Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Rowe, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

This is a time of endings. In the midst of the all-consuming media spectacle surrounding the death of Queen Elizabeth II, “tennis royalty” in the form of Roger Federer will retire in the same week and in the same city that she is laid to rest.

When the career of a sporting celebrity concludes, it is widely represented as if they have died, in what journalists call “sports obituaries”.

The person in question is usually still alive and will probably go on to be successful in the business, media and/or charity sectors. But the experience of watching them perform live at the stadium or on screen immediately mutates into nostalgic reflection.

So, what can be said about the sporting life of “Roger”, one the few people often known solely by their given name?

Read more:
Serena Williams forced sports journalists to get out of the ‘toy box’ – and cover tennis as more than a game

The final curtain

When the institution of sport emerged during the late industrial revolution in the 19th century, it changed, as Allen Guttmann famously put it, “from ritual to record”. It became all about the numbers and the score.

By this measure, Federer’s sporting record is formidable – world men’s number one for the best part of six years, 20 Grand Slam singles titles (including six Australian Opens), the only player to win at least ten titles on clay, grass and hard court surfaces, and sundry other tennis achievements.

Of course, it has not all gone smoothly. The body that was his finely tuned instrument on the tennis court increasingly failed him, although the steely determination of the champion never wavered.

Until, facing one last hurrah but probably playing on one leg, he chose to lower the curtain at the event that he co-created.

Named after his tennis hero, the Laver Cup is a testament to Federer’s unusually intense immersion in tennis history and, ultimately, his own place within it. Federer, who arrived as a teenage firebrand, admires not just the impressive tennis record but also the demeanour of Rod Laver.

An elegant and courteous stylist who was instrumental in the professionalisation of tennis in the 1960s, he has been a significant role model for Federer.

Laver is not just acknowledged as a superlative tennis player, but widely respected and admired. In emulating him, Federer generally behaved well on and off court, although unlike Laver, he sometimes wept with frustration or joy.

In the pure aesthetics of tennis, Federer arguably eclipsed the master. No cold-eyed counting of tournament wins can capture the beauty of his backhand, the flourish of his forehand.

King Roger and the big three

In the early days of his career, the Swiss-South African Federer could have gone the way of Australian Nick Kyrgios, who is more than a decade younger. Both supremely talented and combustible, Federer and Kyrgios went in different directions.

Federer became “King Roger”, as he was anointed by the august Times of London in 2018 – a player who trained hard, curbed his temper, and won Wimbledon at the age of 21.

Kyrgios, by contrast, emerged as “Nasty Nick”, attracting media and spectator interest as much for his confrontational on-court antics as his sometimes sublime tennis.

Even if Kyrgios begins to win Grand Slams while continuing to fascinate younger tennis fans, it is unimaginable he will come close to Federer’s elevated place in the pantheon.

Federer’s place in tennis history has been enhanced in part by his membership of the “Big Three” alongside Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic – or the “Big Four” if Andy Murray is included.

With more than 60 Grand Slams between them, the three rivals dominated men’s tennis, supplying the kind of “golden age” narrative so beloved of terminally sentimental sport fans.

Now, with Nadal also prone to injury and Djokovic sacrificing tournaments by refusing to be vaccinated against COVID, Federer’s retirement signals the end of this era.

The departure of “Queen Serena Williams” from the women’s game and the youth of the singles winners in the 2022 US Open is further evidence that the wheel has, perhaps mercifully, turned in favour of renewal.

But longevity is a major aspect of Federer’s status. He has been at or near the top of tennis for most of the 21st century.

Just as most people have only known one Queen of England, young and middle-aged tennis fans have had the comforting certainty of King Roger plying his trade on the world tennis circuit.

Unlike constitutional monarchies, though, those of the sporting world are produced by performance, not heredity. The new tennis regime is yet to take shape.

Read more:
Who can break up the ‘Big 3’ monopoly on men’s tennis? Here’s what the numbers say

Astonishing athleticism

I only saw Roger Federer in the flesh once.

It was two decades ago in London’s shiny NikeTown, and young Roger – an up-and-coming professional contracted to Nike – was playing an exhibition game with oversized tennis balls and undersized racquets. My initial cynicism was overwhelmed by the astonishing athleticism on display.

I thought he’d do well then, but had no idea I was witnessing the rise of the House of Roger.

Federer, we are told, may return to such spaces to play post-retirement exhibition games. The Roger Federation Foundation, dedicated to alleviating child poverty through education, could use the money.

But before the next phase of King Roger’s life there must be the ceremonial media moment of his appearance in the O2 arena in London, this week’s global capital of farewell ceremonies.

Read more:
What the Ash Barty and ‘Special K’ tennis triumphs say about Australia and the buttoned-up sport industry

David Rowe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The retirement of Roger Federer is the abdication of tennis royalty – https://theconversation.com/the-retirement-of-roger-federer-is-the-abdication-of-tennis-royalty-190832

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robin Smit, Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

Australia’s love for fuel-hungry and fuel-inefficient SUVs is hampering our ability to bring transport emissions down. SUVs make up half of all new car sales last year, a National Transport Commission report revealed this week – up from a quarter of all sales a decade ago.

As a result, the carbon emitted by all new cars sold in Australia dropped only 2% in 2021, the report found. Sales of battery electric vehicles tripled last year, but still make up just 0.23% of all cars and light commercial vehicles on our roads.

In internationally peer-reviewed research earlier this year, we measured the emissions of five SUVs driving around Sydney, and our findings suggest the situation may actually be worse than the new report finds.

The National Transport Commission’s numbers are based on the “New European Drive Cycle” (NEDC) emissions test. Our research found the real-world emissions of SUVs are, on average, about 30% higher than the NEDC values. This means we are not reducing fleet average emissions by a few percent per year, but actually probably increasing them by a few percent every year.

What the report found

The transport sector is responsible for almost 20% of Australia’s emissions, ranking third behind the electricity and agriculture sector. The first year of the COVID pandemic only reduced transport carbon dioxide emissions by about 7%, compared to 2019 emission levels.

Overall, Australia’s pride in carbon-belching transport is evident by the fact transport CO₂ emissions have risen 14% between 2005 and 2020.

Read more:
Why Labor’s new tax cut on electric vehicles won’t help you buy one anytime soon

SUVs are generally larger and heavier than other passenger cars, which means they need quite a bit more energy and fuel per kilometre of driving when compared with smaller, lighter cars.

Although SUV sales are rising globally, the Australian fleet is unique due to its large portion of SUVs in the on-road fleet, often with four-wheel-drive capability.

According to the National Transport Commission report, sales of four-wheel-drives and utes surged by more than 43,000 in 2021, while large SUV sales rose by around 25,000.

Rapidly shifting to electric cars is an important way to bring emissions down. But the report found in 2021, just 2.8% of Australia’s car sales were electric. Compare this to 17% in Europe, 16% in China and 5% in the United States.

In Australia, there is still no option to buy an electric ute, and electric vehicles remain prohibitively expensive.

Measuring SUV emissions in Sydney

There are a range of methods scientists use to measure vehicle emissions.

One popular method worldwide uses so-called “on-board portable emission monitoring systems”. These systems are effective because they enable second-by-second emissions testing under a variety of real-world driving conditions on the road.

On the other hand, the New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) emissions test is conducted in the laboratory. It was also developed in the early 1970s and reflects unrealistic driving behaviour, because test facilities at the time could not deal with significant changes in speed.

We fitted five SUVs with a portable emission monitoring system and drove them a little over 100 kilometres around Sydney in various situations, such as in the city and on the freeway.

We then compared our measurements with the Green Vehicle Guide – the national guide to vehicle fuel consumption and environmental performance, which is also based on the NEDC test.

Our measurements of fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions were consistently higher. This varied from 16% to 65% higher than NEDC values, depending on the actual car and driving conditions.

On average, real-world fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions were both 27% higher than NEDC values. Importantly, this gap has increased substantially from about 10% in 2008.

Indeed, previous research from 2019 found fleet average greenhouse gas emissions for new Australian cars and SUVs has probably been increasing by 2-3% percent per year since 2015, rather than the reported annual reduction by, for instance, the National Transport Commission.

This detailed analysis showed a sustained increase in vehicle weight and a shift to the sale of more four-wheel-drive cars (in other words, SUVs) are probably the main factors contributing to this change.

More bad news for SUVs

We also recently summarised the results of various emission measurement campaigns conducted in Australia and compared them with international studies. These include results from a study of vehicle emissions in a tunnel, and a study of vehicle emissions measured on the road with remote sensing.

We found modern diesel SUVs and cars or diesel light commercial vehicles (such as utes) in Australia and New Zealand have relatively high emissions of nitrogen oxides and soot – both important air pollutants.

Around 2,600 deaths are attributed to fine-particle air pollution in Australia each year. Transport and industrial activities (such as mining) are the main sources of this.

And in 2015, an estimated 1,715 deaths were attributed to vehicle exhaust emissions – 42% more than the road toll that year.

Read more:
A rapid shift to electric vehicles can save 24,000 lives and leave us $148bn better off over the next 2 decades

The remote sensing emissions data suggest 1% of one to two-year-old diesel SUVs and 2% of one-to-two year old diesel light commercial vehicles have issues with their particulate filters, leading to high soot emissions.

These percentages are high when compared with a similar study conducted in the United Kingdom, which could not find any clear evidence of filters issues.

Three ways to move forward

Ever increasing SUVs sales are a drag on successfully reducing Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. So what should we do?

Of course there are several things to consider, but in terms of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, we believe there are three main points.

First, we need to make sure we have realistic fuel use and emissions data. This means the National Transport Commission and Green Vehicle Guide should stop using the NEDC values and shift to more realistic emissions data. We acknowledge this is not a simple matter and it requires a lot more testing.

Second, we need to electrify transport as fast as we can, wherever we can. This is crucial, but not the whole solution.

Read more:
The road to new fuel efficiency rules is filled with potholes. Here’s how Australia can avoid them

To ensure Australia meets its net-zero emissions target, we also need to seriously consider energy and fuel efficiency in transport. This could be by promoting the sales of smaller and lightweight vehicles, thereby optimising transport for energy efficiency.

In all of this, it will be essential for car manufacturers to take responsibility for their increasing contributions to climate change. From this perspective, they should move away from marketing profitable fossil-fueled SUVs that clog up our roads, and instead offer and promote lighter, smaller and electric vehicles.

Robin Smit is the founder and director at Transport Energy/Emission Research Pty Ltd (TER) and an Adjunct Associate Professor at University of Technology Sydney.

Nic Surawski has worked on projects funded by city councils, alternative engine design companies, the Australian Coal Association Research Program, the federal Department of Environment and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Nic is a member of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand.

– ref. We may be underestimating just how bad carbon-belching SUVs are for the climate – and for our health – https://theconversation.com/we-may-be-underestimating-just-how-bad-carbon-belching-suvs-are-for-the-climate-and-for-our-health-190743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Baker, Professor of Public Health, University of Otago

New Zealand’s decision to end most COVID health measures is welcome, as it removes controls that are in most cases no longer essential. But the new COVID management phase looks like a short-term reaction to declining case numbers rather than a longer-term strategy.

New Zealand has achieved one of the best health outcomes of any country by taking decisive action from the start of the pandemic.

We argue now is the time to build on that success with a strong, science-informed strategy to get us through the next pandemic stages and lift our resilience against future emerging infectious disease threats.

Such a strategy would need to provide a robust plan for managing the two most likely pandemic scenarios – new variants and endemic disease.

The most probable scenario is that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, will continue to evolve new variants that evade immunity from prior infection or vaccination, triggering new waves. Any new variant could be more or less severe than Omicron.

The government has previously identified the need for a strategy to manage this scenario, which would require rapid risk assessment of new threats and increased controls if needed.

Read more:
With most mandatory public health measures gone, is New Zealand well prepared for the next COVID wave?

COVID is also likely to eventually become a more stable and predictable endemic disease, perhaps somewhat like seasonal influenza but with more severe consequences that are still emerging.

Endemic does not necessarily mean mild. The world’s biggest infectious disease killers, including tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria, are all endemic. A long-term strategy should aim to minimise health burdens (serious illness, death and long-term disability) and health inequities.

Unfortunately, New Zealand’s new approach does not provide a robust response to either of these scenarios.

Defences against likely pandemic threats

New Zealand already has well-established tools for assessing and communicating the risk associated with many other hazards such as fires and storms. Why not do the same for COVID and potentially other serious respiratory infections?

We propose five changes to fill gaps in the new COVID management approach while at the same time minimising disruptions.

1. Develop an updated alert level system for COVID variants

The government could use this relatively low point in the number of COVID cases to develop a robust framework to provide a simple way for describing the level of risk and a proportionate response at each level.

Before COVID, New Zealand’s pandemic plan was based on mitigation. This meant accepting pandemics would wash over the country and the best we could do was to minimise healthcare system overload. Now we know we can potentially stop any respiratory disease pandemic.

2. Reinforce the critical importance of borders for biosecurity

We need an evidence-informed strategy for our borders to manage potentially more dangerous variants and other future pandemics.

The government has now removed vaccination requirements and mandated testing for visitors. As case numbers fall, arriving travellers will likely become an increasingly important source of new infections.

The end of routine testing on arrival limits our ability to collect viral samples for whole genome sequencing and leaves a gap in our surveillance system. Long-term benefits of improved border control would include a reduced risk of importing other outbreak-prone diseases such as measles or more serious, bioengineered pandemics.

3. Reinforce self-isolation as a key infection control tool

Fortunately, the government has retained mandatory isolation for people who test positive for COVID. It is fundamental to disease control that sick people stay home. Keeping isolation to a minimum of seven days is also wise, as even then about a quarter of people are still infectious.

Nevertheless, adding a test-to-release requirement would improve the effectiveness of this strategy and reduce the isolation period to five days for some.

