of a limited recovery in this spending when restrictions were eased, through-the-year spending growth in Melbourne is presently about 24 percentage points below pre-COVID levels, while spending in regional areas is about 5 percentage points lower than before COVID.

Frydenberg said more than $12 billion in JobKeeper payments and about $6 billion CashFlow Boost credits had been delivered to Victorian businesses and employees.

Polling from the Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, done late last week found when people were asked which level of government was doing a better job handling the COVID crisis, 31% thought their state or territory government, compared to 25% who said the federal government, and 32% who thought both governments were doing an equally good job. Some 13% said they didn’t know or were not sure.

But in Victoria only 25% said the state government was doing a better job, compared with 32% who nominated the federal government and 31% who rated both governments equally.

– ref. Victoria will have more people on JobKeeper in December and March quarters than the rest of Australia combined – https://theconversation.com/victoria-will-have-more-people-on-jobkeeper-in-december-and-march-quarters-than-the-rest-of-australia-combined-145301

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

The five consecutive consecutive hikes in compulsory super contributions due to start next July should be deferred or abandoned in the view of the overwhelming majority of the leading Australian economists surveyed by the Economic Society of Australia and The Conversation.

Two thirds – 29 of the 44 surveyed – want the increases deferred or abandoned. Only 13 think they should proceed as planned.

An even larger majority, including some economists who want the increases to proceed, believe they will hit wage growth. Several are concerned they will hit employment.

Compulsory superannuation contributions are paid by employers.

Ahead of the most recent increase to compulsory super, from 9% of salaries to 9.5% in 2013 and 2014, the then Labor superannuation minister Bill Shorten said the move would cost employers nothing because they would be taken from wage rises.

“A portion of what would have been employees’ increases will go into compulsory savings,” he said.

That conventional wisdom has since been challenged in work funded by the superannuation industry and has been examined extensively in the retirement income review at present with the government.

The two most recent increases in compulsory superannuation in 2013 and 2014 were small by design – 0.25% of salary each.

The next five increases, originally due to due to begin in 2015 but postponed to start in July 2021, are much bigger – 0.5% of salary each – at a time when wage growth is much smaller.

In 2012 Shorten was expecting wage increases of 3-4% and “assuming that a quarter of a per cent of that 3% to 4% may well go into your compulsory savings”.

Wage growth has since slipped to 1.8%, the lowest on record. If the best part of 0.5% is taken out of that each year for the next five years it is unlikely to climb.

Wage growth has slipped to 1.8%

The 44 members of the Economic Society’s 57-member panel who responded include Australia’s preeminent experts in the fields of microeconomics, macroeconomics economic modelling, labour markets and public policy.

Among them are former and current government advisers and a former head of the Australian Fair Pay Commission and member of the Reserve Bank board and a former member of the Fair Work Commission’s minimum wage panel.

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

Each was asked whether the legislated increases in compulsory super contributions should proceed as planned, be deferred or be abandoned.

Only 13 of the 44 thought the increases should proceed as planned. 29 thought they should be deferred or abandoned, nine of them preferring they be abandoned altogether.

Those who thought they should be deferred argued that now is “not a time to encourage saving”. In the current circumstances we should be “far more worried about spending power today than in the golden years of present-day workers”.

Economist Saul Eslake said he had changed his mind. The latest evidence (which will be updated in the retirement income review) suggests that the current 9.5% so-called super guarantee will be enough to provide most people with an adequate income in retirement .

“In saying that I acknowledge that there is still a significant problem with regard to the adequacy of superannuation savings for women relative to men, but I don’t see how raising the super rate for everyone to 12% solves that problem,” he said.

“Not a time to encourage saving”

Economic modeller Janine Dixon said it was not clear that the optimal contribution was 12% rather than 9.5%. The increase would force some households into greater debt. While this would pose a risk to economic stability at any time, Australia could “not afford to let the household sector weaken further at present”.

Economist Geoffrey Kingston said anyone who felt 9.5% was not enough remained “free to make voluntary contributions”.

Among those believing the increases should proceed as planned were two former politicians, Labor’s Craig Emerson and former Liberal leader John Hewson.

Emerson said 9.5% was “considered inadequate by the burgeoning retiree population”. Without an increase, that population “would successfully demand increased pension levels from the Commonwealth”.

Opponents more confident

Hewson said compulsory super had become a fundamental part of an effective retirement incomes strategy and, COVID and economic collapse notwithstanding, we should “finish the job”.

Sue Richardson, a former member of the Fair Work Commission’s wage panel, believed any deferral might lead to another deferral and be “hard to recoup”.

The economists were asked to rate their confidence in their responses on a scale of 1 to 10.

Unweighted for confidence, 20.5% of those surveyed wanted to abandon the increases altogether. When weighted for confidence, that proportion climbed to 21.6%. The proportion that wanted the increases either deferred or abandoned climbed to 67.1%

Asked whether the increases were likely to be largely paid for via slower wage growth than otherwise, 30 of the 44 economists agreed. Only eight disagreed.

Economist Nigel Stapledon said this “should not be controversial”.

Private sector economist Michael Knox said: “unless one lives in an unreal world, increases in superannuation guarantees are funded by employers out of the total wage the worker might otherwise receive”.

Super and wages come from the same pool

Several enterprise bargains explicitly make a trade-off between wages and superannuation, providing for wage increases that will be 0.5 points higher should compulsory super contributions not climb by 0.5 points.

Economist Alison Booth said if employers weren’t able to trim wage rises to pay for the scheduled increases in super contributions, they might “attempt to adjust on other margins”.

In a recession, when workers lack bargaining strength, “employers could coerce them to accept other adjustments to their contracts”.

Two of the eight economists who disagreed with the proposition that the increases in compulsory super would come at the expense of wages thought that employers wouldn’t grant wage rises anyway. Increases in super contributions might be one way for employees to get something.

A concern among both those who agreed and disagreed was that if the increase didn’t come at the expense of wages, it would push up the cost of hiring and come at the expense of jobs.

“Inflation is very likely to be very, very low and wages to be sticky,” said government advisor Matthew Butlin.

A drag on jobs if not wages

“Higher superannuation payments in an environment where wages are unlikely to rise and cannot fall will raise real labour costs and reduce the incentive to employ.

Economic modeller Janine Dixon said that while over time the increase in contributions would probably come from wages, the immediate impact would be to “increase the cost of hiring, which is an unacceptably large risk in the present climate”.

When adjusted for confidence, the proportion of those surveyed expecting the increases to largely paid for via slower wage growth climbed from 68.2% to 71%. The proportion disagreeing fell from 18.2% to 17.8%.

Individual responses

– ref. Australia’s top economists oppose the next increases in compulsory super: new poll – https://theconversation.com/australias-top-economists-oppose-the-next-increases-in-compulsory-super-new-poll-145111

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

Scott Morrison has further ramped up his pressure on states to relax border restrictions by declaring “there will be a Commonwealth definition of a hotspot – come rain, hail or shine”.

The Prime Minister said he hoped such a definition was one agreed to by the national cabinet, which meets next Friday.

“But at the very least, there will be a Commonwealth one. And if there are any differences to that – well, people can explain them.”

A week ago the national cabinet asked its health advisers to come up with a definition. Borders remain the province of states and territories and Morrison is immensely frustrated that states with few or no cases continue to resist his pleas to open.

He told a rural forum on Friday state borders “are putting enormous stress and strain on Australians, especially those in regional and border communities, including by limiting access to essential health care, keeping people from their work, restricting farmers’ accesses to their property and their markets.

“I’ve had hundreds of letters and emails from cross-border communities over the recent weeks and months, as have my colleagues,” he said.

He seized on the case of a woman from Ballina in northern NSW who lost an unborn twin after waiting for a plane to travel to Sydney following difficulties accessing Queensland for treatment in Brisbane.

Describing the story as “heartbreaking”, he said: “There needs to be an explanation as to how these hard border arrangements can lead to people not getting access to this care, as it seems to be the case here”.

Accounts of the woman’s case differed.

The CEO of Northern NSW Local Health District, Wayne Jones, said in a statement that while the preferred place for the birth was in Brisbane, under the border restrictions the woman and her partner would have had to quarantine in a government hotel for 14 days at their expense.

“Following discussion with Royal Prince Alfred specialists in Sydney, the woman travelled to Sydney for the procedure where she would not be required to quarantine,” he said.

But a Queensland health spokesperson said a person from a hotspot could enter Queensland for emergency care without an exemption where that care could not be provided in the hotspot. Queensland Health had not received a formal transfer request for the woman, although a Brisbane hospital was able to accept her.

The spokesperson said Queensland Health also did not receive any exemption requests in relation to the case. “The final decision to transfer this case was made by the patient’s treating clinicians in NSW.”

Morrison said the only areas of “significant disagreement” in the national cabinet during the pandemic had been over school closures and borders.

He said the shutting of borders early in the pandemic had not been the most pressing issue. “In hindsight, I think back then we should have addressed the principles around how those borders were being handled at that time. If I had my time over then I think we would have spent more time on that,” he said.

Referring to the woman’s case, he said: “It’s unthinkable …. to know that this family has had to be dealing with border permits at a time when … the only thing that mattered was the health of their child.”

“I hope I can get some better arrangements and [states will] hear my criticisms … on behalf of Australians we’ve got to try and get this worked out.”

Morrison said “the idea that we’re going to live with domestic borders until there’s a vaccine is a recipe for economic ruin. That is not the plan.

“The plan is to ensure testing, tracing and outbreak containment, strong quarantine, COVID safe behaviours in the workplace, in the home, at the footy club, at the ground, in this conference. That is how you live with the virus and keep people in jobs. Borders don’t do that.”

– ref. Scott Morrison pressures national cabinet to agree to ‘hotspot’ definition – https://theconversation.com/scott-morrison-pressures-national-cabinet-to-agree-to-hotspot-definition-145262

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor and Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney

British soldiers have reportedly been given insect repellent to help protect themselves against COVID-19.

The UK government’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory released a study showing the citriodiol-based spray can kill SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, in a lab.

We’re all on the lookout for new ways to get the best protection against COVID-19.

But just because a product is safe to use in its current form, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will provide either safe or sufficient protection against COVID-19.

What is citriodiol?

Health authorities around the world promote mosquito repellents to help protect against mosquito-borne disease.

But they don’t work by killing the viruses mosquitoes spread. They stop the mosquitoes biting us in the first place by blocking a mosquito’s ability to pick up on the smells that help them find us.

Read more: Can mosquitoes spread coronavirus?

There are dozens of different insect repellent formulations available, but most recommended products contain one of just a few different active ingredients.

The most common are diethyltoluamide (commonly known as DEET) and picaridin (also known as icaridin). There are also a variety of products that contain plant-based ingredients.

Citriodiol is a somewhat new arrival to the world of commercial insect repellent formulations, but there’s very strong evidence it provides effective protection against mosquito bites.

The chemical name for citriodiol is p-menthane-3,8-diol (commonly referred to as PMD) and it’s derived from the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora). Despite having origins in plants, citriodiol is considered a chemical repellent like DEET and picaridin.

In Australia, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority oversees its use. If you’ve got a citriodiol-based insect repellent, it will say “oil of lemon eucalyptus”, differentiating it from other oil-based repellents, such as tea-tree.

There’s no doubt citriodiol-based repellents provide protection from mosquito bites and health authorities around Australia should routinely recommend them to reduce the risk of mosquito-borne disease.

But could this product repel COVID-19 as well as mosquitoes?

Citriodiol and coronavirus

The UK government’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory assessed two ways citriodiol may kill SARS-CoV-2.

First, they used citriodiol as an anti-viral agent, applying the product directly to the virus in the lab. And second, they used it as a surface treatment of latex synthetic skin (designed to be like applying the product directly to human skin).

The first set of experiments demonstrated that, when used at a high concentration, the insect repellent killed the virus.

In the second experiments, application of the insect repellent to the latex synthetic skin reduced the amount of virus detected after four hours. But the virus wasn’t completely destroyed.

Read more: We know how long coronavirus survives on surfaces. Here’s what it means for handling money, food and more

We need more research to understand how exactly citriodiol might kill the virus. The process may be similar to that of hand sanitisers and other disinfecting products.

These preliminary findings are encouraging but are intended to act as the foundation for future peer-reviewed research. They shouldn’t be grounds for recommending the use of insect repellents containing citriodiol to prevent COVID-19.

Could existing formulations of citriodiol be safe to use?

It’s important to note there are strict warnings provided on the use of citriodiol-based repellents. They shouldn’t be used on children under 12 months of age and, like many other repellents, may cause irritation to eyes or the skin. You certainly shouldn’t be drinking it.

There may well be potential in this product as an anti-viral agent or disinfectant. But for such uses, we’d need alternative registration, packaging, and directions. This may mean a completely different registration process involving other government authorities, such as the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

This is because it’s not just what’s in the product, but how it’s used. If someone was to use an insect repellent as frequently as a hand sanitiser, perhaps the risks of an adverse reaction would increase.