Making these measures work well requires a great deal more public education and support, particularly around health, social and work support. This could be a major legacy benefit of this pandemic, particularly if it also helps to reduce the spread of other respiratory diseases such as influenza.

Read more:
Cutting COVID isolation and mask mandates will mean more damage to business and health in the long run

4. Establish requirements for masks and ventilation

Masks still have to be worn in healthcare and aged-care settings. Masks work best in such high-risk environments when everyone is using them. But we need systematic criteria to identify other confined, crowded and close-contact environments with a high risk of infection.

On that basis, public transport would be an important environment for universal mask use and ventilation improvements, particularly during winter. An evidence-based mask and ventilation policy would be another major legacy benefit of the current pandemic.

5. Establish vaccination as the norm for healthcare and essential services

The government has now removed all vaccine mandates. However, there are several reasons why healthcare and other essential workers should be vaccinated against COVID and other serious infectious diseases. It should be a basic occupational health and safety necessity, just like some groups are required to wear protective clothing.

One legacy benefit of the pandemic should be a wider discussion about how to appropriately establish vaccination as a requirement for key occupational groups.

The inconvenient truth is that the pandemic has not gone away and future pandemics remain a risk. Even if COVID becomes a more predictable endemic disease, we still need to minimise serious illness, particularly for the most vulnerable.

Michael Baker receives funding from the Health Research Council for research on Covid-19.

Nick Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. New Zealand’s new cut-down COVID response is a missed opportunity – here are 5 ways to improve it – https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-new-cut-down-covid-response-is-a-missed-opportunity-here-are-5-ways-to-improve-it-190737

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Latella, Lecturer, Master of Exercise Science (Strength and Conditioning), Edith Cowan University

As humans, it is in our nature to want to do better, find that edge and succeed. This couldn’t be truer than in sport, where winning and losing are often separated by tenths of a second, a successful score attempt in the dying stages of a game, or a split-second decision.

So, there is always a need for effective and legal strategies to boost performance. “Priming” is a tool attracting more and more interest from athletes, coaches and scientists.

The good news is it is not just for elite athletes.

Not just a warm-up

Priming, also called “morning exercise”, “pre-activation” or “pre-competition training”, has attracted renewed interest among scientists in recent years. Many sporting teams are already on the ball, with more than half of coaches using priming to help their athletes gain a performance advantage.

Typically, a relatively brief and non-tiring bout of exercise is performed the day before or on the morning of a competition – somewhere between one and 48 hours beforehand. This stimulus to the muscles results in “delayed potentiation”. That is, the muscles can perform better after several hours of rest than they would have without the priming exercise.

In contrast, a warm-up takes place much closer to competition. What’s interesting is the benefits of priming are much longer-lasting than those typical of warm-up activation strategies. This is perplexing because we know that increases in muscle temperature, metabolism and the nervous system potentiation with warm-ups return to baseline levels within minutes.

Warm-ups remain important but priming sessions could provide an additional edge. Sports scientists have reported improvements in running, jumping, throwing and weightlifting ability by as much as 4%. This might not seem like a lot, but it’s crucial when the difference between winning and losing can be measured in fractions of a percentage point. The physiological mechanisms that cause the priming effect are not yet well understood, but neuromuscular and hormonal changes have been suggested.

And it may not be only muscles that benefit. Researchers have long known priming exercise can improve weightlifting performance in anxious athletes. More recent research reinforces the idea priming activities can help athletes’ psychological state and stress levels.

Read more:
What’s behind the spate of super-fast sprints at the Tokyo Olympics? Technology plays a role, but the real answer is training

Finding time to play, train and prime

Very few of us are elite, full-time athletes. Finding time to train and compete, even at a community or sub-elite level, is hard – let alone making extra time for additional priming sessions. But priming exercises can be done with minimal equipment in minimal time.

Basic exercises such as squats and bench presses with relatively heavy weights (around 85% of your maximum capacity) for just a few repetitions are enough to boost performance later that day.

Don’t have a rack of weights lying around? That’s OK. Explosive body-weight activities such as a few short sprints or jumping still have the potential to boost athletic performance. Stronger people seem to respond better to priming, likely because they recover more quickly from exercise.

Ideally, pick an activity that uses the same muscle groups you will use during your sport, and do the priming exercise six to 33 hours before your event, as this seems to offer the most benefit and practicality. And remember, more is not better. You may be able to incorporate your priming session into your existing training regime.

I don’t play sport – what’s in it for me?

Priming doesn’t just apply to sport; it may help in the gym and with learning new skills.

A 2014 study showed bench-press and squat performance was greater in the afternoon if they were used as priming exercises that same morning.

And ten to 30 minutes of aerobic exercise may improve reaction time, memory and attention. Moderately intense cycling has been shown to help musicians learn the piano. However, these changes appear more immediate and short-lived than those that relate to athletic performance, taking effect and lasting minutes rather than hours.

Read more:
Can’t get your teen off the couch? High-intensity interval training might help

What we still don’t know

There are still questions to be addressed when it comes to priming.

Could priming be useful in sports like rugby, football and basketball? These sports require multiple high-intensity efforts, coupled with dynamic decision-making to score and beat an opponent.

More research is also needed to work out what’s happening in the body and what exercises should be done when for the most effective priming. As researchers, we’re exploring the effect of different priming routines on muscular strength and power, as well as repeat sprint performance and reaction time in strength athletes and football players.

In particular, weightlifting protocols that provide strong stimulation, but minimise fatigue, seem promising. We expect the findings will be useful for coaches and athletes who want to improve athletic performance.

Christopher Latella receives funding from the National Strength and Conditioning Foundation

Krissy Kendall receives funding from National Strength and Conditioning Foundation

– ref. This finals season, a brief ‘priming’ workout could boost performance on the sports field and beyond – https://theconversation.com/this-finals-season-a-brief-priming-workout-could-boost-performance-on-the-sports-field-and-beyond-188823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wayne Macpherson, Senior lecturer, Massey University

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on all facets of our lives, including the ways we work and our work-life priorities.

Globally, workplaces are navigating trends such as the “great resignation”, “quiet quitting” and the “great recruitment”. But in New Zealand, the “great return” to work is still being negotiated, providing employees and employers an opportunity to redesign the workplace in ways that benefit both.

One common theme in the employment trends to emerge during COVID-19 is a shift in the value people place on their work and their lives outside of work. But has this gone too far? Are workers being selfish – or “self-first”, as in putting their non-work preferences ahead of workplace productivity?

Or are they prioritising personal wellbeing in order to be better employees? And are these global employment trends meaningful in the New Zealand context, where small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) dominate the business landscape?

Our ongoing survey of more than 600 SME employees found workplace practices and future working preferences have changed since 2020. Workers are looking for jobs that better fit their lives. The results suggest now is the time for employers to work with employees, rather than against them, for mutual benefit and increased productivity.

Global trends: big players and trendsetters

More than two years after the first COVID-19 lockdowns, employers are calling their employees back to the office – but also having to respond to employee push-back. Employees are expecting and asking for more flexibility in where and when they work – they aren’t just quietly accepting the “old ways” of working.

Workers have had a taste of work-life flexibility and are demanding this more frequently and with more confidence. Meanwhile, some employers are focused on “traditional” 40-hour weeks in the office, while others are offering flexibility in hours worked, work style and location.

Read more:
The ‘city’ is becoming increasingly digital, forcing us to rethink its role in life and work

Tesla recently told workers to return to the office for 40 hours a week, or work elsewhere permanently. Apple’s mandate for employees to return to the office was met with a petition for a work-from-home policy, as implemented at Facebook and Twitter. The company eventually settled for a hybrid “two days at home, three days in the office” model.

In the UK, a four-day work week pilot involving 70 companies is underway, while in Canada some workplaces are navigating the broad pushback from employees who have seen they can work in different places and during different hours and who now want a say in how, when, and where they do their job.

Some businesses are mandating a return to the office while other Canadian businesses have embraced a four-day work week with no change in daily hours for employees.

NZ workplaces in a state of flux

While similar trials are under way in New Zealand, the big questions are whether employers need to worry about the actions of large, multinational companies (given SMEs make up approximately 97% of local businesses), and whether employees have the same desired future work-life preferences as workers overseas.

A quick search of vacancies on the job website Seek.com showed more than 700 jobs mentioned “working from home”, 5,000 mentioned “flexibility”, and 38,000 mentioned “work-life” in the job descriptions. Businesses clearly have the sense that staff preferences are changing.

Our research provides insight on what employees want and why. We asked questions about when, where and how many hours they work, as well as the levels of autonomy they have in setting their own work patterns. We also asked what changes they had seen in their organisations since 2020.

Read more:
Flexibility makes us happier, with 3 clear trends emerging in post-pandemic hybrid work

While more than half of the respondents (52%) said they had more flexibility in terms of their work arrangements compared to before COVID, and 62% agreed they were able to manage their work-life demands, two-thirds (67%) indicated they now wanted more work-life flexibility.

Nearly half of the respondents (48%) reported that their organisation had already made formal policy changes to enable more work-life flexibility (not including temporary changes during the pandemic). Some 41% said they knew of employees who had left organisations because the employer did not provide enough flexibility to match their needs.

Flexibility in this context meant control over their working patterns. Employees wanted to decide how, where and when they carried out their work. This does not necessarily mean only working from home, but start and end times, number of daily hours worked, and preferred locations such as the homes of friends and family, cafes, libraries and shared open spaces.

Read more:
Even Google agrees there’s no going back to the old office life

The dominant reason for people seeking greater flexibility was personal wellbeing (60%) – above family care, lifestyle, community involvement, fewer interruptions and increased productivity.

We also found 77% of respondents wanted to feel a strong sense of belonging to their organisation. Despite wanting more control of their working patterns, including not necessarily being in the same building as their colleagues, respondents still wanted to be part of an organisation – just in a different way.

Finding common ground

This survey results offer local employers an opportunity to work with employees, rather than face the backlash that has been seen overseas.

With record low unemployment, employees are seeking organisations that are responding to the shift in employee values. Employers need to look past what might appear, on the surface, to be employee selfishness and accommodate the new “self-first” preferences in the post-COVID environment.

By embracing the preferences of their workers, employers can show they value employees and employee wellbeing, which might help navigate the best options for employees – including helping set the new “rules” of working and where compromises might take place.

Remember, employees want a sense of belonging to something bigger. But they also understand the importance of taking care of themselves first. It is time for employees and employers to work together to carve out the mutual benefits of finding new ways of working.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Survey reveals two-thirds of NZ employees want more work-life flexibility – how should employers respond? – https://theconversation.com/survey-reveals-two-thirds-of-nz-employees-want-more-work-life-flexibility-how-should-employers-respond-189879

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Trinajstic, John Curtin Distinguished Professor, Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University

In the limestone ranges of Western Australia’s Kimberley region, near the town of Fitzroy Crossing, you’ll find one of the world’s best-preserved ancient reef complexes.

Here lie the remnants of myriad prehistoric marine animals, including placoderms, a prehistoric class of fish that represents some of our earliest jawed ancestors.

Placoderms were the rulers of the ancient seas, rivers and lakes. They were the most abundant and diverse fishes of the Devonian Period (419–359 million years ago) – but died out at the end in a mass extinction event.

Studying placoderms is important as they provide insight into the origins of the jawed vertebrate body plan (vertebrates are animals with backbones). For instance, placoderms have revealed when the first jaws, teeth, paired skull bones and paired limbs evolved. They’ve also taught us about the origins of internal fertilisation and live birth in vertebrate evolution.

Read more:
Our ideas about vertebrate evolution challenged by a new tree of life

Now, in a paper published in Science, we detail our findings of the oldest three-dimensionally preserved heart from a vertebrate – in this case a jawed vertebrate. This placoderm heart is about 380 million years old, and 250 million years older than the previous oldest vertebrate heart.

How did we do it?

Fish fossils from near Fitzroy Crossing were first reported from Gogo Station in the 1940s. But it wasn’t until the 1960s that beautiful 3D preservations were revealed, using a technique that removes rock from bones with weak acetic acid.

However, this technique proved to be a double-edged sword. While the fine details of the bony skeleton were uncovered, soft tissues in the fossils dissolved away. It wasn’t until 2000 that the first pieces of fossilised muscle were identified in placoderms.

With the advent of an X-ray method called “synchrotron microtomography” – first used on the Gogo fossils in 2010 – more muscles were revealed from the Gogo placoderms, including neck and abdominal muscles.

Our work used this same technology to show, for the first time, the presence of a liver, stomach and intestines in a Devonian fish. Some of the specimens even showed remnants of their last meal: a crustacean.

We found the soft organs fossilised in an order of placoderms called arthrodires. These were the most common and diverse of all known placoderms, characterised by a unique joint between their head and trunk armour.

The heart of the placoderm

The most exciting find for us was the heart. We found our first placoderm heart using synchrotron imagining.

Then while experimenting with a technology called neutron imaging, we discovered a second heart within a different specimen.

Life must have been nerve-racking in the Devonian seas, because placoderms literally had their hearts in their mouths!

At this point in vertebrate evolution, the neck was so short that the heart was located at the back of the throat and under the gills.

Fishes that are even more primitive than arthrodires, such as the jawless lamprey, have their heart close to their liver. And the chambers of the heart (called the atrium and ventricle) sit side by side.

On the other hand, arthrodire placoderms had the heart in a more forward (anterior) position, at the back of the throat. And the atrium sat on top of the ventricle – similar to sharks and bony fishes today.

Today, 99% of all living vertebrates have jaws. Arthrodires provide the first anatomical evidence to support the hypothesis that, in jawed vertebrates, the repositioning of the heart to a more forward position was linked to the evolution of jaws and a neck.

But that’s not all. This movement of the heart would also have made room for lungs to develop.

So did placoderms have lungs?

One of the most challenging evolutionary questions today is whether lungs were present in the earliest jawed vertebrates. Although fish have gills, the presence of lungs in some fish can help with buoyancy, which is needed to sink and rise in the water.

Today, lungs are only present in primitive bony fishes such as lungfish and African reedfishes.

More advanced bony fish (such as the teleosts) stay afloat using a swim bladder, whereas sharks have neither lungs nor a swim bladder, and instead use a large fatty liver to help with buoyancy.

But what about ancient placoderms? Previous studies (which were somewhat controversial) suggested lungs were present in a primitive placoderm called Bothriolepis.

Our analysis of the arthrodires from Gogo reveals the structures thought to be lungs in Bothriolepis are in fact a liver with two lobes, so lungs are now thought to have been missing from placoderms.

Our discovery therefore shows a single origin for lungs in bony fishes (osteichthyans). The movement of the heart to a forward position from jawless fishes (Cyclostomata) would have allowed room for lungs to develop in later lineages.

The absence of lungs in placoderms suggests these fish relied on their liver for buoyancy, like modern sharks do.

A crucial site

The preservation of organs is a race against time. In some cases, an animal’s decomposition will aid soft tissue preservation, but too much decomposition and the soft tissues decay away. For excellent preservation the balance needs to be just right.

In the fossilised heart we found the atrium and ventricles are shown clearly, while the conus arteriosus – a section of the heart that directs blood from the ventricle to the arteries – is not as well preserved.

Being able to make these discoveries before they’re lost forever is crucial if we are to fully understand the early evolution of vertebrates, including the origins of the human body plan.

So beyond our immediate findings, our work has reinforced the significance of the Gogo site in the Kimberley as one of the world’s most important sites for carrying out this work.

Read more:
Extraordinary ‘missing link’ fossil fish found in China

Kate Trinajstic receives funding from
ARC Discovery Project

I am a research associate at the WA Museum

John Long receives funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. We found the oldest ever vertebrate fossil heart. It tells a 380 million-year-old story of how our bodies evolved – https://theconversation.com/we-found-the-oldest-ever-vertebrate-fossil-heart-it-tells-a-380-million-year-old-story-of-how-our-bodies-evolved-190230

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, Senior Lecturer in Behavioral Data Science, University of Technology Sydney

Say you are looking for a new job. You head to LinkedIn to spruce up your profile and look around your social network.

But who should you reach out to for an introduction to a potential new employer? A new study of more than 20 million people, published in Science, shows that your close friends (on LinkedIn) are not your best bet: instead you should look to acquaintances you don’t know well enough to share a personal connection with.

The strength of weak ties

In 1973, the American sociologist Mark Granovetter coined the phrase “the strength of weak ties” in the context of social networks. He argued that the stronger the ties between two individuals, the more their friendship networks will overlap.

Simply put, you are most likely to know all the friends of a close friend, but few of the friends of an acquaintance.

So if you are searching for a job, you probably already know everything your immediate neighbourhood has to offer. Intuitively, it is the weak ties – your acquaintances – that offer the most opportunities for new discoveries.

Weak ties and jobs

Granovetter’s theory feels right, but is it? A team of researchers from LinkedIn, Harvard Business School, Stanford and MIT set out to gather some empirical evidence on how weak ties affect job mobility.

Their research piggy-backed on the efforts of engineers at LinkedIn to test and improve the platform’s “People You May Know” recommendation algorithm. LinkedIn regularly updates this algorithm, which recommends new people to add to your network.

One of these updates tested the effects of encouraging the formation of strong ties (recommending adding your close friends) versus weak ties (recommending acquaintances and friends of friends). The researchers then followed the users that participated in this “A/B testing” to see if the difference impacted their employment outcomes.

More than 20 million LinkedIn users worldwide were randomly assigned to well-defined treatment groups. Users in each group were shown slightly different new contact recommendations, which led users in some groups to form more strong ties and users in other groups to form more weak ties.

Next, the team measured how many jobs users in each group applied for, and how many “job transmissions” occurred. Job transmissions are of particular interest, as they are defined as getting a job in the same company as the new contact. A job transmission suggests the new contact helped land the job.

Moderately weak ties are best

The study uses causal analysis to go beyond simple correlations and connect link formation with employment. There are three important findings.

First, the recommender engine significantly shapes link formation. Users who were recommended more weak links formed significantly more weak links, and users who were recommended more strong links formed more strong links.

Second, the experiment provides causal evidence that moderately weak ties are more than twice as effective as strong ties in helping a job-seeker join a new employer. What’s a “moderately” weak tie? The study found job transmission is most likely from acquaintances with whom you share about 10 mutual friends and rarely interact.

Third, the strength of weak ties varied by industry. Whereas weak ties increased job mobility in more digital industries, strong ties increased job mobility in less digital industries.

Better recommendations

This LinkedIn study is first to causally prove Granovetter’s theory in the employment market. The causal analysis is key here, as large-scale studies of correlations between strength of ties and job transmission have shown strong ties are more beneficial, in what was considered until now a paradox.

This study resolves the paradox and again proves the limitations of correlation studies, which do a poor job at disentangling confounding factors and sometimes lead to the wrong conclusions.

From a practical point of view, the study outlines the best parameters for suggesting new links. It revealed that the connections most helpful in landing a job are your acquaintances, people you meet in professional settings, or friends of friends, rather than your closest friends – people with whom you share about 10 mutual contacts and with whom one is less likely to interact regularly.

These can be translated into algorithmic recommendations, which can make the recommendation engines of professional networks such as LinkedIn even more proficient at helping job-seekers land jobs.

The power of black boxes

The public is often wary when large social media companies perform experiments on their users (see Facebook’s infamous emotion experiment of 2014).

So, could LinkedIn’s experiment have harmed its users? In theory, the users in the “strong link” treatment group might have missed the weak links that could have brought their next job.

However, all groups had some degree of job mobility – some just a bit more than others. Moreover, since the researchers were observing an engineering experiment, the study itself seems to raise few ethical concerns.

Nonetheless, it is a reminder to ask how much our most intimate professional decisions – such as selecting a new career or workplace – are determined by black-box artificial intelligence algorithms whose workings we cannot see.

Marian-Andrei Rizoiu receives funding from the Department of Home Affairs, the Commonwealth of Australia represented by the Defence Science and Technology Group, Facebook and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. A huge LinkedIn study just showed which connections are better when searching for a job – https://theconversation.com/a-huge-linkedin-study-just-showed-which-connections-are-better-when-searching-for-a-job-190428

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mianna Lotz, Associate Professor in Philosophy & Chair of Faculty of Arts Human Research Ethics Committee, Macquarie University

The opportunity to conceive, carry and give birth to a biologically related child is a deep desire for many women and their partners. Since the introduction of IVF in 1978, many people in countries such as Australia have accessed support and resources to help realise their reproductive goals.

For some women, the lack a functioning uterus has kept that opportunity out of reach. This includes those with a congenital condition such as Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, and those who had a hysterectomy for medical reasons.

For these women, the only options for parenthood have been surrogacy or adoption. Access to both is often difficult.

Uterus transplants are changing that. From next year, uterus transplants are being trialled in Australia. However, there are risks involved and ethical concerns which must addressed before it can become mainstream clinical treatment.

How does the process work?

Uterus transplantation is a set of medical procedures in which a donated uterus is surgically removed from a suitable donor and transplanted into an eligible recipient.

Hormones are used to stimulate menstruation in the recipient, and once the uterus is functioning normally, an IVF-created embryo is transferred into the woman’s uterus.

Following successful implantation and healthy development, the baby is delivered via caesarean section. This is because a uterus transplant pregnancy is regarded as high risk, and the woman may not be able to feel contractions. Women with the congenital absence of a uterus will not be able to deliver vaginally.

Read more:
Explainer: what are womb transplants and who could they help?

As with all transplants, the uterus recipient is prescribed immunosuppression medication to prevent rejection of the donor organ. These drugs are administered at levels deemed safe for the developing foetus. Close monitoring continues throughout the pregnancy to ensure the safety of both woman and foetus.

Immunosuppression continues until the delivery of up to two healthy babies or five years after the transplant, whichever is first.

The uterus is then surgically removed via hysterectomy, enabling immunosuppression – which carries risks and side-effects – to be ceased. Risks from immunosuppression include infection, reduced blood cell count, heart disease and suppression of bone marrow growth. And these risks increase with time.

Uterus transplantation is an “ephemeral” transplant: a non-life-saving temporary transplant, aimed solely at enabling reproduction. These features make it medically and ethically distinct from other transplants.

When did uterus transplants start?

Scientists started developing uterus transplantation in animals in the 1970s. The first attempts in humans occurred in 2000 (Saudi Arabia) and 2011 (Turkey), both of which failed.

After 14 years of research, Professor Mats Brannstrom and his team at Sweden’s Sahlgrenska University Hospital started the world’s first human trials in 2013. In 2014, the first healthy baby was born.

With more than 25 countries now performing or planning uterus transplants, it is estimated that at least 80 procedures have been performed, resulting in more than 40 healthy live births. While not all transplants are successful, the live birth rate from a uterus that is functioning successfully after transplantation is estimated at over 80%.

In Australia, two trials have been approved and plan to start within the next 12-18 months.

Who donates?

Most uterus transplants so far have used altruistic living donors, typically a mother donating to her daughter or an aunt to her niece.

But cases using uteruses from deceased donors have also been successful, with at least four healthy live births reported.

Uteruses from deceased donors are mostly provided through standard family consent methods for medical research. But in future they could be provided through organ donor registration processes modified to include the uterus.

Currently, only pre-menopausal women can be uterus donors, and living donors need to have had a successful pregnancy to be eligible to donate. But this may not need to be a requirement for deceased donors, potentially enabling younger donors and increasing the availability of uteruses for transplantation.

Of the two approved Australian trials, only one (led by Royal Hospital for Women, for which I provide independent ethical advice) will conduct both living and deceased donor uterus transplantation. The other (through Royal Prince Alfred hospital) will trial only living donor transplantation.

Participation in these uterus transplant trials will remain limited while uterus transplantation is still in the research phase, and will depend on the availability of funding.

What are the risks of living donation?

For recipients, the main surgical risks are organ rejection, infection, and blood clots or thrombosis, as well as risks arising from the surgery duration (average 5 hours) such as blood clots (including in the lung) and from immunosuppression.

While challenging, these risks have been minimised through close monitoring and early intervention using blood thinners and encouraging recipients to move around soon after surgery.

For living donors, physical risks arise from surgery duration (6-11 hours) and operative and postoperative complications, the most common being urinary tract injury and infection.

There are also ethical and psychological risks. These include the possibility of a potential donor feeling pressured to donate to a family member, and experiencing guilt and failure if the transplant is not successful or results in adverse outcomes.

These risks may be reduced with appropriate counselling and support. But as with all altruistic organ donation, they cannot be entirely eliminated.

What about deceased donation?

Deceased donor transplantation also carries risks but involves less surgical time than living donor transplantation (typically 1-2 hours) and therefore less demand on medical resources and personnel.

Deceased donor transplantation may be less ethically fraught. There is no prospect of pressure, guilt or surgical risk to the deceased donor, who must have been declared brain dead and be suitable for multi-organ donation. Their organs may only be procured with proper consent, following the usual protocols and procedures.

Read more:
Would you donate your womb when you die?

In Australia, as elsewhere, organ donors are in short supply. But deceased donors might be found via existing donation registries and consent processes, such as those managed by DonateLife and NSW Organ and Tissue Donation Services.

Why investigate both types of donation?

It’s important to be able to compare the outcomes of living and deceased donation in similar recipients and contexts. This will inform future guidelines and policies around uterus donation, and determine whether it can become mainstream clinical practice.

Emerging evidence suggests deceased donation may yield better results for recipients. Using deceased donor organs allows longer veins and arteries to be retrieved, enabling better blood flow for the uterus and potentially greater success in transplants and pregnancies.

So although there are currently fewer cases of deceased donors, there are sound medical and ethical reasons for Australian uterus transplant research with both deceased and living donors.

Mianna Lotz provides independent ethical advice to the uterus transplant trial at Royal Hospital for Women.

– ref. What are uterus transplants? Who donates their uterus? And what are the risks? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-uterus-transplants-who-donates-their-uterus-and-what-are-the-risks-190443

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Pessarrodona Silvestre, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Western Australia

Amazon, Borneo, Congo, Daintree. We know the names of many of the world’s largest or most famous rainforests. And many of us know about the world’s largest span of forests, the boreal forests stretching from Russia to Canada.

But how many of us could name an underwater forest? Hidden underwater are huge kelp and seaweed forests, stretching much further than we previously realised. Few are even named. But their lush canopies are home to huge numbers of marine species.

Off the coastline of southern Africa lies the Great African Seaforest, while Australia boasts the Great Southern Reef around its southern reaches. There are many more vast but unnamed underwater forests all over the world.

Our new research has discovered just how extensive and productive they are. The world’s ocean forests, we found, cover an area twice the size of India.

These seaweed forests face threats from marine heatwaves and climate change. But they may also hold part of the answer, with their ability to grow quickly and sequester carbon.

What are ocean forests?

Underwater forests are formed by seaweeds, which are types of algae. Like other plants, seaweeds grow by capturing the Sun’s energy and carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The largest species grow tens of metres high, forming forest canopies that sway in a never-ending dance as swells move through. To swim through one is to see dappled light and shadow and a sense of constant movement.

Just like trees on land, these seaweeds offer habitat, food and shelter to a wide variety of marine organisms. Large species such as sea-bamboo and giant kelp have gas-filled structures that work like little balloons and help them create vast floating canopies. Other species relies on strong stems to stay upright and support their photosynthetic blades. Others again, like golden kelp on Australia’s Great Southern Reef, drape over seafloor.

How extensive are these forests and how fast do they grow?

Seaweeds have long been known to be among the fastest growing plants on the planet. But to date, it’s been very challenging to estimate how large an area their forests cover.