Read more: The best (and worst) ways to beat mosquito bites

There have been previous examples where products with different uses are combined and require different directions to ensure they’re used safely and effectively.

Mosquito repellents that include sunscreen may pose a greater risk if they’re primarily used for sun protection. Sunscreen should be applied more frequently and at greater volumes compared to insect repellents.

The risk of adverse health outcomes from using insect repellents is low, but excessive use should be avoided. These types of products which combine insect repellent and sunscreen are restricted in some countries.

If you want to avoid COVID-19, you’re better off sticking to social distancing, hand hygiene and wearing a mask than reaching for the closest insect repellent.

– ref. Could an insect repellent with citriodiol help fight the bite of COVID-19? Not so fast – https://theconversation.com/could-an-insect-repellent-with-citriodiol-help-fight-the-bite-of-covid-19-not-so-fast-145171

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

University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Assistant Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics.

This week the pair discuss a week’s worth of question time, the government’s proposed bill to cancel agreements entered into by states and territories with foreign governments, the JobReady Graduates legislation, and the state of emergency in Victoria.

– ref. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on a week of parliament, aged-care, and the Victorian state of emergency – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-a-week-of-parliament-aged-care-and-the-victorian-state-of-emergency-145247

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Seale, Senior Lecturer, UNSW

When we hear of people who have allegedly escaped from mandatory quarantine — whether that’s from hotels in Perth, Toowoomba, Sydney or Auckland — it’s easy to ask: “What were they thinking? Why didn’t they just follow the rules?”.

But our recent review shows people are less likely to follow public health advice if they misunderstand, or have negative attitudes towards it.

The challenge is that while COVID-19 has been with us since the beginning of the year, we still may not necessarily know someone in our close networks who has been in quarantine. We may be relying on a deluge of misinformation about it from the media, or social media.

So how can we use our knowledge of human behaviour to better support people complying with quarantine?

Which factors affect what we think about quarantine?

We reviewed the range of factors that influence people’s engagement or compliance with COVID-19 public health advice, such as quarantine. These included:

• perceptions around the rationale and effectiveness of quarantine

• perceived consequences of complying (or not)

• perceptions about the level of community and personal risk from COVID-19

• having enough basic supplies (for instance, food, water, clothes).

Gender, age, marital status, professional status and education level also played a role in whether people complied, but clearly, these cannot be modified.

Read more: Another day, another hotel quarantine fail. So what can Australia learn from other countries?

The facts are important, but so are emotions

Our review found one of the major factors affecting people’s likelihood to comply with quarantine is their knowledge about COVID-19, how the virus is transmitted, symptoms of infection, and quarantine protocols.

Not understanding what quarantine means and its purpose may lead to people inventing their own rules, based on what they think is an acceptable degree of contact or risk.

Perhaps not too surprising, if we believe quarantine is beneficial, then we are more likely to follow the rules. However, providing people with merely factual information may not be the answer. We need to engage with people’s emotions too.

Emotions can influence our perception of risk, sometimes more so than factual information. For example, we often hear about the negative experiences of quarantine or self-isolation, but often not the positive frame, for instance the number of people who have successfully complied. This helps normalise quarantine, and make people more likely to copy the expected behaviour.

Social norms play an important role. If people believe there is a collective commitment to protect the community from further spread of infection, they are more likely to respect the public health measure. An individual’s participation can be conditional on whether they think others are also contributing.

However, social norms can also have the opposite effect. If people think others are breaking the quarantine rules, they may follow suit.

Concerns about stigma or discrimination can also impact a person’s willingness to comply with quarantine. Stigma can make people more likely to hide symptoms or illness, keep them from seeking health care immediately, and prevent people from adopting healthy behaviours.

Lastly, people may push back against the regulations as a way of retaining a feeling of control. They may push back because they are stressed or anxious, which in turn affects how they think about the issue or how they make decisions.

So how do we use this?

To support acceptance of and community compliance with quarantine, we need to take these behavioural issues into account. We need to:

1. prepare people for what they might experience: boredom, loss of freedom or routine, irritability and/or anxiety. Priming people may help them think about ways to reduce these issues

2. encourage people to make plans as we know this helps people cope. Encouraging people to stick to similar (pre-quarantine) routines may help people avoid getting anxious or stressed. These plans need to be time-specific and intentional, not aspirational. For instance, we could encourage people to structure time for exercise and for virtual socialising. Others have suggested doing shared activities, such as watching a movie on Netflix at the same time

3. provide access to social, pyschological and medical support whether that’s via reliable internet access or access to helplines

4. provide adequate basic supplies such as food, water and clothes, and a safe and clean place to quarantine

5. encourage our leaders to clearly articulate, and others to reinforce, that complying with quarantine is in our group interest and it’s expected people will pull their weight. And if they don’t, this won’t be acceptable

6. provide media coverage that reflects the fact most people comply. Examples of people who run away from quarantine clearly represent quarantine failures, but they are outliers. Perhaps its time to look at the proportion of people who have complied with hotel quarantine as we need to establish the collective norm is to comply

7. provide people with adequate sick leave and other structural supports, such as the ability to work remotely, alongside any solutions supporting behaviour change.

– ref. 7 ways to better design quarantine, based on what we know about human behaviour – https://theconversation.com/7-ways-to-better-design-quarantine-based-on-what-we-know-about-human-behaviour-144791

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Heap, Adjunct professor, Australian Catholic University

There has been little comfort for AMP’s female employees in the corporate heavyweight’s bid to put its sexual harassment scandal to bed.

Nor, for that matter, women in any workplace.

The resignations of AMP’s chairman David Murray and board member John Fraser this week were the culmination of events beginning with a revolt by female employees in early July, after it was revealed the newly appointed chief executive of AMP’s investment management division had been disciplined for sexual harassment in 2017.

AMP’s blind spot may have been extreme – with the cultural and reputational costs eclipsed by the perceived value of Pahari to AMP Capital’s A$192 billion investment management business – but its reactive approach to sexual harassment is hardly unique. In fact, it’s a systemic feature of Australian corporate culture.

Even in resigning Murray made it clear he backed how the board dealt with the complaint (docking Pahari a quarter of his A$2 million bonus in 2017).

“However,” Murray said, “it is clear to me that, although there is considerable support for our strategy, some shareholders did not consider Mr Pahari’s promotion to AMP Capital CEO to be appropriate.”

The two board resignations, along with Pahari’s demotion, were indeed forced by an ultimatum from AMP’s biggest investors. By all appearances, the board’s approach in this case has been to treat sexual harassment as a risk to its share price, rather than a risk to the health and safety of its employees.

And that’s a problem bigger than AMP.

Read more: AMP doesn’t just have a women problem. It has an everyone problem

It’s a reactive, legalistic approach

Reactive management of sexual harassment is common, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission, whose National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces reported in March:

Current approaches to preventing and responding to sexual harassment in workplaces are inadequate. They typically focus on policies that prohibit sexual harassment and complaint mechanisms for workers to report it. They are reactive, legalistic and often contribute to ongoing (albeit unintended) harm to workers. These approaches, which have remained largely unchanged for decades, have failed to stop rising rates of workplace sexual harassment.

The inquiry was established in 2018, in light of the #metoo movement and the Commission’s own findings that one in three workers had been sexually harassed in the previous five years, with fewer than 20% making a formal complaint.

Read more: 72% of Australians have been sexually harassed. The system we have to fix this problem is set up to fail

Its report notes that throughout the inquiry “the commission heard of the need to shift from the current reactive, complaints-based approach, to one which requires positive actions from employers and a focus on prevention”.

Sexual harassment as discrimination

How sexual harassment is managed is shaped by it being regulated through anti-discrimination legislation.

This began in the late 1970s, when states enacted anti-discrimination laws. Then in 1984 the Hawke Labor government passed the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which specifically prohibited sexual harassment in the workplace. The Act defines sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance, unwelcome request or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.

Anti-discrimination law puts an emphasis on individual rights. Its remedies require individuals taking action to assert or defend those rights. The problem is that in more than 80% of cases those sexually harassed don’t make a formal complaint.

Read more: Women don’t speak up over workplace harassment because no one hears them if they do

As the Sexual Harassment National Inquiry Report notes:

the current system for addressing workplace sexual harassment in Australia is complex and confusing for victims and employers to understand and navigate. It also places a heavy burden on individuals to make a complaint. It means most people who experience sexual harassment never report it. They fear the impact that complaining will have on their reputation, career prospects and relationships within their community or industry.

Making it a health and safety issue

A “positive” approach focused on prevention, as recommended by the Australian Human Rights Commission, requires shifting to management of sexual harassment as a work health and safety issue.

Workplace health and safety laws are premised on an employer’s “positive duty” to keep workers safe. They require employers to identify risks to the health of employees, and eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.

Workplace health and safety regulators have historically not paid attention to sexual harassment as a health and safety issue. This is partly due to the law’s focus on it as a discrimination issue, and partly due to regulators’ traditional focus on preventing physical injuries and deaths.

But with increasing awareness of mental health issues, and of psychosocial work hazards including sexual harassment, this is beginning to change.

Read more: Workplace sexual harassment is a public health issue and should be treated as such

In March, WorkSafe Victoria adopted guidance material to educate employers on their duties to prevent sexual harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004.

This material (which followed a campaign by Victorian unions and community organisations) is the first of its kind from a work health and safety regulator in Australia. It reminds employers:

Where there is a risk of work-related sexual harassment causing physical or mental injury employers have an obligation under the OHS Act to control that risk.

Unions and others are campaigning for New South Wales to follow suit. The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended law changes to the federal government to implement a “positive approach”.

AMP’s self-inflicted wounds demonstrate the need for an such an overhaul. A board treating sexual harassment as a matter of health and safety would have to eliminate or manage the risk of it.

Had AMP taken proactive steps to protect workers from sexual harassment, it could have avoided this situation.

– ref. Sexual harassment at work isn’t just discrimination. It needs to be treated as a health and safety issue – https://theconversation.com/sexual-harassment-at-work-isnt-just-discrimination-it-needs-to-be-treated-as-a-health-and-safety-issue-144940

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keith Rathbone, Lecturer, Modern European History and Sports History, Macquarie University

This week, the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks refused to take the court in protest over the police shooting of a Black man in Wisconsin, Jacob Blake, who remains paralysed in hospital.

The players’ boycott immediately threatened the viability of the NBA’s playoffs, endangering the most lucrative part of the season for the league. The players were also risking millions of their own dollars to raise their voices against racism in America.

As the Bucks players later explained in a statement,

We are calling for justice for Jacob Blake and demand the officers be held accountable. […] We encourage all citizens to educate themselves, take peaceful and responsible action, and remember to vote on November 3.

The protest quickly spread across the NBA, where players are increasingly using their social clout to demand action on labour issues from the league and owners. Under pressure from other teams, the league postponed several games. Lakers star LeBron James was quick to remind fans, however, the players were actually boycotting the games — this wasn’t a mere postponement.

And the action quickly spread across the sporting landscape: the WNBA, Major League Baseball and Major League Soccer all cancelled games to protest the Blake shooting. Tennis pro Naomi Osaka refused to play her semifinal match at a tournament, tweeting this:

Remember the backlash against Colin Kaepernick?

The NBA boycott comes four years to the day that US football player Colin Kaepernick started kneeling before NFL games. The NFL blackballed him due to the protest — and he has yet to return to the league.

Since then, however, other American sporting leagues, particularly the NBA, have supported their players’ right to protest and voice their opinions on political issues.

Last month, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver defended players’ right to kneel during the national anthem. The COVID bubble where the playoffs are being held also features Black Lives Matter jerseys, signs and floor decals.

Although the players have voted to resume the playoffs after a day, they made a statement that would have been unthinkable in the sports world just a few years ago.

Read more: The Olympics have always been a platform for protest. Banning hand gestures and kneeling ignores their history

Despite risking millions of dollars in salary, endorsements and bonuses, many players have shown they are willing to pay the price, potentially even jeopardising their careers, because they are simply fed up with unchecked police violence against people of colour.

As Toronto Raptors guard Fred VanVleet told reporters,

if we’re gonna sit here and talk about making change, then at some point we’re gonna have to put our [manhood] on the line and actually put something up to lose.

Some players are also becoming political in more direct ways. James, for instance, has raised millions to pay off the fines for convicted felons to allow them to vote. Chris Paul of the Oklahoma City Thunder, meanwhile, registered his whole team to vote.

What happens if the NBA loses money, though?

Whether the NBA continues to stand by players in their protests, however, remains to be seen.

The league reportedly stands to lose upwards of US$1 billion in revenue if the playoffs are cancelled. Not only that, the bubble itself cost the NBA US$170 million just to set up.

Read more: Why US sports stars are taking a knee against Trump

If the playoffs do end early, the relationship between the league and players could very well be broken, possibly leading to a lockout next season. This, in turn, would further devastate the finances of both players and the league.

Trapped between the competing demands of its advertisers, TV partners, owners and players, the NBA has until now remained remarkably silent about the boycott. The big question is how the league will respond if fans start to tune out and the protests ultimately start to cost it money.

Crucially, it should be noted the NBA collective bargaining agreement bans strikes, so in effect, the players’ actions could be in violation of this (though there is some debate over whether this was a “boycott” or a “strike”).

Silver, the NBA commissioner, has been faced by a somewhat similar dilemma before. Last year, Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted support for the Hong Kong protests, angering the Chinese government to such an extent, the state broadcaster stopped airing NBA games — and still hasn’t resumed.

Silver has said the league could lose as much as US$400 million in revenue from China, yet he still stuck by Morey’s right to express himself.

The future of sport is no doubt political

For many NBA players and coaches, police violence is personal. Some Bucks players have spoken out about their own difficult experiences with the police. Clippers coach Doc Rivers tearfully explained how hard it was loving a country so much that “does not love us back”.

The players have also been supported by many inside the sport. NBA refs are marching in solidarity with the players, while one commentator walked off the set during a live broadcast.

But criticisms are also coming in from other parts of society. Author Juanita Broaddrick tweeted a message directly to James, telling him to “Move to China”, which was liked nearly 35,000 times.

President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, meanwhile, said NBA players were

very fortunate that they have the financial position where they’re able to take a night off from work.

But despite the inevitable backlash, the boycott feels like the start of “something big”, to quote one sports columnist.

Taking a knee before a game or raising a fist during a medal ceremony rocked the country, but never before has a league just had to shut it down. Now we have, at least for a day.

In a sign of just how far such politically motivated protests could go, even the National Hockey League, the whitest pro sport in North America, decided to postpone games following Blake’s shooting.

Sports figures won’t stay silent anymore when it comes to politics, nor should they be expected to.

Read more: Is Russia worthy of hosting the World Cup?

– ref. Athletes won’t stay silent on politics anymore. But will leagues support their protests if it costs them real money? – https://theconversation.com/athletes-wont-stay-silent-on-politics-anymore-but-will-leagues-support-their-protests-if-it-costs-them-real-money-145238

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathleen McPhillips, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle

Investigative journalist Suzie Smith’s new book The Altar Boys is a searing read that raises new questions about the suicides of three former victims of Catholic clergy child sexual abuse.

Smith, a former award-winning ABC journalist, has been covering the clerical abuse crisis in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese for many years. She wrote the book in part to bring new attention to the three victims, whose suicides remain shrouded in mystery, despite two public inquiries.

The Altar Boys recounts the lives — and deaths — of Glen Walsh, Steven Alward and Andrew Nash. All three of them were victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clerics in the diocese.

Andrew Nash was just 13 years old when he committed suicide in 1974 after being sexually abused at St. Francis Xavier College in Hamilton, NSW. Andrew was in the care of two Marist Brothers who have since been convicted on child sex offences.

Walsh committed suicide in 2017, just weeks before he was due to give evidence at the trial of Archbishop Philip Wilson. Wilson had been charged with failing to report to police that paedophile priest James Fletcher was abusing boys in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese. He was convicted in 2018, but was set free after the judgement was quashed.

And Steven Alward, a respected ABC journalist and close friend of Smith’s, took his own life shortly after Walsh, in January 2018.

Both Walsh and Alward grew up together in Newcastle and were altar boys at the local Catholic church. They were also victims of child sexual abuse.

According to the book, Alward told his brother he was abused by notorious paedophile priest John Denham at St. Pius X High School in Adamstown. Smith details how Walsh was allegedly abused by Marist Brother Coman Sykes while he was staying at a Marist brothers-owned house west of Sydney.

Calls for new inquiry into the death of Glen Walsh

This area of New South Wales is recognised as one of the epicentres of clerical abuse in Australia, along with Wollongong and Ballarat in Victoria.

Since the Wood Royal Commission investigated paedophilia in this area in the 1990s, there have been numerous police task forces and two public inquiries into child sex abuse — the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse. The royal commission held public hearings in the Maitland-Newcastle region for over a month in 2016.

Smith’s book sheds new light on the institutional child sexual abuse and alleged cover-ups in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese, especially related to the treatment of the whistleblower priest Glen Walsh.

Last week, NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge called for an urgent judicial inquiry into Walsh’s suicide and the events leading up to the tragedy.

A letter from Bishop Bill Wright to the Catholic community in response, however, said church leaders see no reason to investigate these matters further as they are “historical” and have been addressed by previous inquiries.

The story of Walsh’s decline and suicide

In her book, Smith details what happened in Walsh’s life after his abuse, when he became a priest himself in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese.

In 2004, Walsh was sent to work in the upper Hunter parishes of Branxton/Greta to take over following the arrest of Fletcher on child sex abuse charges.

When two young men told Walsh about being abused by Fletcher, Walsh defied church practice and reported the matters to the police, including detective sergeant Peter Fox. Fox’s explosive allegations about the links between the police and Catholic clergy in the diocese would later spark the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry.

Read more: The Catholic Church is headed for another sex abuse scandal as #NunsToo speak up

By taking this action, Walsh was ostracised and banished from the diocese. Smith recounts how his health deteriorated and he became homeless, asking to return to the diocese on numerous occasions. He finally got his wish in 2017 when Wright invited Walsh back to Newcastle.

After Wilson, the archbishop, was charged with covering up child sex abuse, Walsh became a key witness for the prosecution.

Smith describes an episode – until now not public knowledge – where prior to Wilson’s court case, Walsh was called to Rome for a private interview with Pope Francis. The pope reportedly wanted to know what Walsh would say in court, as Cardinal George Pell waited for him outside the room.

Just weeks before he was due to give evidence, Walsh took his own life.

He was vindicated during the trial when Magistrate Robert Stone found Walsh had in fact telephoned Wilson in 2004 and reported the child sexual abuse inflicted by Fletcher on numerous boys.

Questions still need to be answered

There are many unanswered questions about the deaths of all three victims. Importantly, Smith also links these deaths to the issue of ongoing suicides and sudden deaths among survivors of alleged child sex abuse in the Maitland-Newcastle area.

The Clergy Abused Network, a regional support group for survivors and their families, has kept a register of deaths by suspected suicide — the number now totals over 60.

To continue to frame this issue as “historical”, as Bishop Wright did in his letter, is problematic and harmful and ignores the ongoing tragedy of suicides in this region. This issue is hardly historical — it is happening now.

Read more: Royal commission hearings show Catholic Church faces a massive reform task

If there is further evidence, as Smith’s book suggests, of failure by Catholic officials in the investigation of suspected child sex abuse cases, then another judicial inquiry is justified.

What has compounded the trauma for survivors and their families that the findings of the Child Abuse Royal Commission’s case study 43, which examined child sexual abuse in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese, have yet to be released.

Survivors and their families should have access to the final report, which continues to be withheld. They deserve to see if it contains more answers to these tragedies.

– ref. The Altar Boys: new questions about suicides of clergy abuse survivors should spark another inquiry – https://theconversation.com/the-altar-boys-new-questions-about-suicides-of-clergy-abuse-survivors-should-spark-another-inquiry-144962

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Harris Rimmer, Professor and Director of the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

Australia is a nation of enthusiastic travellers, it is one of our defining national characteristics.

At any given time, around a million of us are living and working overseas. In 2019, a record 11.3 million Australian residents went on short-term trips, double the figure of ten years earlier.

But COVID-19 has radically changed our capacity to go and be overseas. Will we ever travel so easily and readily again?

You don’t have the ‘rights’ you probably thought you had

Travel may be of huge importance to Australians, but it is not a right or entitlement.

When you leave Australia, you also take on an element of risk. The federal government has long-warned their help in a crisis will have “limits”. The consular services charter says,

You don’t have a legal right to consular assistance and you shouldn’t assume assistance will be provided.

Australians don’t even have the absolute right to a passport, although in practice, it is rarely denied.

International law provides for the right to freedom of movement – both in and out of Australia. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says,

Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. [This] shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order … public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others … No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Australia ratified the covenant in 1980, but there is no Commonwealth legislation enshrining the right of freedom of movement.

Even if there was, this doesn’t mean it would override legitimate public health concerns.

Coming home is no longer simple

In March, when the pandemic took off, the Morrison government advised Australians overseas to return home.

But coming back is no longer a simple question of booking a ticket and getting on a flight. For one thing, the global airline industry has collapsed, making available flights scarce.

Read more: Why airlines that can pivot to ultra-long-haul flights will succeed in the post-coronavirus era

As part of Australia’s COVID response, caps have also now been placed on international arrivals. In July, the number of Australian citizens and residents allowed into the country was then reduced by a third, from about 7,000 to about 4,000 a week, to ease the pressure on the hotel quarantine system. This system will be in place until at least October.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison explained he knew this made it more difficult for people to come home, but the policy was not “surprising or unreasonable”. Rather,

[it will] ensure that we could put our focus on the resources needed to do testing and tracing.

Nightmare logistics

According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, more than 371,000 Australians overseas have returned since March.

But more than 18,000 are still stuck overseas, saying they want to come home. Last week, a Senate inquiry heard about 3,000 of this group were “vulnerable” for medical and financial reasons.

There are a growing number of media reports detailing the stories of those stranded overseas. Many are desperate to return for financial and personal reasons.

People have spoken about the complex logistics involved in returning – including lack of available flights, lack of affordable flights – with reports of tickets costing as much as A$20,000 – strict border controls to exit the country they are in, and the cost of quarantining when they get home.

Internal border closures in Australia have added a further level of complexity.

On Friday, The Sydney Morning Herald reported the Morrison government was drawing up new plans to evacuate Australians stuck overseas.

It is worth noting that despite people’s understandable frustrations, the Australian government has limited options to help here – and the options they do have are not simple. They can potentially charter flights or cruise ships, but this is not straightforward because it requires agreements from host countries, available planes and ships, and can be hugely expensive.

Leaving Australia is no longer simple, either

Less visible, but very concerning from a rights perspective, is the Australians who are stuck in Australia. A state generally should allow citizens to leave their own country.

There are wide-ranging bans on people leaving Australia during the coronavirus pandemic, with a limited range of exemptions.

There are obviously compelling reasons why people will still want to travel, given Australia’s strong international connections, especially when close relatives are ill or dying overseas.

But again, we don’t actually have a “right” under domestic law to leave Australia – with the federal government able to control our movements under the Biosecurity Determination 2020.

Read more: Ruby Princess inquiry blames NSW health officials for debacle

Between March 25 and August 16, Australian Border Force received 104,785 travel exemption requests. Of these, 34,379 were granted a discretionary exemption. Some perhaps more discretionary than others – entrepreneur Jost Stollmann was granted an exemption to travel overseas to pick up his new luxury yacht.

The way we think about travel needs to change

Significant Australia’s diplomatic resources have been going into supporting Australians overseas during COVID-19. In July, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reported 80% of its staff took part in the response effort.

Secretary Frances Adamson has also noted her department’s approach to COVID-19 had to go “well beyond what’s written in our consular charter”.

Given the range of pressing foreign policy issues at the moment, a serious question is how much of the Department of Foreign Affairs’ time and attention should be spent on consular services? What is being lost in other diplomatic efforts trying to get Australians home?

Australians need to grapple with the idea that the government doesn’t have to “get them back” if they travel overseas (even if it wants to). And under Australian law, we don’t have a “right” to leave the country.

Read more: How COVID-19 could impact travel for years to come

We don’t know how long these COVID changes will last – particularly if efforts to create a vaccine are not successful. So, the way we think of travel and our risk calculations may unfortunately need to change. This might result in the biggest shift in our travel mindset since the 1950s, when international travel opened up to ordinary Australians.

With rising awareness of climate impacts of travel, this may not be a wholly negative development. But a deeper conversation is still required about the right to freedom of movement for Australian citizens.

– ref. Australians don’t have a ‘right’ to travel. Does COVID mean our days of carefree overseas trips are over? – https://theconversation.com/australians-dont-have-a-right-to-travel-does-covid-mean-our-days-of-carefree-overseas-trips-are-over-144862

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cheryl Brown, Associate Professor of e-Learning, University of Canterbury

Walking into my building just prior to New Zealand’s most recent heightened alert levels, I found students and staff alike were cramming in a last bit of social contact before the one metre rule came into effect.

I passed post-grad students on the stairs popping onto campus to collect their laptop or headphones, anxiously asking each other how they were doing.

It’s not like universities haven’t been preparing for the possibility of a return to emergency remote learning, but the sudden change in alert levels still came as a shock.