On land, you can now easily measure forests by satellite. Underwater, it’s much more complicated. Most satellites cannot take measurements at the depths where underwater forests are found.

To overcome this challenge, we relied on millions of underwater records from scientific literature, online repositories, local herbaria and citizen science initiatives.

With this information, we modelled the global distribution of ocean forests, finding they cover between 6 million and 7.2 million square kilometres. That’s larger than the Amazon.

Next, we assessed how productive these ocean forests are – that is, how much they grow. Once again, there were no unified global records. We had to go through hundreds of individual experimental studies from across the globe where seaweed growth rates had been measured by scuba divers.

We found ocean forests are even more productive than many intensely farmed crops such as wheat, rice and corn. Productivity was highest in temperate regions, which are usually bathed in cool, nutrient-rich water. Every year, on average, ocean forests in these regions produce 2 to 11 times more biomass per area than these crops.

What do our findings mean for the challenges we face?

These findings are encouraging. We could harness this immense productivity to help meet the world’s future food security. Seaweed farms can supplement food production on land and boost sustainable development.

These fast growth rates also mean seaweeds are hungry for carbon dioxide. As they grow, they pull large quantities of carbon from seawater and the atmosphere. Globally, ocean forests may take up as much carbon as the Amazon.

Read more:
A marine heatwave has wiped out a swathe of WA’s undersea kelp forest

This suggests they could play a role in mitigating climate change. However, not all that carbon may end up sequestered, as this requires seaweed carbon to be locked away from the atmosphere for relatively long periods of time. First estimates suggest that a sizeable proportion of seaweed could be sequestered in sediments or the deep sea. But exactly how much seaweed carbon ends up sequestered naturally is an area of intense research.

Hard times for ocean forests

Almost all of the extra heat trapped by the 2,400 gigatonnes of greenhouse gases we have emitted so far has gone into our oceans.

This means ocean forests are facing very difficult conditions. Large expanses of ocean forests have recently disappeared off Western Australia, eastern Canada and California, resulting in the loss of habitat and carbon sequestration potential.

Conversely, as sea ice melts and water temperatures warm, some Arctic regions are expected to see expansion of their ocean forests.

These overlooked forests play an crucial, largely unseen role off our coasts. The majority of the world’s underwater forests are unrecognised, unexplored and uncharted.

Without substantial efforts to improve our knowledge, it will not be possible to ensure their protection and conservation – let alone harness the full potential of the many opportunities they provide.

Read more:
Can selective breeding of ‘super kelp’ save our cold water reefs from hotter seas?

Albert Pessarrodona Silvestre receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program, the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment. He is also affiliated with Conservation International.

Karen Filbee-Dexter receives funding from the Australian Research Council, ArcticNet, the Norwegian Research Council, Schmidt Marine Technology Partners and Canopy Blue. Karen is affiliated with the Institute of Marine Research Norway and Laval University.

Thomas Wernberg receives funding from The Australian Research Council, The Norwegian Research Council, The Schmidt Marine Technology Partners and Canopy Blue. Thomas is also affiliated with the Institute of Marine Research, Norway and Rosklid University, Denmark.

– ref. Ever heard of ocean forests? They’re larger than the Amazon and more productive than we thought – https://theconversation.com/ever-heard-of-ocean-forests-theyre-larger-than-the-amazon-and-more-productive-than-we-thought-190534

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Pearse, Lecturer, Australian National University

Australia’s historic climate law passed the Senate last week and enshrined an economy-wide target to reduce emissions. But an important measure to reduce Australia’s industrial emissions is still up for debate: the “safeguard mechanism”.

Introduced by the Abbott government in 2014, the safeguard mechanism is supposed to stop Australia’s largest greenhouse gas polluters from emitting over a certain threshold. But the policy has been frequently criticised for lacking teeth. The Labor government has promised to strengthen the mechanism, and is currently reviewing it.

Industry has raised concerns over any toughening of the policy. Meanwhile, the Greens will push Labor to strengthen it further.

The safeguard mechanism covers the grid-connected power stations with a sectoral target. It also applies to 215 of Australia’s largest industrial emitters. Together, these 215 facilities produce almost 30% of Australia’s total annual emissions. So a stringent policy to curb this pollution is crucial to climate action.

Wait, what’s the safeguard mechanism?

The safeguard mechanism works by setting a limit on the emissions individual enterprises can produce in a year. This limit is put into place with “baselines” that get set in a number of different ways, depending on the type of company involved. Such companies might include a mining company, aluminium smelter, steelworks or airline.

If the company emits beyond their limit, they can buy carbon credits to compensate for, or “offset”, the excess emissions.

The mechanism covers hard-to-abate industries which are regulated on an individual basis, such as new coal, oil and gas projects, steel, aluminium, manufacturing and transport. These include Woodside’s Northwest Shelf gas project, Qantas, Chevron’s Gorgon gas project, Port Kembla steelworks, and AngloAmerican coal mines in central Queensland.

Coal fired power remains our biggest industrial source of emissions, but is regulated separately. A “sectoral baseline” has been set for all electricity generators connected to the national grid at 198 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent each year.

Rubbery baseline emissions

Historically, the safeguard mechanism hasn’t put strong obligations on industrial emitters to reduce their emissions. Indeed, industrial emissions have increased since the mechanism began in 2016.

Imposing a genuine carbon limit on high-emitting companies requires a clear definition and enforcement of the baselines. But the safeguard mechanism provides enormous scope for expanded production and, therefore, expanded emissions.

The government’s review paper identifies a major problem with how baselines have been set in the past. Namely, many facilities have been allowed to set their baseline emissions well above their actual emissions.

Read more:
1 in 5 fossil fuel projects overshoot their original estimations for emissions. Why are there such significant errors?

Baselines for each facilities’ emissions are currently measured according to “production-adjusted” emissions intensity. So, for example, a coal mine’s baseline is measured per tonne of coal commodity produced. This means over time, baselines rise or fall in proportion to a company’s expected production.

The government’s consultation paper reports that in the 2020-21 financial year the combined baseline emissions recorded for non-electricity grid emissions under the safeguard mechanism was estimated at 180 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent.

But actual emissions in the same period were 137 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent.

It should also be noted that research suggests up to one in five fossil fuel projects are underestimating their actual emissions. But regardless, the high baselines mean there’s no regulatory pressure for companies to reduce their emissions.

The current review paper seeks feedback on these issues. Removing the head room for facilities with baselines well above their actual emissions is on the cards.

Carbon credit questions

The government is poised to propose significantly expanding carbon credit trading under the safeguard mechanism.

Carbon credits are granted to projects that reduce, store or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. These credits can be sold to the federal government or to private companies to offset a project’s own emissions.

Under the current safeguard mechanism, if a company exceeds its baseline emissions, then it can purchase Australian carbon credits to offset this.

These carbon offsets, however, are plagued with credibility problems. In fact, another federal government review is underway to examine the issues.

Read more:
‘Untenable’: even companies profiting from Australia’s carbon market say the system must change

There are calls to strongly limit or remove questionable offsets linked to the safeguard mechanism.

For instance, climate science professor Mark Howden argued recently that offsets should not be used to give big emitters a “free ride” to continue polluting if they invest in carbon sequestration projects, at this stage.
Instead, the immediate priorities should be limiting fossil fuel combustion burning, and making concrete plans for other industries to transition.

Despite this, the federal government is considering expanding trade in these and potentially other types of carbon credits.

The government is proposing a new type of carbon credit for companies emitting below their baseline. For instance, if an aluminium smelter reduced its emissions over 2024 and 2025, it could be granted credits to sell to others in the carbon market.

The government is also considering allowing companies to trade carbon credits on an international level, pending reforms to address integrity issues in safeguard mechanism like the baseline headroom problem.

Read more:
Australia may be heading for emissions trading between big polluters

The international trade in carbon credits has been plagued with problems for 20 years. A 2021 literature review found little evidence demonstrating causal effect of carbon trading markets on emissions reduction.

It puts a strong case forward against linking carbon markets internationally, after Europe, Quebec and California case studies show linking carbon markets has led to price crashes and volatility – not stability.

The risk of a weak carbon trading market

We can expect industry to continue to lobby for a weak safeguard mechanism and carbon credit rules. But if the Labor government is genuine about wanting to reduce Australia’s emissions, our biggest polluters cannot be allowed to carry on emitting as usual.

And there is no role for a carbon trading policy that excuses big emitters from making clean energy transition plans.

Labor may need the numerous pro-climate independent senators or the Greens to make changes signalled in the safeguard consultation paper. They are unlikely to be satisfied with a weak carbon trading scheme.

Any proposed changes that undermine Australia’s emissions reduction goals will not easily be passed.

Rebecca Pearse receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency.

– ref. Nearly 30% of Australia’s emissions come from industry. Tougher rules for big polluters is a no-brainer – https://theconversation.com/nearly-30-of-australias-emissions-come-from-industry-tougher-rules-for-big-polluters-is-a-no-brainer-190264

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Callister, Senior Associate Institute of Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Biofuels – and a broader bioeconomy – are key parts of New Zealand’s recently released first emissions reduction plan, particularly for transport, forestry and a transition to a more circular use of resources.

Work is moving fast, with a biofuel mandate for land transport to be introduced from April 2023 and a plan to transform the forestry industry currently under consultation.

A bioeconomy is heralded as an opportunity to replace imported fossil fuels with carbon-neutral domestic biofuels and to create higher-value products from plantation forestry (much of which is currently exported as unprocessed logs) while supporting carbon sequestration at the same time.

New Zealand is not the only country thinking along these lines. Biofuels are part of a widespread strategy to address emissions from existing fossil-fueled vehicles, tens of millions of which are still being produced annually. They are also promoted for planes, ships and heavy trucks, often with few alternatives.

Both the Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark US law which aims to curb inflation by investing in domestic clean energy production, and the EU’s Fit for 55 package, expand support for biofuels through a combination of subsidies and mandates. In the International Energy Agency (IEA)’s Net Zero scenario, global biofuel production quadruples by 2050, to supply 14% of transport energy.

Unfortunately, a string of government reports, combined with experience of the real-world impacts of biofuels thus far, point to several downsides and challenges, both economic and environmental.

Read more:
Air of compromise: NZ’s Emissions Reduction Plan reveals a climate budget that’s long on planning, short on strategy

First-generation biofuels from food crops

The risks of first-generation biofuels, made from crops grown on arable land, are well known. They are not due to the fuels themselves or their production, but their indirect effects of how the land would have been used otherwise.

Already, 10% of the world’s grain is used for biofuels. This is at the heart of the “food-to-fuel” issue. This approach has been challenged because it could increase grain prices or, at the worst, lead to starvation. It has also led to agricultural expansion, often into ecologically sensitive areas.

Debated for years, it is now back in the spotlight as the effects of droughts in China, the US and Europe, combined with the war in Ukraine, push food prices up 50% on 2019-2020 levels.

Read more:
A shrinking fraction of the world’s major crops goes to feed the hungry, with more used for nonfood purposes

Palm oil has borne the brunt of criticism about landuse change, as vast areas of rainforest in Indonesia and Malaysia have been cleared for its production. The impact of such “induced landuse change” (ILUC) gives palm oil biofuel nearly three times the emissions of fossil fuel.

But palm oil is a substitute for many other vegetable oils. Therefore, biofuel production from other oils like rapeseed (canola) is also implicated in ILUC, as diverting rapeseed to fuel leads to more palm oil entering the food chain.

Sustainability and credibility of feedstocks

The EU has undergone a lengthy process of strengthening the standards of its biofuel mandate. In the end, palm oil was the only feedstock listed as “high ILUC”, but was given a reprieve until 2030.

The cheapest biofuels with the biggest emissions savings are made from used cooking oil and beef tallow. But these feedstocks are in limited supply and open to fraud. They also already have other uses, which again raises the issue of substitution.

Z Energy’s NZ$50m tallow biodiesel plant, opened in 2018, has been mothballed due to the rising cost of tallow. The company has stopped work on plans for a much larger plant.

Since New Zealand’s biofuel mandate will initially be met solely by imports, questions of sustainability and certifiability of feedstocks will be crucial. It is concerning that landuse change will not be considered when calculating emissions reductions.

The fuels will count as zero-emission in New Zealand, while the actual emissions from growing, fertilising, processing and transporting will take place overseas, likely in countries with weaker climate targets. Unless accounted for, this is carbon leakage by design.

Second-generation biofuels from inedible plant material

For all these reasons, proponents are keen to talk up the prospect of second-generation biofuels, made from non-food crops. In New Zealand’s case, the main crop is pine trees.

Although there is some forestry waste available, much of it is currently left on site and would be expensive to collect and transport. The Wood Fibre Futures report, commissioned by the government, focuses on logs-to-fuel, specifically “drop-in” fuels that can substitute directly for petrol, diesel or jet fuel.

However, there are no such plants in commercial operation anywhere. The report calls the risks of such an unproved technology extreme, with little prospect for mitigation.

Read more:
Biofuel: how new microalgae technologies can hasten the end of our reliance on oil

The economics are also challenging, in part because log prices are high due to the efficiency of the log export market. A plant capable of producing 150 million litres of drop-in fuels a year – just 1.5% of New Zealand’s liquid fuel demand – would cost $1.2 billion and have a negative rate of return.

To obtain an acceptable return, the government would need to pay for half the cost of the plant and the logs, and also subsidise (or enforce) a 50% higher sale price of the fuel. The report envisages such a plant being completed by 2028 in New Zealand.

A fundamental obstacle is that any such use has to compete with other uses – including sawn timber, wood chips and wood pellets – which are far simpler, more profitable and come with greater carbon benefits.

Stop the mandate, strengthen alternatives

For all these reasons, we have formed the interest group Don’t Burn Our Future, which aims to stop New Zealand’s biofuel mandate.

As advocates of strong climate action, these are painful conclusions to reach. But we argue that for transport, the answer lies in the avoid/shift/improve framework, which encourages people to drive less, shift necessary trips to other modes and make them less polluting.

Biofuels only enter in the third and least important step (improve) and even there, they are the worst option.

The transport transformations envisaged in the new climate plans for Wellington and Auckland are heavily focused on avoidance and shifts to other modes. These options should be the priority.

Paul Callister is affiliated with Don’t burn our future: Stop the NZ biofuels obligation

Robert McLachlan is affiliated with Don’t burn our future: Stop the NZ biofuels obligation.

– ref. New Zealand has announced a biofuel mandate to cut transport emissions, but that could be the worst option for the climate – https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-has-announced-a-biofuel-mandate-to-cut-transport-emissions-but-that-could-be-the-worst-option-for-the-climate-189960

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucas Walsh, Professor and Director of the Centre for Youth Policy and Education Practice, Monash University

Australia’s class of 2022 is on the home stretch. Almost two million year 12 students will be sitting their final exams next month. In amongst this, they are making big decisions about their lives beyond school.

But research shows they are not getting the support they need as they finish school and move into the work or study that is right for them. Girls, in particular, are not getting the support they need.

This suggests careers support in high school is not working.

Careers advice at school

Careers education is not compulsory in Australian schools. There are guidelines such as the blueprint for career development. And the national curriculum up to year 10 calls on schools to “develop school-based approaches to career education […] to suit the needs of their students and the community”.

States and territories offer their own frameworks for years 11 and 12, such as Victoria’s careers curriculum framework.

These can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. In reality, some schools may have dedicated careers teachers. Students sometimes seek private careers counselling. Others may have nothing.

Read more:
‘It’s kind of suffocating’: queer young Australians speak about how they feel at school and what they think of politicians

Our study

Our Monash University study published last month surveyed more than 1,300 female school students in years 10 to 12. We wanted to know about how they were choosing their careers.

While we found more than 83% wanted to go to university, there was a significant degree of uncertainty about what next:

• one third did not know what career best suited them
• nearly 40% were concerned they were never have a “real” career
• about one third felt “unemployable”
• 34% said they were doing subjects or activities with no sense of purpose
• 26% said they often felt down or worried about selecting a career

The also continued to nominate careers within narrow fields. Half of young women’s chosen careers were concentrated in areas such as medicine (16.7%), law and paralegal studies (12.1%), nursing (11.5%), the creative arts (9.9%) and teaching (8.2%).

These ambitions are not bad, of course. But it means these young people might be overlooking new and growing careers around digital technology or fulfilling and potentially lucrative vocational options, such as trades.

Smith Family study

Another 2022 study released this week by The Smith Family surveyed over 1,500 young people and interviewed 38 students aged 17–19 experiencing disadvantage.

While most young people surveyed (86%) recalled receiving careers support while at school, only just over half found this support helpful. One in ten said it was not useful at all.

In some cases, there was no career advice. As interviewee Rabia said:

Because our school never really provided career counselling, right now a lot of my friends from school, they’re currently dropping out of their degree […] a lot of them are just not happy with what they chose.

Interviewee Mercedes said students needed advice that was individual and supportive:

More discussions around what’s on offer and job pathways would be a great thing […] instead of teachers saying ‘you know you probably can’t do that’ [they should say] ‘let’s think of some steps in order for you to get there’.

When choosing careers, interviewees said they valued hands-on work exposure, vocational study and being able to try different career options while at school. As Sahil said:

That work experience really opened my eyes to how IT would be in actual work settings. That shaped up my thinking of doing software engineering.

Careers advice needs to change

Careers advice needs to do much more than tell young people about what subjects to do in year 12 to qualify for certain degrees, or hand out pamphlets at university open days.

Apart from understanding the modern job market and current range of opportunities, careers advice needs to support young people as they move to the next stage of life.

Read more:
Choosing a career? These jobs won’t go out of style

Careers support is, of course, closely related to mental health and wellbeing. More than a third of those in The Smith Family Study had a health or mental health condition which was sometimes a barrier to employment, as Tarni said:

Honestly, thinking about my future is really scary. I never really did it ‘cos when you’re really mentally ill at a really young age, you don’t really make plans for it.

Young people need to know they are valued and have potential. An average of 110,000 fewer year 12s completed high school in the wake of COVID disruptions last year.

We need to find ways to keep them in school and provide them with better career support for their own and Australia’s future prosperity.

Lucas Walsh currently receives funding from The Paul Ramsay Foundation. He has worked with The Smith Family and sits on a voluntary advisory board unrelated to this study.

This article is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. ‘Thinking about my future is really scary’ – school leavers are not getting the careers support they need – https://theconversation.com/thinking-about-my-future-is-really-scary-school-leavers-are-not-getting-the-careers-support-they-need-190553

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Phillips, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), Australian National University

What if we could save A$243 billion by abolishing the Stage 3 tax cuts?

An article in Guardian Australia says we could spend it on all kinds of things, from pay rises for aged care workers to electrifying homes.

But the money probably wouldn’t be there – not most of it.

The Parliamentary Budget Office came up with the figure of $243 billion in response to a request from Greens Leader Adam Bandt to total the revenue the cuts would cost in their first nine years, which begin in July 2024.

The PBO used a standard, and, on face of it, an unexceptional assumption – that the cost would be the revenue that was lost in each year compared to what would have been raised if tax scales hadn’t been adjusted – for the entire decade.

Cost, but compared to what?

To recap, Stage 3 cuts the rate that applies to incomes over $45,000 from 32.5 cents in the dollar to 30 cents then extends that 30 cent rate all the way up to $200,000, abolishing an entire rung of the tax ladder.

The problem with the PBO’s assumption is that the alternative is unlikely to be borne out in reality.

Whenever incomes climb (The PBO assumes around 45 per cent growth in incomes over the next 10 years) the tax scales are typically adjusted to stop more income going into higher tax brackets – so-called bracket creep.

The graph below shows what would happen to the average tax rate in the absence of an adjustment over the next decade.

It would climb from 17.9% to 20.1% of household income.

With the Stage 3 cuts, average rates would at first fall to 17%, and then increase, climbing beyond current rates in 2028 as bracket creep reasserted itself.

This suggests the “cuts” aren’t much of cuts at all, certainly not long-lasting ones.

It is difficult to both claim that the cuts will cost the budget A$243 billion by 2032 and that they will allow the average tax take to climb.

Read more:
Stand by for the oddly designed Stage 3 tax cut that will send middle earners backwards and give high earners thousands

It means axing the cuts would produce less of a honeypot than might be thought.

While the PBO prepared its costing in accordance with standard practice, a more realistic costing of the Stage 3 cuts would have compared them to the sort of tax adjustments we could have expected without them.

Winners and losers

The Stage 3 tax cuts will be regressive, meaning they will cut the rates faced by high earners more than the rates faced by low earners.

My calculations suggest that in the first year they will cut the tax paid by the highest-earning fifth of households by 2.1 percentage points, leaving the tax paid by other households little changed.

And they will certainly will cost the budget money – leaving less money for services of the kind that mostly benefit lower income households – although nowhere near as much as the $243 billion quoted.

But the cost will be temporary. The effects on inequality will be longer-lasting.

Ben Phillips does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. That $243 billion ‘saving’ from axing the Stage 3 tax cut is more mirage than reality – https://theconversation.com/that-243-billion-saving-from-axing-the-stage-3-tax-cut-is-more-mirage-than-reality-190350

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Sparkes, Senior Lecturer (Media Studies and Production), University of Southern Queensland

MASH, stylised as M*A*S*H, is the story of a rag-tag bunch of medical misfits of the 4077th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital thrown together against the horrors of the Korean war in the 1950s. The series endured for 11 seasons, from September 1972 to the final episode in 1983.

Originally it was centred on two army surgeons, the wisecracking but empathetic Benjamin “Hawkeye” Pierce, played by Alan Alda, and the deadpan “Trapper” John McIntyre, played by Wayne Rogers.

The show had an ensemble cast and different episodes would often focus on one of the featured characters.

There was the meek Corporal “Radar” O’Reilly, cross-dressing Corporal Klinger, the easy-going Lieutenant Colonel Henry Blake and pious Father Mulcahy. The antagonists, conniving Major Frank Burns and Major Margaret “Hot Lips” Houlihan, were foils for Hawkeye and Trapper but occasionally were central characters in some episodes too.

Based on the 1970 movie, itself based on a novel, MASH was designed as a “black comedy” set during the Korean War.

It was really a thinly veiled critique of the war in Vietnam raging at the time.

The creators of the show knew they wouldn’t get away with making a Vietnam war comedy. Uncensored news broadcasts showing the viciousness of Vietnam were transmitted straight to the American public who were, by now, growing jaded of the increasingly brutal war.

Setting the series 20 years earlier allowed the creators to mask their criticisms behind a historical perspective – but most viewers realised the true context.

Read more:
Alan Alda on the art of science communication: ‘I want to tell you a story’

An anti-war sitcom

What started as a criticism of the Vietnam war soon evolved into one for all wars.

In many episodes, audiences would be reminded of the horrors of lives lost in the fighting on the line, and the angst and trauma faced by those behind the line.

It didn’t matter which war this was, MASH was saying all wars are the same, full of shattered lives.

Cloaking this message in comedy was the way the creators were able to make it palatable to a wide audience.

The early seasons have a distinctive sitcom feel to them, mostly as a result of the series co-creators, Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds, who were from a comedy background.

When both creatives left by the end of season five the show took a more dramatic turn.

In particular, Alda became more involved in the writing and took it into a more dramatic direction, toning down the comedic elements. This was also reflected in the change of many of the secondary characters.

The philandering, practical joker Trapper was replaced by the moral and professional BJ Hunnicutt, the snivelling Frank Burns by the pretentious Charles Winchester, the laconic Henry Blake with the officious Sherman Potter, and the complete absence of Radar after season eight. The voice of the series took on a noticeably Hawkeye focus.

As the Vietnam war ended in 1975, the tone of the show also changed. It became less political and focused more on the dilemmas of the individual characters. The laugh track was toned down. But this did not make the show any less popular.

Audiences responded strongly to the anarchic anti-authoritarianism of Hawkeye and Trapper/BJ.

Almost all the characters are anti-war, reflecting the growing antagonism the American public was feeling towards the Vietnam war and war fatigue in general, post-Vietnam.

Even Frank and Hot Lips, the most patriotic characters, sometimes questioned if the war was worth all the suffering and death. And the series reminded people the humour used was not meant to disrespect those fighting but as a coping mechanism of the trauma by those involved.

Read more:
‘Accidental Napalm’ turns 50: the generation-defining image capturing the futility of the Vietnam war

A timeless classic

That’s not to say there aren’t issues with the show when looked at with modern sensibilities.

Contemporary audiences would find problems with some of the representations of characters and issues addressed in the series. Corporal Klinger would today be seen as contentious. His penchant for dressing in women’s clothes was not because he was trans or interested in drag, but because he was trying to get a “Section 8”, or mental health, discharge.

Many of the female characters were also relegated to little more than two-dimensional romantic interests or background characters.

The only woman who starred with a significant recurring role was “Hot Lips” Houlihan but, as the nickname implies, she was often the butt of sexualised humour.

This has not stopped the show maintaining its popularity in the continual re-runs it gets on cable and streaming services.

MASH was a product of its time, yet its themes on the absurdity of war are universal. It became more than a TV show: a shared cathartic experience for war-weary audiences.

At its heart is the eclectic mix of dysfunctional characters who use humour to laugh in the face of adversity. This is what makes MASH a timeless classic.

Daryl Sparkes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. M*A*S*H, 50 years on: the anti-war sitcom was a product of its time, yet its themes are timeless – https://theconversation.com/m-a-s-h-50-years-on-the-anti-war-sitcom-was-a-product-of-its-time-yet-its-themes-are-timeless-190422

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

Joseph Ibrahim, Professor and Head, Health Law and Ageing Research Unit, Monash University, specialises in aged care issues. He has been a long-term advocate for improving the quality of life for those in residential care and for reform of the sector.

In this podcast, Ibrahim says currently COVID in aged care facilities is going largely unnoticed in the media. “If you have a look into the media coverage it would seem that it’s not a problem at all. [But] COVID deaths are far greater than at any time in the last two to three years”. While the vaccines have helped get things under control, the absence of restrictions is seeing infection rates at an all-time high. Ibrahim believes there should be a more tailored approach to outbreaks at facilities, depending on the circumstances.

A key election promise from Anthony Albanese was for a nurse on-site 24/7 in aged care facilities. Ibrahim is sceptical about how this will be achieved, given how many would be needed to meet the objective. “We would need 15,000 new nurses just to have one nurse in every facility, 24/7.”

More generally, in relation to the desperate staff shortages in the sector, Ibrahim says there is a “lack of respect” for aged care workers, citing low pay, the treatment they are given compared to healthcare professionals in hospitals, and the lesser opportunities for a career path.

Home care packages are key to the ability of many older people to stay at home. “I don’t think we’re keeping people at home for as long as we could […] Both governments have addressed and increased the amount of support packages available. The issue with that is, the package may be available, but the staff aren’t there to deliver on what’s within that package”. In some cases “I think people want to stay at home because they’re fearful of going into residential care, and so residential care isn’t seen as an option, it’s seen as a last resort”.

More radically, Ibrahim would like to see the end of nursing homes altogether. “We shouldn’t be having nursing homes at all […] do we believe that orphanages are a good way to look after children who have fractured family or who don’t have parents?”

One alternative to nursing homes would be “you might have small communal housing that might have five to ten people in them”.

“Or there are design changes around what you do when you get to 60, 70 or 80 in terms of downsizing and moving into a home that is more likely to meet your needs […] There’s also shared communal housing with people of different ages and different needs.

“I think we’ve been very lazy in just relying on aged care homes as a solution. So we’ve picked a lazy solution and we’re doing it badly.”