As universities return for the final months of the academic year, it’s important we recognise the challenges ahead. The re-emergence of COVID-19 community transmission in Aotearoa shows how tenuous our circumstances are. It’s becoming apparent the world will be living with this for some time, so the need to be flexible and adaptable is coming into clear focus.

Aside from all the logistical demands of the new normal, we need to listen to student voices more than ever. As the OECD has noted, COVID-19 has disproportionately affected young people, and they must be adequately represented in our responses and recovery.

Can do better

The change in alert levels meant the sudden closure of Auckland’s several university campuses and no more scheduled teaching for the duration. Remote learning via online materials, recorded lectures and online classes has become the norm.

Even in the rest of New Zealand, where the alert level was lower, university life was affected.

Read more: A new community case of COVID-19 in New Zealand is a matter of when, not if. Is the country prepared for it?

Strategies ranged from moving lectures online (but continuing small specialist teaching), limiting numbers in lectures while encouraging online participation, or blending organised classes and remote learning.

But not everyone has appreciated these initiatives or their implementation. New Zealand Union of Students Association (NZUSA) president Isabella Lenihan-Ikin criticised universities for not consulting more with those at the sharp end of the changes – the students.

Lockdowns reinforce inequality

Te Mana Ākonga (the National Māori Tertiary Students Association) and the New Zealand Union of Students’ Association conducted rapid research on the impacts of COVID-19 on the work, personal and learning lives of students during the lockdown.

The picture that emerged indicated increased stress and anxiety, much of it caused by uncertainty over finances and the future. This won’t necessarily have abated during the 100 COVID-free days prior to the second outbreak.

Read more: Anxious about speaking in online classes and meetings? Here are 7 tips to make it easier

Students are not a homogeneous group and online learning is not the same for everyone. So it wasn’t surprising to find issues of access and equity emerging.

The lockdown highlighted inequalities in the personal circumstances of students that affected a range of things: reliability of internet access, the ability to structure and manage their learning, and a lack of social connection and support.

When I checked with my students during a Zoom video class in the middle of lockdown, they indicated motivation, time management and routine, home life (including family responsibilities) and lack of social opportunities as key challenges.

Again, these issues won’t have changed just because we are now more experienced at the rapid pivot to online learning.

Online lectures work

The crisis has given students a glimpse into a blended and flexible teaching and learning environment and what might be possible. They are keen to explore how the successful elements from this experience might enhance the conventional on-campus environment.

For example, in a recent poll run by the University of Canterbury Student Association (UCSA) 98% said they wanted lectures to continue to be available online.

With that kind of majority saying online lectures support their learning and well-being, universities simply can’t afford to return to business as usual. Academics, too, will need support to achieve the right blend of teaching options.

Listen to the students

If COVID-19 restrictions are to be a feature of life for the foreseeable future, what will students want right now? First of all, that we talk to them to find out what their needs are. Seek quick feedback on what is working best for students and be adaptable. Consistency is also important, given the fluid circumstances we find ourselves in.

Social learning and connection are critical elements of learning. So we need to encourage virtual spaces for student interaction, such as study groups and informal learning groups on social media.

Read more: Videos won’t kill the uni lecture, but they will improve student learning and their marks

Pastoral care is more important than ever. Learning is as much social-emotional as it is cognitive. We should set up voluntary real-time interactions that don’t focus only on academic content and requirements. We need to:

• be present
• make sure to connect with students
• be kind and flexible with those who need it
• don’t overload information
• keep a routine and set up learning structures – e.g. weekly objectives and tasks with suggested ways to achieve results.

If you are a New Zealand tertiary student you can share your experiences of online learning here. This is part of a cross-institutional research project exploring the challenges and opportunities experienced by students during lockdown.

This sudden move to online wasn’t a choice. But the crisis gives us an opportunity to shift our practices, focus on what we really value, and use disruption for positive and lasting change.

Thanks to the many colleagues and students who shared their insights and experiences of online learning with me during the lockdown.

– ref. What do students need in the age of lockdown learning? Early lessons from New Zealand’s online frontline – https://theconversation.com/what-do-students-need-in-the-age-of-lockdown-learning-early-lessons-from-new-zealands-online-frontline-144406

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Annette Gough, Professor Emerita of Science and Environmental Education, RMIT University

Young people are increasingly frightened by the spectre of natural hazards and disasters, but they see schools as failing to equip them with the skills they need for these events.

That’s according to the recent Our World, Our Say national report, which surveyed 1,477 Australians aged 10 to 24.

While almost two-thirds (64%) of respondents said they have experienced at least three hazard events such as bushfires, heatwaves and drought in the past three years, a staggering 88% believe they’re not being taught enough to protect themselves and their communities.

In fact, they say they’re learning more about earthquakes in class than more relevant hazards, such as bushfires, floods, drought and tropical cyclones. And they are not wrong.

Young people want to learn about natural hazards and disasters that are relevant to them. After all, it’s their future, and changes in their education can help them thrive in a world of rapid social, environmental and technological change.

They don’t feel heard

The Our World, Our Say survey was conducted by the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience and World Vision Australia.

Along with issues in the curriculum, the survey also shows young people are deeply worried about climate change and see an urgent need to “reduce the intensity and frequency of disasters through climate action”. On this front, most of the survey respondents feel Australia is not doing enough.

Adding to their frustrations, survey respondents feel ignored by politicians. Nearly 90% said government leaders aren’t listening to their concerns, and that they don’t have a voice on climate change and disaster risk.

Read more: The terror of climate change is transforming young people’s identity

What do young people learn at school?

The devastating Black Summer bushfires demonstrated you need not live in the bush for bushfires to affect you. Yet the coverage of bushfires in the Australian Curriculum (and its state and territory adaptations) is sparse, especially when compared with the coverage of earthquakes and volcanoes.

The Australian Curriculum for Science for Year 6 has students investigating major geological events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis in Australia, the Asia region and throughout the world.

In Year 8 they investigate the role of science in the development of technology related to earthquake prediction. In Year 9 they expand on their learning of earthquakes, and other geomorphological hazards (volcanic eruption, earthquake, tsunami, landslide, avalanche) related to tectonic plates.

Read more: Bushfire education is too abstract. We need to get children into the real world

The main coverage of bushfires is in Year 5 Humanities and Social Sciences, where students study “the impact of bushfires or floods on environments and communities, and how people can respond”.

Even here the teacher can choose to study floods instead of bushfires. The frequency and intensity of both bushfires and floods are increasing with climate change, so students need to be learning about both.

Learning about bushfires is also an option in Year 8 Geography, but it’s included as an alternative to studying earthquakes and volcanoes.

The only coverage of bushfires in the Science curriculum is in Year 9 where students investigate how ecosystems change as a result of events such as bushfires, drought and flooding. Once again, bushfires are an option, rather than a requirement.

Students are facing increased extreme weather events around Australia, including intense heavy rainfall, high fire danger days and high intensity storms. We must ensure current and future generations of school students have the knowledge and skills to prevent, mitigate and adapt to this future.

Climate change education is also missing

The Our World, Our Say survey respondents are also right about the curriculum not covering climate change.

Climate change-related topics in national and state curricula are found only in the senior secondary (Years 11 and 12) and secondary (Years 7 to 10) Humanities, Geography and Science learning areas, with many being optional.

Read more: Ever wondered what our curriculum teaches kids about climate change? The answer is ‘not much’

There is no explicit mention of climate change in the Foundation to Year 6 curriculum, and the Australian Education Council recently removed the references to climate change in the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration.

But according to the Paris Agreement on climate change, Australia has a moral imperative and legal obligation to include climate change education in its curriculum. And, as the school strikes have demonstrated, students want to learn about climate change.

Students can be agents of change

Australia is a signatory to the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which says disaster risk knowledge must be incorporated into formal and non-formal education.

The Sendai Framework also recognises children and youth as agents of change who should be given the opportunity to contribute to disaster risk reduction through school curricula.

Australian research from 2018 reinforces this. It found when disaster education positions children and youth as agents of change, they not only learn essential knowledge and skills, but also make extremely valuable contributions to risk reduction activities in their households, schools and communities.

They can create workshops or games to educate others about disaster planning and preparedness; produce short films or books showcasing local knowledge or hazard management strategies; and present recommendations for youth-centred emergency management planning to decision-makers.

Read more: Students striking for climate action are showing the exact skills employers look for

They’re doing it right overseas

Australia could learn from New Zealand where a climate change curriculum has been released.

It aims to increase awareness of climate change and understand the response to and impacts of climate change globally, nationally and locally. It also explores opportunities to contribute to reducing and adapting to climate change impacts on everyday life.

We can also learn from Europe, where the EU Horizon 2020 Project developed a framework for child-centred disaster risk management. It started from the premise that, under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children and young people have the right to be heard on matters that affect them.

Read more: A familiar place among the chaos: how schools can help students cope after the bushfires

If the education of young people in Australia is about preparing them “to thrive in a time of rapid social and technological change, and complex environmental, social and economic challenges”, as the Australian Education Council recently proclaimed, then it’s clear schooling is failing them.

– ref. More bushfires, less volcanoes: young Australians need to learn about more relevant disasters – https://theconversation.com/more-bushfires-less-volcanoes-young-australians-need-to-learn-about-more-relevant-disasters-145163

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Meese, Research fellow, RMIT University

Given the recent commentary about the reforms proposed for the news media sector, you would be forgiven for thinking Google and Facebook are the only game in town.

The planned reforms arose from last year’s Digital Platforms Inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which focused squarely on the corporate behaviour of these two tech behemoths.

It is clear Google and Facebook will be the first platforms regulated under the draft mandatory code that will potentially force them to pay for content produced by Australian news media companies. The move is a response to what the ACCC describes as “a significant bargaining power imbalance […] between Australian news media businesses and Google and Facebook”.

This idea that news companies are essentially stuck with Google and Facebook, for better or worse, is a common view. Yet while that might have been true a few years ago, media companies are realising there are other ways to cultivate readers, and there’s no need to be beholden to tech platforms that generate clicks but don’t want to pay for the privilege.

In the mid-2010s, many news companies seemed to follow Facebook’s every move. When Facebook promoted video, the media invested in video. When it down-ranked clickbait headlines, content writers frantically altered their style to maintain their presence in the news feed. Newsrooms have had a similarly dependent (albeit less direct) relationship with Google.

The focus on adapting to Google and Facebooks’s algorithms completely changed newsroom practices over the past decade, as journalists have weighed editorial considerations against audience metrics.

Is this still the case?

This dependency developed at a time when major platforms, particularly Facebook, were engaging substantially with the distribution of news. But in recent years this trend has declined, as governments have begun to regulate platforms in response to concerns over “fake news”.

Facebook performed perhaps the most public pivot, changing its algorithm in January 2018 to promote content from users’ friends and family. As a result, traffic to news sites fell, leaving profit-starved media companies to pursue alternative strategies or simply lay off staff.

Read more: ‘Suck it and see’ or face a digital tax, former ACCC boss Allan Fels warns Google and Facebook

In our research, published earlier this year, we spoke to 15 Australian journalists and editors who had collectively worked across 11 media companies after the dust had settled from the 2019 crisis.

We asked them whether their companies still depend on Facebook for traffic, or whether they have moved to other platforms, or are now doing something else entirely to cultivate their readership.

Breaking up with Facebook

Many respondents, particularly those who had worked at newer companies focused on social media, revealed they had followed the demands of the Facebook algorithm at times. They had pivoted to video and had focused on share counts. However, respondents working at older media companies also noted that lots of readers still visited their publication’s home page, which challenges the idea that companies depend totally on Facebook.

Companies were also exploring different ways of generating revenue. These included placing ads inside content (known as native advertising) and holding events.

The standout trend, however, was a renewed focus on subscriptions, ensuring that a certain percentage of readers actually paid money for the news product at some point.

The Conversation (which does not charge for access to its content) was one of the newsrooms that saw a steep drop in traffic as a result of the January 2018 algorithm change. As such, it has pivoted its digital strategy to prioritise the channels over which it has the most control, particularly its daily newsletter.

That’s not to say companies have stopped trying to engage with big platforms. Many are consciously trying to make their news easy to find via Google search (a process called search engine optimisation. Some companies (including The Conversation) have also begun distributing news through Instagram (which is owned by Facebook).

Yet although the big platforms are doubtless here to stay, our research reveals a distinctly changed relationship between news and social media, compared with the past decade. Many companies, particularly newer ones like Buzzfeed and Vice, previously built huge audiences off the back of social media, and grew at a dizzying rate as a result. Now, companies are more interested in securing a stable revenue stream than in harvesting clicks.

The pandemic effect

This has become even more important amid the economic chaos caused by COVID-19. Advertising spending has dried up, leading to another round of media industry layoffs.

This suggests news media are still struggling to secure an alternative income stream to plug the hole in advertising revenue. The big question is whether big tech platforms will step in and help fill the gap by making financial contributions to news providers. Google’s current campaign against the draft mandatory code suggests they are deeply unwilling to do this.

Read more: Google’s ‘open letter’ is trying to scare Australians. The company simply doesn’t want to pay for news

Our research shows the relationship between news media and big tech platforms is far from straightforward. This is supported by a recent survey, which found that while many young people access news through social media, older people still prefer television or news websites. Not every Australian gets their news via social media.

There may come a time when platforms become the central access point for news, but it hasn’t happened yet. This doesn’t mean the ACCC should abandon platform regulation, but it does mean news companies are probably wise to find other ways of reaching their readers while they still can.

– ref. Facebook and Google used to be the future of news. But now media companies need more strings to their bow – https://theconversation.com/facebook-and-google-used-to-be-the-future-of-news-but-now-media-companies-need-more-strings-to-their-bow-145024

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dennis Altman, Professorial Fellow in Human Security, La Trobe University

On November 3, Americans will vote not only for president, but for all members of the House of Representatives, a third of the Senate and a long list of state and local positions.

While the names of Donald Trump, Joe Biden and presumably others appear on the ballot paper, voters actually vote for a list of electors in each state, known as the Electoral College. Their composition is based on the total number of members of Congress from each state: so, California has 55 votes, and seven states plus the District of Columbia have three.

Hillary Clinton’s problem in 2016 was that she won huge majorities in several large states but lost most of the smaller states, which the system slightly favours.

Read more: Trump can’t delay the election, but he can try to delegitimise it

The electors meet in each state capital and their votes are tallied and reported to a joint sitting of Congress. Members of the college are expected to vote for the candidate on whose list they appear. The Supreme Court has recently ruled to make this mandatory.

Australia borrowed the names of our two parliamentary chambers from the United States. But the crucial difference is that government here is determined by control of the House of Representatives. In the United States, with a separately elected president, Congress is less powerful, and within Congress the Senate is the more significant.

While the representatives are apportioned according to population, each state has two senators who serve for six years. With the power to block legislation and senior executive and judicial appointments, a hostile Senate can make a president impotent in many areas of domestic policy.

In the 1994 mid-term elections, two years into the presidency of Bill Clinton, the Republicans captured both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. In the past three decades, there have only been eight years in which the same party has held the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Read more: Trump is struggling against two invisible enemies: the coronavirus and Joe Biden

This is not an usual pattern in American politics and, as long as the two parties straddled a wide range of positions, it did not prevent effective government. Members of Congress were expected to vote according to the demands of their constituency, not the party. On crucial issues, such as civil rights legislation or the impeachment of Richard Nixon, they were willing to cross the floor.

However, over the past 30 years, party allegiances have hardened as the centre of gravity in the two parties has polarised. The once-solid Democratic South has become Republican heartland, strengthening an ever-growing right-wing base. Meanwhile, a reaction against the centrist policies of Clinton and Obama has led to a shift to the left by Democrats, causing problems for Democrats from conservative states, such as Senator Doug Jones from Alabama.

Jones is likely to lose a seat he won in a special election because his opponent was an alleged serial sex offender, so the Democrats need to gain five Senate seats to reverse the Republican majority. If the two parties tie, the vice president has a casting vote, which was the case when George W. Bush was elected in 2000. That election marked the start of the “red” versus “blue” state terminology, which in American fashion reversed the usual assumption that blue was the colour of conservatives, red of radicals.

No other Democrat up for re-election looks vulnerable, but there are a number of states where the Republican candidate could lose. The tightest contests are in states that are not solidly red nor blue: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine and North Carolina.

The stakes are high: in North Carolina almost US$50 million (A$70 million) has been raised so far for the two candidates from the main parties. North Carolina is also a key state for the presidency, which is why the truncated Republican Convention was based there. Like Arizona, it has largely voted Republican over the past 30 years, but rapid population growth is changing party allegiances. It might join Virginia as a former Confederate state now moving back to the Democrats.

The Republicans would need to win 18 seats in the house to regain a majority, which seems unlikely. Individual candidates matter a great deal, but few observers expect more than a handful of seats to change after the Democrats’ mid-term success in 2018.

The greatest problem facing Democrats in November is the systematic way in which Republican state governments have made it more difficult for their opponents to vote. Republican state legislatures have limited the availability of polling stations, made registration more difficult and tightened ID restrictions: in Texas a gun licence is acceptable, but student ID is not. The president is constantly casting doubt over the election, aiming at postal votes in particular.

Few democratic societies have as low a turnout to vote as the United States. The Republicans believe this works in their favour and will do all it takes to keep the figures low.

– ref. Winning the presidency won’t be enough: Biden needs the Senate too – https://theconversation.com/winning-the-presidency-wont-be-enough-biden-needs-the-senate-too-145034

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zoë Hyde, Senior Research Officer, University of Western Australia

Over the weekend, the World Health Organisation made an announcement you might have missed.

It recommended children aged 12 years and older should wear masks, and that masks should be considered for those aged 6-11 years. The German Society for Virology went further, recommending masks be worn by all children attending school.

This seems at odds with what we assumed about kids and COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic. Indeed, one positive in this pandemic so far has been that children who contract the virus typically experience mild illness. Most children don’t require hospitalisation and very few die from the disease. However, some children can develop a severe inflammatory syndrome similar to Kawasaki disease, although this is thankfully rare.

This generally mild picture has contributed to cases in children being overlooked. But emerging evidence suggests children might play a bigger role in transmission than originally thought. They may be equally as infectious as adults based on the amount of viral genetic material found in swabs, and we have seen large school clusters emerge in Australia and around the world.

How likely are children to be infected?

Working out how susceptible children are has been difficult. Pre-emptive school closures occurred in many countries, removing opportunities for the virus to circulate in younger age groups. Children have also missed out on testing because they typically have mild symptoms. In Australia, testing criteria were initially very restrictive. People had to have a fever or a cough to be tested, which children don’t always have. This hindered our ability to detect cases in children, and created a perception children weren’t commonly infected.

One way to address this issue is through antibody testing, which can detect evidence of past infection. A study of over 60,000 people in Spain found 3.4% of children and teenagers had antibodies to the virus, compared with 4.4% to 6.0% of adults. But Spain’s schools were also closed, which likely reduced children’s exposure.

Another method is to look at what happens to people living in the same household as a known case. The results of these studies are mixed. Some have suggested a lower risk for children, while others have suggested children and adults are at equal risk.

Children might have some protection compared to adults, because they have less of the enzyme which the virus uses to enter the body. So, given the same short exposure, a child might be less likely to be infected than an adult. But prolonged contact probably makes any such advantage moot.

The way in which children and adults interact in the household might explain the differences seen in some studies. This is supported by a new study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children and partners of a known case were more likely to be infected than other people living in the same house. This suggests the amount of close, prolonged contact may ultimately be the deciding factor.

How often do children transmit the virus?

Several studies show children and adults have similar amounts of viral RNA in their nose and throat. This suggests children and adults are equally infectious, although it’s possible children transmit the virus slightly less often than adults in practice. Because children are physically smaller and generally have more mild symptoms, they might release less of the virus.

In Italy, researchers looked at what happened to people who’d been in contact with infected children, and found the contacts of children were more likely to be infected than the contacts of adults with the virus.

Teenagers are of course closer to adults, and it’s possible younger children might be less likely to transmit the virus than older children. However, reports of outbreaks in childcare centres and primary schools suggest there’s still some risk.

What have we seen in schools?

Large clusters have been reported in schools around the world, most notably in Israel. There, an outbreak in a high school affected at least 153 students, 25 staff members, and 87 others. Interestingly, that particular outbreak coincided with an extreme heatwave where students were granted an exemption from having to wear face masks, and air conditioning was used continuously.

At first glance, the Australian experience seems to suggest a small role for children in transmission. A study of COVID-19 in educational settings in New South Wales in the first half of the year found limited evidence of transmission, although a large outbreak was noted to have occurred in a childcare centre.

This might seem reassuring, but it’s important to remember the majority of cases in Australia were acquired overseas at the time of the study, and there was limited community transmission. Also, schools switched to distance learning during the study, after which school attendance dropped to 5%. This suggests school safety is dependent on the level of community transmission.

Additionally, we shouldn’t be reassured by examples where children have not transmitted the virus to others. Approximately 80% of secondary COVID-19 cases are generated by only 10% of people. There are also many examples where adults haven’t transmitted the virus.

As community transmission has grown in Victoria, so has the significance of school clusters. The Al-Taqwa College outbreak remains one of Australia’s largest clusters. Importantly, the outbreak there has been linked to other clusters in Melbourne, including a major outbreak in the city’s public housing towers.

Close schools when community transmission is high

This evidence means we need to take a precautionary approach. When community transmission is low, face-to-face teaching is probably low-risk. But schools should switch to distance learning during periods of sustained community transmission. If we fail to address the risk of school outbreaks, they can spread into the wider community.

While most children won’t become severely ill if they contract the virus, the same cannot be said for their adult family members or their teachers. In the US, 40% of teachers have risk factors for severe COVID-19, as do 28.6 million adults living with school-aged children.

Recent recommendations on mask-wearing by older and younger children mirror risk-reduction guidelines for schools developed by the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. These guidelines stress the importance of face masks, improving ventilation, and the regular disinfection of shared surfaces.

The changing landscape

As the virus has spread more widely, the demographic profile of cases has changed. The virus is no longer confined to adult travellers and their contacts, and children are now commonly infected. In Germany, the proportion of children in the number of new infections is now consistent with their share of the total population.

While children are thankfully much less likely to experience severe illness than adults, we must consider who children have contact with and how they can contribute to community transmission. Unless we do, we won’t succeed in controlling the pandemic.

– ref. Children might play a bigger role in COVID transmission than first thought. Schools must prepare – https://theconversation.com/children-might-play-a-bigger-role-in-covid-transmission-than-first-thought-schools-must-prepare-144947

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Plank, Professor in Mathematics, University of Canterbury

As Auckland prepares to relax restrictions on Monday, contact-tracing data show the rapid decision to place New Zealand’s largest city under alert level 3 lockdown has undoubtedly prevented an explosive outbreak of COVID-19.

Our model of COVID-19 spread in New Zealand shows the extension by an extra four days at level 3 until Monday has also increased our chances of eliminating community transmission of the virus by about 10%.

Auckland has been at alert level 3 since August 12, less than 24 hours after the first new community cases of COVID-19 in more than 100 days were reported.

Contact-tracing data show that before Auckland’s move to level 3, the reproduction number was between 2 and 3. This means that on average each new case passed the virus on to two or three other people.

If we hadn’t acted quickly, we would have had hundreds of new cases by now, and it would have become far more difficult to bring the outbreak under control.

New Zealand’s largest cluster

The Auckland outbreak is New Zealand’s largest and most complex cluster to date, with 159 people, including 85 who have tested positive and their household contacts.

We have seen transmission in workplaces, churches, public transport and shops, as well as within households.

It has affected Auckland’s Pacific population, who are at higher risk of severe outcomes from the disease. The risks associated with this cluster are higher than those in the first outbreak, reinforcing the need to take a precautionary approach.

Read more: 6 months after New Zealand’s first COVID-19 case, it’s time for a more strategic approach

The contact tracing system has been a significant help in containing this outbreak, with more contacts traced faster than earlier in the year. But contacts between strangers are harder to trace, and some could slip through the net.

The fact that the infection was passed between strangers on bus journeys shows how stealthily this virus can spread. It also emphasises how rapidly it can move around the city.

Melbourne attempted to contain its COVID-19 outbreak by locking down certain postcodes, but the virus was always one step ahead and ultimately this tactic didn’t work. The Auckland-wide lockdown has proven to be the right approach.

Avoiding closed, crowded spaces

Although level 3 restrictions have been effective in preventing exponential growth of the cluster, active cases almost certainly remain in the community. These could easily spark a new outbreak if we relax too soon.

The extra time at level 3 will give us more confidence that the cluster is contained, but it is unlikely we will have completely eliminated the outbreak by Monday.

The Mt Roskill mini-cluster, which now has eight cases, shows we haven’t completely closed this outbreak down yet. But the fact this has now been genomically linked to the main Auckland cluster means it is unlikely to be part of a much bigger outbreak.

How we behave as we go into alert level 2 next week will be crucial in preventing a resurgence. If we can keep the reproduction number below 1, we will eventually eliminate the virus. But if the reproduction number goes above 1, there is a high chance the outbreak will flare up again.

Restrictions on gatherings of more than 10 people and compulsory mask use on public transport will help. But the best way to prevent a resurgence of the virus at level 2 is if we all avoid the three Cs: closed spaces, crowded places and close contacts.

Read more: Genome sequencing tells us the Auckland outbreak is a single cluster — except for one case

Likelihood of regional spread

So far the cluster has remained largely contained within Auckland. Restrictions on travel in and out of the city have certainly helped to stop the cluster from spreading to other regions.