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Professor Joseph Ibrahim on COVID in aged care – and the end of nursing homes – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-professor-joseph-ibrahim-on-covid-in-aged-care-and-the-end-of-nursing-homes-190753

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria O’Sullivan, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, and Deputy Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University

During the present period of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, public sensitivities in the United Kingdom and Australia are high. There’s strong sentiment in both countries in favour of showing respect for the queen’s death. Some people may wish to do this privately. Others will want to demonstrate their respect publicly by attending commemorations and processions.

There are also cohorts within both countries that may wish to express discontent and disagreement with the monarchy at this time. For instance, groups such as Indigenous peoples and others who were subject to dispossession and oppression by the British monarchy may wish to express important political views about these significant and continuing injustices.

This has caused tension across the globe. For instance, a professor from the United States who tweeted a critical comment of the queen has been subject to significant public backlash. Also, an Aboriginal rugby league player is facing a ban and a fine by the NRL for similar negative comments she posted online following the queen’s death.

This tension has been particularly so in the UK, where police have questioned protestors expressing anti-monarchy sentiments, and in some cases, arrested them.

But should such concerns about the actions of the queen and monarchy be silenced or limited because a public declaration of mourning has been made by the government?

This raises some difficult questions as to how the freedom of speech of both those who wish to grieve publicly and those who wish to protest should be balanced.

What laws in the UK are being used to do this?

There are various laws that regulate protest in the UK. At a basic level, police can arrest a person for a “breach of the peace”.

Also, two statutes provide specific offences that allow police to arrest protestors.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 UK provides that a person is guilty of a public order offence if:

• they use threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour

• or display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive.

The offence provision then provides this must be “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress” by those acts.

There’s some protection for speech in the legislation because people arrested under this provision can argue a defence of “reasonable excuse”. However, there’s still a great deal of discretion placed in the hands of the police.

The other statute that was recently amended is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022, which allows police to arrest protestors for “public nuisance”.

In the context of the period of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, the wide terms used in this legislation (such as “nuisance” and “distress”) gives a lot of discretion to police to arrest protestors who they perceive to be upsetting others. For instance, a protestor who holds a placard saying “Not my king, abolish the monarchy” may be seen as likely to cause distress to others given the high sensitivities in the community during the period of mourning.

Is there a right to protest under UK and Australian law?

Protest rights are recognised in both the UK and in Australia, but in different ways.

In the UK, the right to freedom of expression is recognised in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

In Australia, there’s no equivalent of the right to freedom of expression at the federal level as Australia doesn’t have a national human rights charter. Rather, there’s a constitutional principle called the “implied freedom of political communication”. This isn’t a “right” as such but does provide some acknowledgement of the importance of protest.

Also, freedom of expression is recognised in the three jurisdictions in Australia that have human rights instruments (Victoria, Queensland and the ACT).

Can the right to protest be limited in a period of mourning?

In this period of public mourning, people wishing to assemble in a public place to pay respect to the queen are exercising two primary human rights: the right to assembly and the right to freedom of expression. But these aren’t absolute rights. They cannot override the rights of others to also express their own views.

Further, there’s no recognised right to assemble without annoyance or disturbance from others. That is, others in the community are also permitted to gather in a public place during the period of mourning and voice their views (which may be critical of the queen or monarchy).

À lire aussi :
The Queen has left her mark around the world. But not all see it as something to be celebrated

It’s important to also note that neither the UK nor Australia protects the monarchy against criticism. This is significant because in some countries (such as Thailand), it’s a criminal offence to insult the monarch. These are called “lèse-majesté” laws – a French term meaning “to do wrong to majesty”.

The police in the UK and Australia cannot therefore use public order offences (such breach of the peace) to unlawfully limit public criticism of the monarchy.

It may be uncomfortable or even distressing for those wishing to publicly grieve the queen’s passing to see anti-monarchy placards displayed. But that doesn’t make it a criminal offence that allows protestors to be arrested.

The ability to voice dissent is vital for a functioning democracy. It’s therefore arguable that people should be able to voice their concerns with the monarchy even in this period of heightened sensitivity. The only way in which anti-monarchy sentiment can lawfully be suppressed is in a state of emergency. A public period of mourning does not meet that standard.

Maria O’Sullivan received funding from the federal Attorney-General’s Department to write a research report on automated decision-making and serves as a legal advisor (part-time) on the Human Rights Advisory Panel for Queensland Parliament.

– ref. ‘Not my king’: do we have the right to protest the monarchy at a time of mourning? – https://theconversation.com/not-my-king-do-we-have-the-right-to-protest-the-monarchy-at-a-time-of-mourning-190687

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharon McLennan, Senior Lecturer, Massey University

With Fiji “open for happiness” and a COVID test no longer required on arrival, the temptation to take that long awaited tropical holiday may be stronger than ever.

Fiji is clearly very keen to see tourists, and their money, return, having previously boasted that it provided the world’s friendliest COVID test. COVID restrictions are now minimal.

Despite the optimism, COVID continues to circulate in Fiji, and some requirements remain. Holidaymakers are required to have insurance that covers the costs of testing, treatment, isolation and transport home. Those unlucky enough to get COVID must isolate for five days.

But the current approach by the Fijian government towards COVID-19 highlights the gap between the tourist experience and the lives of ordinary Fijians. Many locals struggle to find and pay for those COVID tests, which cost NZ$8–$20 per kit and are only available from approved pharmacies.

Between ongoing issues in the health sector and the effects of the global cost of living crisis, the reality behind Fiji’s marketing images remains challenging for many.

COVID horror still lingers

Over the past year, 68,000 Fijians contracted COVID-19 and 878 died. Hospitals have been stretched to breaking point amid shortages of equipment, medicine and space.

Heath workers burned out and many left their jobs. Amnesty International has attributed the COVID deaths to an inadequately resourced healthcare system, noting thousands of patients were turned away from hospitals due to bed shortages.

Read more:
How your Spanish holiday could be quite different this year — and why that matters

To be fair, the Fijian health sector was struggling well before the pandemic. The country already faced a worsening noncommunicable disease (NCD) crisis as well as high rates of infectious disease, both of which exacerbated the impacts of COVID.

Outbreaks of typhoid, dengue and leptospirosis have been a particular concern.

Combined with ageing infrastructure and an exhausted workforce, the situation reflects long-term neglect and under-resourcing of Fijian health services. As a consequence, the country has seen an unprecedented exodus of nurses and other health professionals and the closure of operating theatres.

Privatisation of health

The government’s response to these multiple crises has been twofold. Firstly, Fiji’s government promised increased support for health through the budget and a pivot to focus on NCDs.

At least 70% of the Fijian population who had COVID when they died were also suffering from a chronic disease. In response, health authorities are now focusing on wellness and promoting healthier behaviours to build people’s resilience to the virus.

This shift in strategy also means the government has committed to keeping better track of patients with NCDs and to keep the rest of the population healthy.

But the second response, one that began before the crisis and has expanded over the past three years, is a creeping privatisation of the health system. This has included the introduction of public-private partnerships (PPPs) (criticised for lack of adequate consultation), the rise in private laboratory, pharmaceutical and mortuary services and the expansion of a private GP scheme.

The potential impact of this is concerning in a country where the minimum wage is below US$2 a day. Without careful regulation and a well-functioning public health system, privatisation could put Fiji’s commitment to universal health care at risk. It might also lead to rising costs and a reduced focus on public health and health promotion.

Be a good tourist

The rising cost of health care is already a reality for ordinary Fijians. Between 40–50% of the population is estimated to live in poverty; putting food on the table is an everyday struggle.

With a national election anticipated soon, how Fiji responds to these challenges and the global cost of living crisis is very much in the spotlight.

For tourists, these structural issues may not be obvious. But by taking precautions that reduce the strain on Fiji’s health services, tourists can show respect and care for the Fijians providing the human and cultural element of their holiday experience.

Read more:
COVID changed travel writing. Maybe that’s not a bad thing

Behind the famous “bula smile” they or members of their families may be struggling with returning to work in the resorts, or to access the health care and wellbeing support they need.

They may still offer the world’s friendliest COVID protocols, but it comes at a cost that cannot always be measured by money.

Apisalome Movono receives funding from the Royal Society Te Aparangi

Sharon McLennan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Behind the ‘world’s friendliest COVID protocols’, Fiji’s health system remains stretched and struggling – https://theconversation.com/behind-the-worlds-friendliest-covid-protocols-fijis-health-system-remains-stretched-and-struggling-190344

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Mannell, Research Fellow in Digital Childhoods, Deakin University

Last week, the US government released six principles for reforming Big Tech. It’s the latest example of growing efforts to regulate the handful of companies with enormous influence over the internet. But while there’s a growing appetite for a new, better kind of internet, it’s hard to imagine what that might look like.

We’ve just published research that looks at one alternative – a social network called Scuttlebutt, which provides an example of a platform that puts people before profit.

The internet wasn’t supposed to be like this

In the 1990s, many thought the internet would make the world a better place. By letting ordinary people connect across vast distances, it would help us become more empathetic and egalitarian. Today, that vision seems naive. The internet is fraught with serious issues regulators are struggling to tackle.

One factor underpinning many of these problems is the huge influence that a handful of companies, such as Meta and Google, have over the internet. By putting corporate interests ahead of user wellbeing and society at large, they are key contributors to misinformation, privacy violations, and online harassment and abuse.

There’s increasing interest in regulating these companies and the markets in which they operate, including from the Australian government. However, it’s hard to imagine alternatives to an internet dominated by private companies – they are such a ubiquitous and powerful part of our online lives.

Read more:
A new proposed privacy code promises tough rules and $10 million penalties for tech giants

Enter Scuttlebutt

Scuttlebutt is an example of alternative social media platforms, which try to keep the best bits of popular places like Facebook and Twitter while improving on their downsides.

On the surface, Scuttlebutt looks quite similar to Facebook. Users create a profile, post content, and like and comment on others’ posts. There are lots of people chatting about politics, current events, and obscure shared interests.

But compared with regular platforms, Scuttlebutt has some radically different qualities. Crucially, it isn’t run by a company. Started by software engineer Dominic Tarr while living on a sailboat in New Zealand, Scuttlebutt is now being developed by an international community of people who run the platform collectively, using grant funding, donations and volunteer labour.

Because it’s not a company, Scuttlebutt doesn’t need to make a profit. There is no persuasive design trying to keep you hooked, no advertising, and it doesn’t collect, process or sell users’ personal data. Instead, data are stored and controlled on users’ own devices. (This process uses the novel secure “gossip” protocol for which the platform is named.) As it is open source, anyone can see, interact with, and reuse the code it’s built on.

While it’s impossible to know how many people are using this decentralised platform, Scuttlebutt has attracted substantial grant funding, along with the attention of tech luminaries and cultural critics.

Lessons for a better internet

We spent several years studying Scuttlebutt to understand the community building it, and the new models of online participation they’re trying to create.

We found that participation on Scuttlebutt is much deeper and more varied than mainstream platforms allow. Not only can users participate on the platform by posting, liking and sharing, they can also participate in the platform by helping shape how it is designed and run. Anyone interested is encouraged to contribute in whatever ways they can.

Compared with Facebook users, who resort to protests and petitions to try and improve its practices, Scuttlebutt users are empowered to collaborate in the creation of the online spaces they use.

Unlike mainstream social media, Scuttlebutt doesn’t ask you to give up your personal data as payment. So even forms of participation that look the same as on Facebook, such as creating a post, take place under more equitable conditions.

Scuttlebutt’s principles also reflect a view that developing fair and inclusive participation is as much a matter of culture as of technology design.

In contrast to Big Tech’s common focus on technology-first solutions, most Scuttlebutt contributors are as invested in improving the platform’s culture and governance as they are in building better technology. For example, when electing a council to distribute one of Scuttlebutt’s grants, priority was given to people with historically marginalised experiences in open-source communities.

These social elements may not scale to a platform the size of Facebook, but this isn’t a problem for Scuttlebutt, which doesn’t maximise user participation for profit. This means users can concentrate on encouraging a positive culture rather than trying to make as many people participate as much as possible.

In fact, we found that much of the Scuttlebutt community believes people need more choices in social media platforms, not a single Facebook replacement.

The future is already here

Scuttlebutt isn’t going to solve all the internet’s problems and, as we discuss in our research, it has its own issues – including the messiness of decentralised governance and ensuring accessibility for people from diverse backgrounds. But it does provide a way of exploring what the future of internet could look like.

These explorations highlight the importance of an internet where no single platform dominates and users have more control over shaping the spaces in which they gather.

In the meantime, Scuttlebutt also shows that platforms focusing on public benefit instead of profit are already possible.

Read more:
How dark is ‘dark advertising’? We audited Facebook, Google and other platforms to find out

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. It’s hard to imagine better social media alternatives, but Scuttlebutt shows change is possible – https://theconversation.com/its-hard-to-imagine-better-social-media-alternatives-but-scuttlebutt-shows-change-is-possible-190351

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

New Zealand’s decision this week to end most mandatory public health measures aimed at preventing COVID transmission received a mixed response. Our modelling suggests it was time to wind back restrictions, but some measures were perhaps scrapped prematurely.

The only requirements still in place are for people who test positive to isolate for seven days and for masks to be worn when visiting healthcare facilities and aged-care homes. Household contacts should test daily and mask up, but are not required to isolate unless they test positive.

We used our recent model to look at the effect of a 10-20% increase in transmission that could plausibly result from reduced mask wearing and less cautious behaviour. We found this could potentially bump up case numbers in the short term, though much less than the recent BA.5 wave.

The modelling shows that after a few months new infections settle at a level only 2-4% higher than without the changes. In other words, the 10-20% increase in transmission led to a much smaller increase in new infections because it ultimately also raised levels of immunity in the population.

This is not a good thing though: infections are always best avoided and immunity should not be a goal in itself.