From Monday, people will be able to travel to and from Auckland freely, and although we have reduced the number of cases in Auckland over the last two weeks, there is a risk of spreading COVID-19 around the country.

The virus could still pop up anywhere and it is essential all New Zealanders stick to level 2 rules, whether they live in Whangārei, Invercargill or anywhere in between.

We don’t necessarily have to get to zero new cases before lifting the level 3 restrictions. As we have seen before, case numbers bounce around from day to day. We may get zero or one cases one day, and four or five the next. What is more important is the type of cases we are seeing.

Last time we were at level 2, from May 14 to June 8, we had a handful of new cases but these were all acquired from a known source. If we get new cases with no apparent link to the cluster, or cases who have been in high-contact situations while potentially infectious, this will be a red flag. It would tell us that there could be many more cases we have missed.

But if most of our new cases are close contacts of existing cases, and ideally already in isolation, this is a good sign that the cluster has been successfully ringfenced.

What next

The criteria for moving to level 1 should be a high probability of elimination. Our previous modelling shows this requires a period of at least ten consecutive days with no new cases, along with widespread testing of anyone with COVID-19-like symptoms.

Once we reach this stage, we should review our level 1 settings. We need to find a way of enabling our economy and society to function while staying ready for the next outbreak. Regular testing of people staying and working in quarantine facilities is one part of this.

But as long as the global pandemic continues to rage, we can’t rely solely on our border — we all need to play our part. Mass masking, precautionary physical distancing and widespread testing at level 1 are low-cost interventions that give us a better chance of detecting an outbreak before it grows too big.

This will minimise the risk of another lockdown next time the virus appears in our community.

– ref. Auckland’s rapid lockdown has given New Zealand a better chance of eliminating coronavirus – again – https://theconversation.com/aucklands-rapid-lockdown-has-given-new-zealand-a-better-chance-of-eliminating-coronavirus-again-145011

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lubans, Professor, University of Newcastle

Primary school teachers often provide students with short physical activity breaks to energise kids and minimise classroom disruptions. Our study, published in the journal Educational Psychology Review, found we should be doing this for senior students too.

We found a short activity break can improve students’ focus on the task at hand and make them feel more energised.

The importance of physical activity

By the time kids leave primary school, their levels of physical activity have already started to decline. By the end of secondary school, only 10% of Australian senior school students (Years 11 and 12) meet the Australian guidelines of at least 60 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

Participating in physical activity can improve young people’s mental health. It may also buffer the effects of stressful life events experienced by senior school students.

Unfortunately, many senior school students are time-poor and feel pressure from themselves, their parents and teachers to focus on their studies. This leads them to reduce or even give up recreational activities, including organised sport.

Read more: Study confirms HSC exams source of major stress to adolescents

These missed physical activity opportunities may have a negative effect on students’ ability to focus and perform well academically. In fact, there is experimental evidence showing active students perform better on standardised academic tests and measures of cognitive function.

In most Australian states and territories schools are expected to provide students in kindergarten to Year 10 with at least 120 minutes of planned physical activity each week. While some states “encourage” schools to provide physical activity opportunities for senior school students, there are no mandated physical activity requirements for this group. This is consistent with other countries around the world.

What our study found

Lack of time has been identified as the major barrier to providing physical activity opportunities in schools. It may also explain why physical activity isn’t mandatory in the senior school years. This is why we chose to look at the effects of short bursts of high-intensity exercise during class.

Year 11 students across ten high schools were allocated into groups. Some students undertook tailored sessions of high-intensity interval training focusing on aerobic and muscular fitness. Others just continued with class as normal without an exercise break.

We chose high-intensity interval training because it has similar benefits to traditional moderate-intensity exercise (such as jogging), but can be done in a much shorter time.Previous international research has found school-based programs using this type of exercise can improve students’ physical and mental health.

Read more: Kids spend nearly three-quarters of their school day sitting. Here’s how to get them moving — during lessons

Teachers in our study were trained in how to deliver the exercise sessions. Their students participated twice a week during class for six weeks.

We conducted classroom observations before the program was delivered and then immediately after students participated in an exercise session to examine the effect on students’ on-task behaviour.

For each lesson, two observers randomly selected 12 students to observe and the order in which students were to be observed. After each 10-second interval, the observers recorded the student’s behaviour as “on-task” (reading, writing or performing the designated task) or “off-task” (walking around the class, talking or not attending to the assigned academic activity).

We also asked students to report how they were feeling (for example, their feelings of vitality, alertness and energy) at the start and end of the lesson.

We found participation in exercise sessions improved students’ on-task behaviour by about 20%. Students also reported significantly higher levels of vitality (+0.7 units), meaning they felt better and more focused after the session.

Our findings echo previous research that has found short exercise breaks help children in primary schools pay better attention to their work in class.

Future research is needed to determine if these effects extend to improvements in academic achievement. But there is enough evidence for departments of education to mandate physical activity in the senior school years.

Angus Leahy, Charles H. Hillman, Chris Lonsdale, Narelle Eather and Philip Morgan contributed to this article and research.

– ref. Short exercise breaks during class improve concentration for senior students – https://theconversation.com/short-exercise-breaks-during-class-improve-concentration-for-senior-students-140545

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pablo Guillen, Associate Professor, School of Economics, University of Sydney

Walking and cycling are in the spotlight given the need to keep fit, get about and keep a social distance from others during the pandemic.

We have pop-up cycleways, enlarged footpaths and even whole streets closed to traffic.

Read more: Physical distancing is here for a while – over 100 experts call for more safe walking and cycling space

But even if the new cycleways stay in place after the COVID-19 crisis, we’ll still be far from being as bicycle-friendly as Copenhagen or Amsterdam, over in Europe.

CBDs and city suburbs

The reason lies in how Australian cities are shaped and how they work. Copenhagen is a compact city, so most trips are relatively short, an average 3km a day. People can walk or cycle all the way to work, to the shops, to school or to a restaurant.

Any attempt to emulate Copenhagen’s active transport modes in Australia is only really a feasible option for our CBDs and inner-city suburbs.

Read more: Cycling and walking are short-changed when it comes to transport funding in Australia

For the rest we already have some cycleways mostly following transport corridors. Sometimes these are literally a bicycle lane on the shoulder of the motorway.

There are some people who use those, but even the most committed of cyclists would think twice before a 20km one-way commute under a scorching sun or in heavy rain.

Go the ‘first mile’

Only if cycling becomes an option for almost everyone, any day, can it truly make a difference.

That is, for most of us cycling cannot be an alternative, but a complement, to public transport. Cycling has the potential to solve what is often referred to as the “first mile” problem, the challenge of getting people to a public transport hub.

For people who live up to 1km away from a railway station, they should have a comfortable walk.

Many more, living up to 3km away, could benefit from cycling. They could ride to the station, leave their bike securely parked, and catch a train to their final destination.

Read more: Walking and cycling to work makes commuters happier and more productive

Access derailed

But the way things are, cycling or walking to the station can be a dangerous ordeal, or at least rather unpleasant, for most of us.

Footpaths may disappear on one or both sides of the road, pedestrian crossings may be scarce, heavy traffic on arterial roads creates toxic fumes and noise, and the lack of trees greatly reduces amenity.

If you do not see other people walking or cycling, then even a short trip can be unsettling or feel unsafe.

The conditions can be worse for cyclists, who may have no options other than to ride illegally on the narrow footpath or risk it on the road.

Turning Japanese

Improving active transport access to suburban stations is a low-cost endeavour with many benefits. First of all, we need to look at examples that work and find out why, then adapt them to our needs.

Read more: Cycling and walking can help drive Australia’s recovery – but not with less than 2% of transport budgets

We believe the best examples applicable to suburban Australia are not just in great European cycling cities but include the humble mamachari bicycles found in the suburbs of Japan’s big cities.

We have written about what makes Japanese city planning and transportation so bicycle-friendly in our most recent book, City Form, Economics and Culture: For the Architecture of Public Space.

Note that Greater Tokyo (known as the Kanto region) is not an incredibly dense behemoth but a sea of single-family detached houses in which most of the population live.

Suburban Kanto is built around railway stations, much like many parts of Sydney or Melbourne. Large shops, schools and offices are located around the station so most local transport is on foot or bike. Longer trips are done by train.

Most people in Greater Tokyo walk or ride their bicycles to the station. This is possible because most streets carry very little traffic. Arterial roads and motorways are congested with commercial traffic, but can be easily avoided for local trips.

So you won’t often find cycle lanes or even footpaths at all in Japan. They are not necessary.

What Australia can learn

In Australia the overall goal, or strategy, should be to make it easier for people to cycle and walk to and from their local public transport station.

Read more: Coronavirus recovery: public transport is key to avoid repeating old and unsustainable mistakes

The ways to achieve this, the tactics, need to be different and tailored for each suburb.

For instance, some of our suburbs have very wide streets with little traffic so a row of trees could be planted in the middle and on-street car parking moved there, making it easier for cyclists on the road.

A wide bicycle lane could then be accommodated next to the footpath, away from opening car doors.

Sometimes there is an existing network of lanes that could be easily adapted as a route for cyclists. In any case, paths should be clearly marked and continuous, so no-one rides all of sudden in heavy traffic.

Increasing walking and cycling also generates opportunities for local business. Little and mid-size shops should be allowed to flourish around stations.

All in all, the suburbs would be a bit less dependent on the CBD and the shopping centre without losing much of their charm and character, and we will all lose a couple of kilos.

– ref. What Australia can learn from bicycle-friendly cities overseas – https://theconversation.com/what-australia-can-learn-from-bicycle-friendly-cities-overseas-144283

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

Boe Pahari’s short reign as boss of AMP’s lucrative investment management division and the resignations this week of AMP chairman David Murray and board member John Fraser have shown the power of major shareholders in public companies.

There was, you may recall, public outcry about Pahari’s elevation to chief executive of AMP Capital on July 1, after it was revealed he had been reprimanded for alleged sexual harassment in 2017 and docked 25% of his A$2 million bonus that year.

Read more: AMP doesn’t just have a women problem. It has an everyone problem

In any era – but certainly in the #metoo era – handing out a traffic ticket for (alleged) sexual harassment and three years later promoting the (alleged) wrongdoer to boss of AMP’s most important business was never going to fly.

In the end it was the company’s largest shareholder, Allan Gray Australia, that delivered Murray and AMP’s chief executive, Francesco De Ferrari, an ultimatum: go now or we’ll call a special general meeting to make it happen.

The only surprising thing in all of this is how AMP’s board could have been so stupid.

But it does raise some interesting broader issues. In particular, about the merits of the strategy Allan Gray used compared to a broader movement proposing “exit” or “divestment” of shares in companies that don’t act in accordance with investors’ wishes.

Exit versus voice

Throughout this saga, as far as we know, Allan Gray never threatened to sell its AMP shares. Rather, it told the board what it expected, and apparently got what it wanted – three heads on spikes. It made its voice be heard.

Compare this with threatening “divestiture” of shares. Divestment strategies have gained popularity in recent years, including a global movement pushing universities to divest from fossil fuel companies. Just this week three climate activists in pursuit of this goal gained seats on the Harvard Board of Overseers, responsible for its US$40 billion endowment.

Read more: Do the Maths: Bill McKibben argues for divestment

Divestment can be driven purely by ethical reasons – like the sustainability funds that avoid certain investments for environmental and social reasons – or it can come down to risk assessment.

This was highlighted by Larry Fink, head of BlackRock – the world’s largest fund manager with US$6.84 trillion in assets – in his annual January letter to the heads of major public companies.

Climate change, his letter said, had become “a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects”. BlackRock would stop investing in any company with “a high sustainability-related risk”.

Read more: Vital Signs: a 3-point plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050

Which strategy is better?

So which of the two strategies – exit or voice – is better for an investor wanting a company to change its ways?

This question was taken up in a paper published this month by the US National Bureau of Economic Research.

In the paper, authors Eleonora Broccardo, Oliver Hart and Luigi Zingales assume some investors and consumers are socially responsible, in the sense that they consider the well-being of others in making decisions. But other investors and consumers are purely selfish.

Their model applies to any type of business that can do harm, but the authors use environmental concerns as their working example. Consider a company that can choose to be clean or dirty. Suppose the environmental damage the dirty business produces could be avoided at a cost.

In this framework, divestment is meant to cause the market value of that company to fall, encouraging even “selfish” managers to invest in cleaner technology.

Selfishness and social responsibility

The problem, the authors note, is other players in the market weaken the effect.

The reason is that purely selfish agents will partially offset the effects of divestment/boycotting by increasing their investment/purchases in companies shunned by socially responsible agents.

The magnitude of that offsetting effect, the authors say, “is driven by agents’ risk tolerance for investors and by the utility of the good for consumers”. In other words, it depends on demand.

Furthermore the authors suggest, in line with evidence from experimental economics, unless the pollution is extremely harmful, it is not in the interests of any shareholders to actually exit.

So most shareholders won’t exit – or at least not enough to get companies to “behave”.

Getting to vote

What about the “voice” strategy? Here the authors consider a scenario where shareholders get to vote on whether a company should be clean or dirty.

Basic economics says an individual shareholder’s vote only matters if it is pivotal (i.e. it affects the outcome). In such cases a vote will be based on weighing the net social benefit from the clean technology, and the importance of others’ well-being, against their individual financial loss resulting from choosing the cleaner, costlier technology.

But here’s the key thing. If shareholders have diversified investments, a vote about one company will make a minor difference to their overall returns. So as long as the shareholder cares at all about the welfare of others, they will likely vote for the socially optimal goal – in this case, clean technology.

Corporate reforms

All of this suggests that making sure shareholders get to express their voice is important to achieving socially optimal goals.

That might involve more pro-shareholder measures, such as the opportunity to vote on issues the board traditionally decides (a kind of Athenian corporate democracy). Their ultimate power is voting out directors who don’t listen to them.

Read more: Social licence: the idea AMP should embrace now David Murray has left the building

There is a catch to this in practice, though. Most shareholders in Australia are represented by their superannuation funds, which don’t always do so.

This issue is known in economics as the “principal-agent problem” – something one of the authors of this paper, Oliver Hart, wrote about in a seminal 1983 paper co-authored with economist Sanford Grossman.

Perhaps the next step in our understanding of voting in corporate settings is to probe the limits of corporate democracy when shareholders’ interests are represented by fund managers who may not fully share those interests.

– ref. Vital Signs: No, we won’t change the corporate world with divestment and boycotts – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-no-we-wont-change-the-corporate-world-with-divestment-and-boycotts-145021

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lyn McCredden, Personal Chair, Literary Studies, Deakin University

Nick Cave is a tough knot of wonders to his fans, and seemingly so to himself. At the close of a recent The Red Hand Files letter, Cave describes the angelic, feisty, Nina Simone singing My Sweet Lord/Today is a Killer.

Simone’s performance is a glorious melding of George Harrison’s song and David Nelson’s poem, producing for Cave, “the voice of protest we need right now — intelligent, questing, transcendent, raging and thrillingly complex”.

Simone, he writes, is “this exhilarating collision of opposing forces — love and scorn”. You can’t help but ask how much is Cave’s own projecting here — Cave as Nina as Cave, “transcendent rage […] conflicted and defiant[…] pull [ing]the heavens crashing down around our ears”.

Whether you’re a full-blooded fan or an intrigued observer, you will most likely be acquainted with Cave’s online series The Red Hand Files, “love letters” written to his fans, “no moderator […] between you and me”. He began these after a period of intense mourning for his son Arthur who died tragically at the age of 15 in 2015.

Cave has written about the loss of motivation and drive in his work, in his time of unspeakable loss; and how he came to recognise his need for connection, for reaching out to his fans and the wider world. And what connections he forges — personal, passionate, whimsical, self-deprecating and self-making!

Read more: Australian Gothic: from Hanging Rock to Nick Cave and Kylie, this genre explores our dark side

On mercy

We meet in these letters: Cave the friend, the muso, the father and family man, the messenger of transcendence and of grief, the poet and the confessor.

The pitch and focus of The Red Hand Files take us on a wild ride, as the tall, thin man of Gothic beginnings draws us into frank conversations (or at least an ongoing representation of frankness) about values, beliefs, doubts and hopes. In a recent epistle he writes about mercy — a value which is as much metaphysical as it is political:

Mercy is a value that should be at the heart of any functioning and tolerant society. Mercy ultimately acknowledges that we are all imperfect and in doing so allows us the oxygen to breathe —to feel protected within a society, through our mutual fallibility. Without mercy a society loses its soul, and devours itself.

This is discourse steeped in experience and authority. Not everyone will agree with his beliefs, (Cave’s views on cancel culture as “mercy’s antithesis” made international headlines) or value his attempts at frankness, but few would want to tangle with the passion of the believer.

How marked is the difference between Cave’s stance and that of, say, the merciless trumpeters of venality and intolerance supposedly leading the world right now?

Read more: Friday essay: popular music’s search for the sacred in a secular world

The thought behind the declaration about mercy is complex and rigorous: if you act with mercy, you will garner mercy. It will not be offered to you through any direct consequence of your actions, necessarily; but will be manifest in the way it opens your eyes to your own imperfect and fallible self.

This realisation is the spring from which mercy arises: mercy as a sacred value rooted in many religious and humanist practices. It is personal, and it defines a society.

However, it is intriguing to consider the verbal echo between The Red Hand Files and Cave’s dark 1994 song Right Red Hand, which suggests the vengeful right hand of punishment from God.

So mercy, according to Cave, is both personal and political. But interestingly, one correspondent, JMF of Auckland, does not see Cave’s work as predominantly political.

I love your music and its ability to relate common suffering […] Do you ever look back at your anthology and wish you had been more overtly politically outspoken — referring to activism rather than politics per se — in your art?

Cave’s response is elegant and thoughtful, not rushing to defend himself, or disagree. Rather, it draws together so many of the threads of Cave’s ethos _ his music, spirituality, and beliefs — articulating a measured overview of his own work:

My songs seem to be resistant to fixed, inflexible points of view. They have […] a concern for common, non-hierarchical suffering. They are not in the business of saving the world; rather they are in the business of saving the soul of the world.

Again, the need for mercy, and an understanding of humanity’s common suffering, is core. This also gives content to the way in which Cave’s music breaks with the rigid, fixed and judgmental; splices genres; dances between sacred and secular, the red right hand as potentially vengeful, or just.

Read more: Pope Francis and The Joy of Love in a merciful church

Meaning-making

In another letter to Rose of Melbourne, Cave writes of this commonality of loss and suffering:

In loss, things — both animate and inanimate — take on an added intensity and meaning […] this feeling you describe, of alertness to the inner-spirit of things – this humming – comes from a hard-earned understanding of the impermanence of things […] our own impermanence. This lesson ultimately animates and illuminates our lives.

We are given here a window onto the nature of Cave’s ontology: his generosity with his correspondents, and his way of being, and believing, in the world. One of the impressive aspects of Cave’s meditation on loss is the way it brings together deep emotions forged by experience, with discipline.

Cave’s notion of discipline can be seen here in his stress on meaning-making, understanding, and lessons to be learned, though never certitudes. His passion is punctuated by deeply philosophical, lived beliefs. It can be described as mystical — “alertness to the inner spirit of things” — but equally, it is pragmatic, aware of the passing of spirit, the littleness of the human, as he acknowledges the “impermanence of things”.

We are not being offered a set of pieties in The Red Hand Files, but an acknowledgement of what is due from us as response; that to “lose our resolve […] drop our guard, or just grow tired and descend into that other, darker, less lovely world” are understandable, but not the only course.

There isn’t any judgement, of self or others, if and when we do drop into a darker world; but there is a palpably joyful, disciplined exuberance in Cave’s actively seeking animation and illumination, available to all, and often through the experience of loss.

Being ‘prayerful’

This illumination does not arise out of, or produce, a set of certitudes. That would be anathema to the ambivalence and complexity Cave so values. In an earlier issue he is asked by Patrick of Melbourne about prayer, and Cave offers a typical, wonderfully secular/sacred response:

The act of prayer is by no means exclusive to religious practise [sic] because prayer is not dependent on the existence of a subject. You need not pray to anyone […]

I personally couldn’t agree less with this perception of prayer. At the same time, I am drawn to Cave’s following statement: “It is just as valuable to pray into your disbelief, as it is to pray into your belief”. But the revealing clause comes last: “for prayer is not an encounter with an external agent, rather it is an encounter with oneself.”

Yes, there are fluctuating levels of belief and disbelief many of us wrestle with; but surely it is pure, feisty Cave here, arguing that what is perhaps the most dialogic of religious practices is monologic, culminating in “an encounter with oneself”.

This is the iconic Cave: angst-ridden, melancholy individual, “intelligent, questing, transcendent, raging and thrillingly complex.” This is Nina Simone, as well as so many characters in Cave’s songs; and it is Cave himself; from the lonely lover haltingly seeking comfort from God in Brompton Oratory, the condemned man awaiting execution in The Mercy Seat, to the murderous lover in Where the Wild Roses Grow.

So many of Cave’s fans love the angst, the tortured soul strung out between heaven and earth, resolution and complexity. This is Cave’s brand. However, in reading The Red Hand Files, something gets dislodged in that brand. The self opens up to all those fans who write seeking his advice; and he responds without rancour, and with wisdom.

You could argue that it’s still one long, mutual admiration society. Cave and his millions of little mirrors. But in that same response to Patrick of Melbourne, Cave writes:

The coronavirus has brought us to our knees, yet it has also presented us with the opportunity to be prayerful, whether we believe in God or not. By forcing us into isolation, it has dismantled our constructed selves, by challenging our presumed needs, our desires, and our ambitions and rendered us raw, essential and reflective.

This rawness — loss of “our constructed selves”, undermining of humanity as privileged centre of knowing — is something many of us in Melbourne, and indeed globally, might recognise right now.

It’s possibly an awareness that citizens in many precarious places — the US, Lebanon, South Africa, Ghana or Egypt — could acknowledge even more readily: we are not in control. We are not the centre of any universe. We need to be on our knees.

‘The connective tissue of suffering’

Cave began the work of writing to his fans (Issue #1, September 2018), after a series of concerts where he had spoken directly to his audiences in question and answer sessions.

Bitten down by grief, and unable to produce new work, he asks himself and his fans a question echoing from childhood: “how do we return to our lives — to the awe of existence – and reclaim a sense of wonder?”

Such a question resonates with many of us at this time of pandemic.

Cave was also asked in this first issue, by Jakub from Łódź, Poland, about the processes of writing. He replies by reflecting on his coming back to writing, and to life, after the trauma he and his family had experienced. His existential realisation is both practical and deeply wise:

I also realised that I was not alone in my grief and that many of you were, in one way or another, suffering your own sorrows, your own griefs. I felt this in our live performances. I felt very acutely that a sense of suffering was the connective tissue that held us all together […] as we floated lost in narcissism and self-absorption.

It also became very clear to both of us [he and his wife Susie] that we were not alone! We could see there were many others out there, floating around in the dark, outside of their lives. It seemed to be everywhere we looked— people in search of meaning and wonder.

This Nick Cave is not simply mired in individualism or angst, for the brand’s sake. This is an individual — narcissistic and self-absorbed as we have to be in grief, momentarily — but also a man bonded with others by the connective tissue of suffering.

This realisation is both what Cave constructed for himself, imaginatively and intellectually, as a way beyond grief; but it also results from a trauma he did not choose.

None of us choose trauma, but we also recognise in COVID-19, in the terrible racial and climate traumas of the globe, and in the individual loss of loved people in our lives, that such suffering is common, shared; and that it can enable us — to weep with those who weep, to offer mercy in our state of mutual impermanence.

In that same letter to Jakub, Cave writes: “It became clear that as human beings we have enormous capabilities that allow us to rise above our suffering — that we are hardwired for transcendence”.

Yet we also realise, as Cave fans, critics or distant followers, that the journey to such transcendence is inevitably entangled in bloody, torturous, common experience.

– ref. Friday essay: transcendent rage — Nick Cave and the Red Hand Files – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-transcendent-rage-nick-cave-and-the-red-hand-files-144735

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

Scott Morrison and Dan Andrews don’t have a lot in common – but they are both as bold as brass when it comes to grabbing for power. As we saw this week.

Morrison announced a plan to obtain the right of veto over all agreements with foreign governments – read, the Chinese government – concluded or proposed by Australia’s state, territory and local governments and public universities.

For his part, Andrews made a bid for Victoria’s sweeping state-of-emergency legislation to be extended for another year after it expires in mid-September.

The prime minister can be confident of winning Senate support for his plan. Anthony Albanese doesn’t want a fight over anything involving national security. But Andrews quickly received enough signals from the Victorian upper house to begin a retreat to a less ambitious position.

Morrison works around gaps in his formal power to acquire more, as well as using to the maximum what power the system provides him.

Thus his creation of the national cabinet was designed to put him into the strongest possible position during the pandemic, when the states actually hold most of the formal constitutional power.

He subsequently made that body permanent, replacing the Council of Australian Governments. He likely thought this would augment future federal clout, although watching how the premiers are now behaving, that seems optimistic.

At a news conference on Thursday Morrison showed no inclination to try to legislate to override the resistance by various states to his push for internal borders to be as open as possible. He referred to this as a constitutionally grey area. Given how frustrated he is, probably all that’s held him back is lack of federal power and the fact border restrictions are so politically popular.

But neither the constitution nor public sentiment is a check on his push to be the cop on the beat monitoring state and other public entities’ agreements with foreign governments. External affairs is a clear area of federal responsibility. And Australians have become increasingly critical of China.