It is, however, an important effect to take into account and international observations bear this out. Many countries have removed mask mandates this year and there are no obvious signs this has caused a significant rise in illness or deaths.

Balancing collective and individual action

A group of experts recently argued the aim of our COVID response should shift from limiting infection to preventing severe disease. Arguably this shift has already been happening over the past 12 months, but this week’s announcement marks another step on that journey.

To a large extent, this move is forced on us. As highlighted by our modelling above, a sustained reduction in the number of infections is difficult to achieve using the tools we currently have available.

Until March 2022, the epidemic was either growing exponentially or had the potential to do so if left uncontrolled. This meant collective action to reduce transmission was incredibly powerful.

The benefit of the vaccine in reducing severe disease was excellent. But it paled in comparison to the power of preventing an outbreak altogether or suppressing it through collective actions to stop spread.

Now, with widespread vaccination and 60% or more of the population likely having been infected, the relative importance of these effects has reversed. The benefit of actions to stop spread is likely to be relatively small. On the other hand, measures like boosters and antivirals continue to provide a large benefit to individuals and the broader community.

None of this is to argue that we shouldn’t try to reduce transmission. Preventing or delaying infections wherever possible is always beneficial as it reduces the amount of severe disease, long COVID and lost productivity.

Read more:
COVID: risk of diabetes and heart disease is higher after infection – but maybe only temporarily

The two protective measures still in place are important interventions. Although mass masking is likely to have only a marginal effect, targeted mask use remains an effective way to protect vulnerable people in healthcare and residential aged care.

Non-intrusive public health measures like improved ventilation and better sick pay entitlements deserve more attention as these would deliver health benefits more broadly than just for COVID.

And should case numbers increase again rapidly, a return to widespread masking may be justified to reduce risk for the vulnerable, ensure business continuity and take the pressure off the healthcare system.

Preparing for future waves

Since the pandemic began, a series of variants (Alpha, Delta, and the Omicron group of BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5) have caused worldwide waves. Another new variant is likely not far off. So while we enjoy the current lull in cases, we should prepare for the next wave.

Most of this preparation can only happen at the scale government or large institutions and businesses are capable of.

Read more:
Cutting COVID isolation and mask mandates will mean more damage to business and health in the long run

The government decision to remove the requirement for testing international arrivals using rapid antigen tests seems shortsighted. All outbreaks in Aotearoa New Zealand have been caused by new variants coming across the border. The requirement placed a low burden on arrivals and provided excellent information about what was arriving here before it gained traction in the community.

We will still detect new variants through sequencing of community and hospital cases and wastewater testing. But these are sometimes weeks behind border sampling and we will have lost valuable time to prepare.

Lower public awareness and normalisation of COVID may lead to reduced reporting of test results and daily case numbers will be an increasingly unreliable measure. The obvious answer to this is to run a regular random survey to accurately determine the true prevalence.

In July, the Ministry of Health announced such a survey would start in the “coming weeks” but it hasn’t materialised yet.

While there is much discussion about hybrid immunity, it is far more desirable to build immunity through vaccination rather than infection. Other countries have wider availability of vaccines than New Zealand, with fourth doses available to more age groups, bivalent vaccines that target Omicron variants, and vaccines available for children as young as two.

Health authorities should focus on ensuring we have widespread, timely and equitable access to the best vaccines and treatments. The community as a whole needs an ongoing focus on ensuring all eligible groups are up to date with vaccination.

The virus will continue to evolve. In this unpredictable situation, promises of certainty need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Taking the steps outlined above would ensure we are as prepared as possible for whatever COVID still has to throw at us.

Michael Plank works for the University of Canterbury and receives funding from the New Zealand Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Ministry of Health for mathematical modelling of Covid-19.

David Welch has received funding from HRC, MBIE, and ESR for Covid-19 modeling and genomic analysis.

– ref. With most mandatory public health measures gone, is New Zealand well prepared for the next COVID wave? – https://theconversation.com/with-most-mandatory-public-health-measures-gone-is-new-zealand-well-prepared-for-the-next-covid-wave-190528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Davidson, PhD Candidate, University of Newcastle

There have been national, state and local campaigns to “Close the Gap” in Australia. Despite this, considerable health gaps still exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

Musculoskeletal conditions are an area of health where there is a significant difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Although Indigenous people experience musculoskeletal conditions more, their access to high-quality and culturally informed support remains low.

Musculoskeletal conditions can have a considerable effect on people’s lives. Such conditions can affect a person’s ability to walk, complete simple tasks at home without help, and participate in sports or work.

Government health organisations need to provide better support for Indigenous people suffering from these conditions by encouraging culturally safe community-based care.

Read more:
First Nations mothers are more likely to die during childbirth. More First Nations midwives could close this gap

What are musculoskeletal conditions?

Musculoskeletal conditions include disorders that affect the bones, muscles and joints such as back pain and osteoarthritis. They affect approximately one in three Australians.

Internationally, low back pain is the leading cause of disability, and osteoarthritis is the leading cause of physical activity limitation. Both of these ailments are more common in Indigenous people, who are 20-50% more likely to have osteoarthritis and 10% more likely to report current back pain than the non-Indigenous population in Australia.

Musculoskeletal conditions have also been shown to contribute to the development of chronic diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. With 46% of Australia’s Indigenous population having at least one chronic condition, this may lead to even higher rates of chronic diseases.

Many Indigenous people resign themselves to being in pain and living with their condition. The social impact of living with these conditions is important to consider. For some First Nations people, it has the potential to restrict participation in activities of cultural significance and minimising connection with family and Country.

For example, the ability to care for and connect with extended family, attend community and family gatherings and enjoy activities on Country. These limitations often have considerable emotional effects on individuals, leading to feelings of anger, depression and fear.

Read more:
Colonial ideas have kept NZ and Australia in a rut of policy failure. We need policy by Indigenous people, for the people

Community-based care is needed

Indigenous people’s access to health-care services to manage pain is half the expected rate compared to non-Indigenous people. Part of the reason for lower health care access is due to negative experiences with health-care services due to discriminatory attitudes toward pain from health-care providers. Unfortunately this is a common occurrence for Indigenous people. More than half (53%) of all Indigenous people have experienced racism when when seeking health care.

Ways to increase Indigenous peoples’ access to health services is for them to have better support with self-managing their condition. In addition, community-based approaches to health care would provide a safer space for these patients. The Indigenous Australians’ Health Programme and other funding bodies must work with communities, clinicians, and researchers to deliver programs addressing musculoskeletal conditions and chronic diseases. These programs need to ensure local communities are at their centre and cultural safety for participants is a priority. Such programs could be led by community-based allied health clinicians, but should include a range of health professionals to ensure optimal care is provided that addresses all factors related to musculoskeletal conditions.

Read more:
Indigenous people with disabilities face racism and ableism. What’s needed is action not another report

Health care needs to include cultural safety

A whole of system approach is required to improve access to health care for Indigenous people in Australia. National, state, and local services must work together to ensure culturally safe care is provided, placing Indigenous clients and local communities at its core. This shift will likely require changes in how clinicians deliver care, how the services organise care, and how the health-care system supports this care.

Ineffective communication is often sighted as a barrier to care for Indigenous people. This is why clinicians building connections and rapport with the Indigenous community they are treating is important. Undertaking training in cultural safety and effective communication strategies is essential to assist clinicians in providing optimal care.

To improve health services, programs providing care for musculoskeletal conditions should aim to partner with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations and ensure Indigenous people are trained and employed as part of the team. The health system should also ensure policies prioritise these employment opportunities as well as the importance of providing culturally safe care and working with local Indigenous communities.

A person’s musculoskeletal pain and the presence of chronic diseases are often intertwined. We must develop community-based models of care to address these conditions in Indigenous people, and ensure culturally safe care is being provided.
These changes will require ongoing training for health-care staff.

The fundamental shift is the inclusion of local Indigenous communities in all health care initiatives. These improvements will help ensure Indigenous people have the opportunity to self-manage their musculoskeletal pain, general health and well being.

Christopher Williams receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

Jane Linton and Simon Davidson do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How do we support Indigenous people in Australia living with musculoskeletal conditions? – https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-support-indigenous-people-in-australia-living-with-musculoskeletal-conditions-187068

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Future Urban Mobility, Swinburne University of Technology

Reducing air pollution from road transport will save thousands of lives and improve the health of millions of Australians. One of the quickest ways to do this is to accelerate the current slow transition to electric vehicles.

Our newly published research evaluated the costs and benefits of a rapid transition. In one scenario, Australia matches the pace of transition of world leaders such as Norway. Our modelling estimates this would save around 24,000 lives by 2042. The resulting greenhouse emission reductions over this time would almost equal Australia’s current total annual emissions from all sources.

We also calculated the total costs and benefits through to 2042. Australia would be about A$148 billion better off overall with a rapid transition.

Read more:
Australia is failing on electric vehicles. California shows it’s possible to pick up the pace

Air pollution causes thousands of deaths

Every year, around 2,600 deaths in Australia are attributed to fine-particle air pollution. The main sources of this pollution are transport and industrial activities such as mining and energy generation.

An estimated 1,715 deaths were attributed to vehicle exhaust emissions in 2015. This was 42% more than the road toll that year.

Vehicle emissions increase respiratory infections as well, particularly in young children. Transport pollution contributes to many diseases, including lung cancer, heart disease, pneumonia, asthma and diabetes. It has also been linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

A 2019 study by the Electric Vehicle Council and Asthma Australia found vehicle emissions had 21,000 serious health impacts each year in New South Wales alone.

A Grattan Institute study last month showed exhaust-pipe pollutants from trucks kill more than 400 Australians every year.

Read more:
Australia could rapidly shift to clean transport – if we had a strategy. So we put this plan together

The benefits greatly outweigh the costs

Our new Swinburne University of Technology research evaluated the benefits of a transition to electric vehicles by considering public health, household and emissions reductions savings. We compared the benefits with costs, including charging infrastructure outlay, higher purchase prices for electric vehicles and green energy package costs – for household solar panels, battery storage and charging points.

Each electric vehicle was considered to have been bought along with a green energy package. The package minimises emissions and demands on electricity grid capacity, while increasing the benefits for households.

The study explored three scenarios:

1. slow scenario – business-as-usual, with electric vehicle sales increasing slowly from the current rate (a 5% increase in the first year, followed by a 10% yearly increase)

2. accelerated market-based scenario – aligns with the highest rates of adoption around the world like those in Norway (where 64% of new vehicles sold in 2021 were battery-powered), increasing by 5% every year

3. aggressive regulatory scenario – assumes all new vehicle sales would be electric in the base year as a result of government regulation.

The main differences between the scenarios are the rate of electric vehicle uptake (once consumers decide to retire their current vehicles) and the degree of government intervention.

The research found the business-as-usual scenario undermines national efforts to reduce the loss of life and cut emissions. It also found the aggressive strategy would have to overcome massive barriers given Australia trails many other countries in adopting electric vehicles.

The accelerated adoption strategy, however, is well aligned with uptake in other nations. Their example shows it can be achieved using progressive policies and incentives.

If implemented, the accelerated scenario could reduce the loss of life by around 24,000 by 2042. The reduction in emissions over this time would be 444 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 91% of Australia’s emissions from all sources in 2021. The cost would be around $118 billion, less than half of the total benefits of $266 billion.

Read more:
Who’s holding back electric cars in Australia? We’ve long known the answer – and it’s time to clear the road

Putting us on track for emissions targets

The new Climate Change Act mandates targets of a 43% cut in emissions by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. Our research shows effective electric vehicle policies can help achieve these targets.

Such policies can be adopted from nations that have made rapid progress on electrifying their transport sectors. These policies include strict and mandatory fuel efficiency standards, investment in electric vehicle charging stations and standardisation of charging infrastructure. They also include financial incentives to buy and run electric vehicles, and cheap loans to help households and freight operators with purchase costs.

Importantly, these nations recognise that electric vehicles are not a remedy for all transport challenges. They should be complemented by strategies to manage travel demand, reduce the numbers of cars and journeys by car, and improve access to public transport.

Read more:
Four ways our cities can cut transport emissions in a hurry: avoid, shift, share and improve

We shouldn’t accept so many avoidable deaths

Without a rapid shift to electric vehicles, Australia risks losing at least 1,200 lives a year – deaths that we could avoid – over the next 20 years.

The loss of life would be equivalent to six planes, each carrying 200 passengers, falling out of the sky every year and killing everyone on board. We don’t accept this in air travel, and we should not accept the loss of life to preventable air pollution.

Australia has a feasible rapid pathway to decarbonise its transport sector. Our findings show the benefits to society and the planet are hard to dismiss.

Hussein Dia receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the iMOVE Cooperative Research Centre, Level Crossing Removal Authority, Transport for New South Wales, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, and Beam Mobility Holdings.

Christian A. Nygaard receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Community Housing Industry Association, iMove Cooperative Research Centre and Sustainability Victoria.

Krzysztof Dembek received funding from Austrade, BLab Australia and New Zealand, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zussammenarbeit (GIZ), Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited, Rio Tinto, Siemens Australia, School of Government University of Melbourne. He is affiliated with WSB University, Poland, and Values20.

Magnus Moglia received funding from Sustainability Victoria, Sydney Water, iMove Cooperative Research Centre, Low Carbon Living Cooperative Research Centre, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AusAID, Smart Water Fund, Queensland Government Department of Environment and Science, Transport for New South Wales, Office of Environment and Heritage NSW, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. He is affiliated with Regen Melbourne, and Victorian Circular Activator.

– ref. A rapid shift to electric vehicles can save 24,000 lives and leave us $148bn better off over the next 2 decades – https://theconversation.com/a-rapid-shift-to-electric-vehicles-can-save-24-000-lives-and-leave-us-148bn-better-off-over-the-next-2-decades-190243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Thwaites, Chair, Monash Sustainable Development Institute & ClimateWorks Australia, Monash University

A global report released today highlights massive global failures in the response to COVID-19.