Under the Morrison plan, all existing agreements would have to be registered with the federal government; they would be scrutinised and the foreign minister would strike down any considered against the national interest.

Read more: Morrison government set to target Victorian ‘belt and road’ agreement under sweeping new legislation

The government has put forward two questions as the test for agreements, whether now in force or prospective. Does the arrangement adversely affect Australia’s foreign relations? Is the arrangement inconsistent with Australian foreign policy?

In particular, Victoria’s sign-up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative is in Morrison’s sights. He won’t publicly confirm this but his views about it are fully on the record.

The federal government – already angry with Andrews over the unrelated issue of Victoria’s second COVID wave – will have no hesitation in making the state’s agreement an early casualty of the new veto.

Andrews was visibly provoked by the announcement, saying Morrison would “no doubt very soon be able to list the full range of other free trade agreements and other markets that we’ll be sending Victorian products to. I look forward to that.”

Is the Morrison legislation warranted?

When it comes to arrangements the states have, there is a strong case. State and territory policies should be aligned with federal policy on matters of foreign relations and national security.

This is especially so as China has become much more assertive in targeting the internal affairs of other countries. Just as Australia is increasingly wary about Chinese investment in the nation’s critical infrastructure, so it can justifiably be more cautious about state governments’ arrangements with China.

Probably the same goes for agreements local governments make, although they are likely less important.

Read more: Explainer: can the federal government control the ability of states to sign deals with foreign governments?

Universities, however, are another matter, or should be. That is despite the fact their agreements can be both important and potentially compromising for the national interest.

According to government sources, research agreements overwhelmingly would not be affected, because these are usually with other universities. Confucius Institutes, however, would fall under the legislation’s provisions.

Universities have done themselves and Australia no good by, in many cases, becoming too dependent on foreign, especially Chinese, students. The pandemic has meant they are now paying the price – literally, with big losses of revenue. Similarly, they can be too easily seduced into arrangements that pose risks for their independence.

But while that might seem to back the government’s case for the final say on agreements, the counter argument – academic independence – carries more weight.

The government should advise and warn, and have regular consultations about these matters, a process that has already begun. But it goes a step too far in seizing this proposed power to dictate to these institutions.

The Group of Eight, which represents the leading research-intensive universities, on Thursday expressed concern “at the danger that – in the name of security – Australia may be inadvertently threatening the very democratic principles it holds dear”.

The Go8 said the legislation “as it relates to universities may not be proportionate to risk, may lead to over-regulation and could undermine the good work that has been undertaken between universities and the government” on the issue of countering foreign interference in the sector.

In the circumstances in which we’re living, almost nothing governments do seems surprising.

But Andrews’ plan for a 12-month extension of the emergency legislation did cause some sharp intakes of breath.

Read more: Explainer: why is the Victorian government extending the state of emergency, and is it justified?

The extraordinary measures in force in Victoria are necessary to deal with this once-in-a-century health crisis (though there can be argument about the detail and the lack of flexibility).

A Roy Morgan Snap SMS survey asking about six of Victoria’s current restrictions found strong support for five (there was division over whether Melburnians should be able to visit immediate family – 43% said yes, 57% said no).

While it is good people are co-operating with measures to fight the virus, these suspend what are usually regarded as fundamental liberties. Hopefully the extreme restrictions will go soon, but Victoria’s course over coming months remains problematic, making it crucial to have constant parliamentary scrutiny of what’s being done, how power is being exercised.

Extending the legislation for six months would be the longest time that would reasonable; three months would be much preferable.

In a crisis leaders are impatient of scrutiny; indeed they use the situation to deflect attempts to hold them to account. Andrews has done this whenever he can (often hiding behind his inquiry into the hotel quarantine breach).

Federally, having parliament sitting this week was useful for putting heat on the federal government over the disaster in aged care.

Accountability must not become a second-order priority in this pandemic.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Government’s plan for a veto over university agreements is a step too far – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-governments-plan-for-a-veto-over-university-agreements-is-a-step-too-far-145200

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Collin, Associate Professor, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

The World Health Organisation recently warned that people in their 20s, 30s and 40s, who may be unaware they’re infected, are driving the spread of COVID-19.

Australian data confirms coronavirus is very common in younger adults. People aged 20-29 have continually had the highest rates of COVID-19 cases.

To reduce these rates and support young people to play their part in stemming community transmission, we need to understand their experiences during the pandemic.

Less severe, but more prevalent

There’s limited evidence on the physical effects of the disease in young people. But epidemiological data suggests it’s less severe in young adults than older adults, and recovery among people in their 20s and 30s is usually rapid and complete.

The virus may be present for several days before there are any symptoms, and many young people will have few or no symptoms at all.

Of course, there are exceptions. Some young people, particularly those who have underlying health conditions or who smoke, may experience severe illness, with potentially long-term effects on their health.

Even young people with mild cases may have prolonged symptoms that prevent their return to work and normal activities.

Read more: Young people are anxious about coronavirus. Political leaders need to talk with them, not at them

Because one of the key indications for testing is the presence of symptoms, testing is understandably lower in this age group.

At the same time, everyday activities common to young people — such as working in casualised and frontline jobs, or visiting multiple venues on a night out — may mean an infected person without symptoms inadvertently transmits the virus across different networks.

Recent public health messaging targeting young people portrays them as naïve or lax. But if we’re going to advise and support them effectively, we need a greater appreciation of the indirect effects COVID-19 has on young people — and how they’re responding.

The indirect effects

COVID-19 has radically affected young adults’ work, study, social lives and caring responsibilities.

Importantly, the various restrictions have exacerbated the social and economic inequalities many young people experience.

Among those aged 15-24, 30% were unemployed or underemployed already before COVID-19.

Nearly 50% of young people have experienced housing stress in the past five years — a continuing trend during the pandemic — while youth homelessness has substantially increased in recent years.

The OECD has urged governments to take an intergenerational approach to policy making to reduce the long-term social and economic adversities young people could face from deep recession, extreme unemployment and worsening mental illness.

The most disadvantaged are likely to be worst affected, including those young people who already experience barriers to accessing social, psychological and health services.

Read more: Young people were already struggling before the pandemic. Here are 7 ways to help them navigate a changed world

How are young people responding?

In the community, young people have reported they’re aware of and are trying to adhere to public health directives to avoid catching or spreading the virus.

Their top concern has been the health and welfare of their family and friends, followed by the pandemic’s effects on their study and immediate and long-term employment. Young people are also reporting declines in their mental health, especially feelings of depression and hopelessness.

Young Australians from multicultural backgrounds have raised concerns about unequal access to technology as universities, health services and many workplaces shift to remote and online modes. They also worry about the effect of COVID-19 on their education, increases in domestic violence and discrimination.

However, young people right across the community are also demonstrating they want to play an active role in the COVID-19 response and recovery, and help others.

They’re leading initiatives to address growing inequalities and inform social and health research and policy; they’re working with advocacy organisations to create relevant COVID-19 resources; and more.

Engaging with young people

Unsurprisingly, many young people are turning off from news media, because they’re feeling fatigued, want to look after their mental health, or because they’re trying to avoid misinformation.

Meanwhile, public health communications to date have been generic, allocated blame or been confusing.

As Australians learn to live with changing or fewer restrictions, governments can start by listening to and communicating respectfully with young people — including those most vulnerable, unaware, or distrustful of government messaging.

While we commend Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews for using videos and memes to share information on his Facebook page, peer-based communication is most likely to engage young people.

Moreover, research on how to achieve adherence with public health directives — such as vaccination — shows messaging must be evidence-based, tailored to the needs of different groups, and directly address their concerns.

Importantly, communications need to be two-way, regular, transparent and respectful.

Read more: Young people’s mental health deteriorated the most during the pandemic, study finds

Government policy and communications will be more likely to positively influence community behaviours if they’re developed with the people they’re targeting — something the NSW government has started to do.

Governments everywhere should partner with young people to understand their changing contexts and views, and channel these insights, along with latest epidemiology, into youth-centred public health responses. This will be fundamental to addressing the social determinants of health, arresting community spread and protecting the whole community.

– ref. COVID-19 cases are highest in young adults. We need to partner with them for the health of the whole community – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-cases-are-highest-in-young-adults-we-need-to-partner-with-them-for-the-health-of-the-whole-community-144932

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maximilian de Courten, Health Policy Lead and Professor in Global Public Health at the Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

This week, we heard how conditions at a Sydney quarantine hotel were so bad almost 400 returned travellers had to be moved to another one.

Before that, we heard from Victoria’s inquiry into hotel quarantine. We learned the bulk of cases during the state’s second wave could be tracked down to a family of four returned travellers staying at a single quarantine hotel.

But Australia isn’t the only country to have quarantine issues. Some countries don’t use hotel quarantine at all. And others have turned to technology to keep track of returned travellers.

So what can we learn from other countries’ successes and failures?

A short trip around the world

Cyprus

The Mediterranean island of Cyprus also uses hotel quarantine for international arrivals. But rather than “hotel quarantine hell”, hotels in Cyprus are said to have a “holiday vibe”, despite not being able to leave your room.

Travellers praised Cyprus for its luxury and positive hotel quarantine experience. Some have even said they would return for a (real) holiday.

Cyprus recorded a peak in daily cases of only 58, in early April, and now has an average of new cases a day in the teens.

Canada

Returned travellers must give Canadian authorities a plan for how they intend to spend their mandatory 14-day quarantine. This doesn’t have to be in a hotel; it can be at home. You have to monitor your own symptoms, and police will check up on you.

However, violations can result in large fines of up to C$750,000 (A$788,000) or six months in jail.

Taiwan

Taiwan introduced 14-day hotel quarantine for returned travellers who didn’t have a single room with a separate bathroom or who lived with vulnerable people.

Since late June, business travellers from low-risk countries can visit Taiwan and spend only five days in quarantine. But they need to take a COVID-19 test before leaving quarantine.

Taiwan has 18 active COVID-19 cases.

Singapore

After flattening the curve, Singapore decided to relax its 14-day hotel quarantine to seven days self-quarantine for travellers arriving from specific countries.

But all travellers over the age of 12 not staying in a quarantine facility have to wear an electronic tracking wristband. Authorities are alerted if people go outside or tamper with the device.

Hong Kong and South Korea have also introduced wristbands to track people’s movements upon arrival and to check people comply with quarantine regulations.

Poland

Travellers arriving in Poland have to install a home quarantine phone app developed by the Polish government.

For 14 days, the app uses facial recognition and geolocation algorithms to monitor people. It also prompts people to take selfies at random times during the day.

Individuals have 20 minutes to respond to these prompts, otherwise they risk police knocking on their door.

UK

A major “quarantine failure” was the UK’s experience at the start of the pandemic, when 10,000 travellers spread the virus across the country.

Members of parliament accused the responsible ministers of making errors, such as having no border checks, no specific quarantine arrangements, and lifting self-isolation regulations.

This eventually led to the UK dealing with a total of 328,846 cases and 41,465 COVID-19-related deaths.

The UK has since tightened its quarantine arrangements.

These ideas are worth adopting in Australia…

More than 70,000 returned travellers have been quarantined in Australian hotels since it became mandatory in late March. We don’t know exactly how many of these people have gone on to test positive. But about one in five of Australia’s cases were acquired overseas.

Read more: Is aggressive hotel isolation worth the cost to fight COVID-19? The answer depends on family size

As the headlines show, we can clearly do better in how we manage our quarantine system.

Adopting a “Cyprus-style” model of luxury hotel quarantine is simply beyond reach in Australia given the sheer number of people requiring quarantine facilities. However, improving the quality of facilities, ensuring a safe environment, and supervising staff is vital. This includes training both staff and travellers on infection control measures.

People in quarantine also need access to health care as well as to financial, social and psychosocial support, to ensure their safety and mental health.

…but we need to be careful about electronic tags

We would be particularly concerned about the human rights implications of returned travellers having to wear electronic monitoring devices.

Although we might be familiar with electronic monitoring devices in the criminal justice system, when used in the context of infection they could stigmatise people for simply being at higher risk of disease.

Read more: Lockdown returns: how far can coronavirus measures go before they infringe on human rights?

They go against the presumption that all persons will be law-abiding and perform their civic duty, with no evidence to the contrary.

There are also potential privacy concerns. There is no guarantee data collected through electronic monitoring — especially when using smartphone apps — will not be used for purposes other than monitoring pandemics.

No system is perfect

Even if we implement a world best quarantine system for returned travellers, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can still slip in.

That’s because people can still be infectious before feeling sick, before being diagnosed, or before being directed to quarantine. This becomes more likely the more people are kept under quarantine.

– ref. Another day, another hotel quarantine fail. So what can Australia learn from other countries? – https://theconversation.com/another-day-another-hotel-quarantine-fail-so-what-can-australia-learn-from-other-countries-144804