The report, which was convened by The Lancet journal and to which we contributed, highlights widespread global failures of prevention and basic public health.

This resulted in an estimated 17.7 million excess deaths due to COVID-19 (including those not reported) to September 15.

The report also highlights that the pandemic has reversed progress made towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in many countries further impacting on health and wellbeing.

The report, from The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, found most governments were ill-prepared, too slow to act, paid too little attention to the most vulnerable in their societies, and were hampered by low public trust and an epidemic of misinformation.

However, countries of the Western Pacific – including East Asia, Australia and New Zealand – adopted more successful control strategies than most.

This had resulted in an estimated 300 deaths per million in the region
(around 558 per million in Australia and 382 per million in New Zealand to September 12). This is compared with more than 3,000 per million in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The report also sets out 11 key recommendations for ending the pandemic and preparing for the next one.

Read more:
Imagining COVID is ‘like the flu’ is cutting thousands of lives short. It’s time to wake up

Co-operation lacking

The report is the result of two years’ work from global experts in public policy, health, economics, social sciences and finance. We contributed to the public health component.

One of the report’s major criticisms is the failure of global cooperation for the financing and distribution of vaccines, medicines and personal protective equipment for low-income countries.

This is not only inequitable but has raised the risk of more dangerous variants.

The report highlighted the critical role of strong and equitable public health systems. These need to have: strong relationships with local communities; investment in behavioural and social science research to develop more effective interventions and health communication strategies; and continuously updated evidence.

11 recommendations

The report made 11 recommendations to end the pandemic and prepare for future ones.

1. Vaccines plus other measures – establishing global and national “vaccination plus” strategies. This would combine mass immunisation in all countries, ensure availability of testing and treatment for new infections and long COVID, coupled with public health measures such as face masks, promotion of safe workplaces, and social and financial support for self-isolation.

2. Viral origins – an unbiased, independent and rigorous investigation is needed to investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, including from a natural spillover from animals or a possible laboratory-related spillover. This is needed to prevent future pandemics and strengthen public trust in science and public authorities.

3. Bolster the World Health Organization and maintain it as the lead organisation for responding to emerging infectious diseases. Give WHO new regulatory authority, more backing by national political leaders, more contact with the global scientific community and a larger core budget.

4. Establish a global pandemic agreement and strengthen international health regulations. New pandemic arrangements should include bolstering WHO’s authority, creating a global surveillance and monitoring system for infectious disease outbreaks. It would also include regulations for processing international travellers and freight under global pandemic conditions, and the publication of an annual WHO report on global pandemic preparedness and response.

5. Create a new WHO Global Health Board to support WHO decision-making especially on controversial matters. This would be composed of heads of government representing each of the six WHO regions and elected by the member states of those regions.

6. New regulations to prevent pandemics from natural spillovers and research-related activities and for investigating their origins. Prevention of natural spillovers would require better regulation of domestic and wild-animal trade and enhancement of surveillance systems for pathogens (disease-causing micro-organisms) in domestic animals and humans. The World Health Assembly should also adopt new global regulations on biosafety to regulate international research programs dealing with dangerous pathogens.

7. A ten-year global strategy by G20 (Group of Twenty) nations, with accompanying finance, to ensure all WHO regions, including the world’s poorer regions, can produce, distribute, research and develop vaccines, treatments and other critical pandemic control tools.

8. Strengthen national health systems based on the foundations of public health and universal health coverage and grounded in human rights and gender equality.

9. Adopt national pandemic preparedness plans, which include scaling up community-based public health systems, investment in a skilled workforce, investment in public health and scientific literacy to “immunise” the public against dis-information, investment in behavioural and social sciences research to develop more effective interventions, protection of vulnerable groups, establishment of safe schools and workplaces, and actions to improve coordinated surveillance and monitoring for new variants.

10. Establishment of a new Global Health Fund where – with the support of WHO – there is increased and effective investment for both pandemic preparedness and health systems in developing countries, with a focus on primary care.

11. Sustainable development and green recovery plans. The pandemic has been a setback for sustainable development so bolstering funding to meet sustainability goals is needed.

Unlock a new approach

To improve the world’s ability to respond to pandemics we need to unlock a new approach. The key component to any meaningful transformation is to collaborate and work towards a new era of multilateral cooperation.

Governments in Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and elsewhere have talked about “building back better”. We need to take the lessons learnt from the failures of the past few years and build a stronger framework. This will not only help reduce the dangers of COVID-19 but also forestall the next pandemic and any future global crisis.

By reassessing and strengthening global institutions and co-operation, we can build and define a more resilient future.

Chris Bullen, Professor of Public Health, University of Auckland, co-authored this article and The Lancet COVID-19 Commission report on which it was based.

John Thwaites is Chair of Monash Sustainable Development Institute and ClimateWorks Australia which receive funding for research, education and action projects from the Australian and state governments as well as from philanthropy and industry. He is former Deputy Premier of Victoria and a member of the Australian Labor Party.

Liam Smith receives funding from a number of government schemes, government bodies and private sector funders.

Margaret Hellard receives funding from a number of government funding schemes and government bodies and philanthropic organisations for work on COVID-19.
Margaret Hellard also receives funding from Gilead Sciences and Abbvie for research unrelated to COVID-19.

– ref. We were on a global panel looking at the staggering costs of COVID – 17.7m deaths and counting. Here are 11 ways to stop history repeating itself – https://theconversation.com/we-were-on-a-global-panel-looking-at-the-staggering-costs-of-covid-17-7m-deaths-and-counting-here-are-11-ways-to-stop-history-repeating-itself-190658

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bianca Johnston, PhD Candidate , Monash University

Recent evidence shows the scale of sexual violence against women and children in Australia has been severely underestimated. Family violence is a key driver.

Yet, young women are currently invisible in responses to such violence. Our research sought to understand why young women’s experiences are so overlooked. We found that young women have typically been sidelined in approaches to family violence, and need to be given specific regard in any strategies to address it.

Young women’s over-representation in statistics

Research from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) found 51% of women in their 20s have experienced sexual violence.

Further, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates 2.2 million Australians (12% of the population) have had experiences of sexual violence, threats and/or assault since the age of 15.

While physical assault rates for men have almost halved since 2008-09, the largest reported increase in physical assault is that experienced by young women aged 18 to 29. There are also increasing rates of sexual assault in Australia. Recent data show this rising for the tenth year in a row, from 83 to 121 victim-survivors per 100,000 since 2011.

Australian and global data show most violence against women is perpetrated by a family member or intimate partner (49%).

Despite experiencing unique and serious safety risks, young women are almost invisible in public debate on the issue.

Read more:
Women who suffer domestic violence fare much worse financially after separating from their partner: new data

Young women’s absence from discussions

Our recently published research found young women lack voice and visibility in discussions about family violence in Australia, and particularly intimate partner violence.

This is a considerable problem, as young women are overrepresented in family violence and sexual assaults statistics. National police data show young women aged 15-19 are more likely than any other age group of women to experience sexual assault.

Although there are no national data specifically focused on recording the intimate partner violence experiences of young women, national secondary school health surveys show 61% of young women aged between 14 and 18 report unwanted sex due to partner pressure. Despite such concerning figures, young women’s voices are rarely heard.

The 2015 Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence highlighted that in the absence of youth-focused family violence supports, young people are generally relying on informal networks, such as friends, for family violence assistance. Seven years later, work is now being undertaken to raise awareness and develop a framework for youth intimate partner violence risk assessments.

We need a youth-focused national agenda

Across Australia, family violence work that is focused on young women generally involves primary prevention. This includes respectful relationships and consent education in schools, of which there is no current standardised national curriculum.

Unlike Canada and the United States, there are no dedicated Australian national agendas or plans that specifically address the issue of young people and intimate partner violence.

Nationally in Australia, there is currently no uniform definition of intimate partner violence in youth and adolescent relationships. Instead, the issue is known by a patchwork of terms: teen dating violence, adolescent intimate partner violence, youth family violence. This minimises the problem further.

Read more:
Almost 9 in 10 young Australians who use family violence experienced child abuse: new research

Young people’s relationships are different from those of adults. Although there are some common ways in which power and control are exerted and experienced, young women have unique needs and risks when embarking on their first relationships. When these involve abuse, this can have a serious impact on a young woman’s health, safety, identity, and how they understand themselves and relationships.

Moreover, these harmful patterns can persist into adulthood. Their experiences of harm and isolation are further compounded by the lack of youth specific and friendly family violence supports and services.

Our findings highlight the importance of not only recognising the unique and diverse experiences of young women, but the need to ensure services and responses reflect the complexity of young women’s experiences.

There has been some recent notable work by the Victorian government.

However, unless we grapple with the underpinning issues at a national level, we risk continuing to overlook these young women and exacerbate their experiences of violence. It is essential that youth-specific intimate partner violence responses exist. They need to be designed and implemented in a way that is informed by and honours the diverse voices of young women in Australia.

Bianca Johnston is employed for a youth non-for-profit organisation. This is separate to her PhD candidature.

Catherine Flynn has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Victorian Department of Justice, and not-for-profit organisation SHINE for Kids for research in the area of criminal justice, and is currently in receipt of funding from SHINE to support research describing the needs of children who experience parental incarceration.

Faith Gordon receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.

– ref. When it comes to family violence, young women are too often ignored – https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-family-violence-young-women-are-too-often-ignored-190547

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University

New Zealanders with republican or just plain anti-monarchy sympathies will have been disappointed (though maybe not surprised) that the Queen’s death has not triggered a more critical conversation about the country’s constitutional future.

Quite the opposite, in fact, if the prime minister is right. Far from representing a possible inflexion point in the nation’s post-Elizabethan development, Jacinda Ardern has suggested the nation’s close connection to the royal family would continue and strengthen under Charles III.

If so, it would put New Zealand in the vanguard of colonial loyalty. Barbados, of course, has recently taken the republican route, as have 35 other former British colonies or dependencies. Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica and other Caribbean nations are setting off down that path, and there is also the prospect Australia will join them at some point.

Indeed, of the 56 nations that are part of the Commonwealth, only 14 still retain the British monarch as head of state.

And yet, despite the future of the monarchy fast becoming a subject of debate around the remainder of the Commonwealth, it seems unlikely that much republican chatter will be heard any time soon in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Republican residues

This lack of enthusiasm for a debate is a little perplexing. It’s not as if republicanism is unknown in Aotearoa. The New Zealand Republican Party was even briefly (and unsuccessfully) involved in electoral politics in the late 1960s.

At the Labour Party’s 1973 national conference, a remit to declare the country a republic was debated but scuttled. And in 1994, then prime minister Jim Bolger suggested New Zealand should look to achieve republican status by 2001. He was clearly ahead of his time.

There has been at least one more recent attempt to get the republican ball rolling. In late 2009, Green MP Keith Locke had his Head of State Referenda Bill drawn from the parliamentary ballot.

Read more:
From evolving colony to bicultural nation, Queen Elizabeth II walked a long road with Aotearoa New Zealand

Had Locke’s bill been successful (it wasn’t, dipping out at the first reading by 15 votes), there would have been a referendum on remaking the governor-general as the ceremonial head of a parliamentary (rather than a presidential) republic.

And it is not that New Zealand isn’t constitutionally innovative or reluctant to have constitutional conversations. In 1951, it jettisoned its second parliamentary chamber and in the mid-1990s adopted proportional representation for national elections.

Debates about the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi are a regular feature of public life, in which consideration has long been given to alternative constitutional structures that fit Aotearoa’s unique history and society.

Constitutional consistency

There may be several reasons why republicanism has not captured the public mood here the way it has elsewhere. For a start, there are simply always more pressing political priorities – right now including the cost of living, entrenched income and wealth inequalities, and the return of inflation.

Not many prime ministers would voluntarily expend political capital on a debate few New Zealanders appear to find especially relevant.

Read more:
Charles III: the difficult legacy and political significance of the new king’s name

Second, it may be that in an age of political polarisation, the idea of a head of state who is not only unelected but also happens to live a long way away appeals to those for whom politics has become distastefully partisan. In trying times, the pull of tradition and constancy is strong for some people.

A third reason lies in the significance of the relationship between Māori and the Crown, provided for by the cornerstone of the nation’s constitutional architecture, Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The particulars of that relationship are hotly debated, but there is a view that replacing the Crown (as an institution) with something homegrown would disrupt the partnership it represents. The Crown may well be the historic coloniser, but for that very reason it is the Crown which must engage in the conversation about decolonisation.

If not now, when?

Of course, there are many New Zealanders for whom republicanism makes perfectly good sense. In part, that’s because, since the advent of responsible government in 1856, “the Crown” has effectively meant the political executive, not the person of the monarch. It is the prime minister and cabinet who govern, not the head of state.

There is, too, the basic weirdness of retaining a monarch who becomes head of state by virtue of having been born into one very particular English family domiciled on the other side of the world.

Read more:
How Queen Elizabeth II made the British monarchy into a global brand

Which means, of course, that no actual New Zealander (nor for that matter anyone who is not a Protestant) can ever be the head of state of New Zealand. (Happily those proscriptions do not apply to the monarch’s representative, the governor-general.)

This quirk of history notwithstanding, there is little to suggest the accession of a new monarch is about to generate a wave of republican sentiment in Aotearoa. And yet, the republican conversation has already been held in India, Barbados and Fiji, and is well under way across the Caribbean.

When and if that discussion heats up in Australia again, the promise – or spectre – of republicanism will be right next door. By then, memories of a monarch who ruled over the end of empire for 70 years will have started to fade. All bets will be off.

Richard Shaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. God save the King: why the monarchy is safe in Aotearoa New Zealand – for now – https://theconversation.com/god-save-the-king-why-the-monarchy-is-safe-in-aotearoa-new-zealand-for-now-190656

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa de Zwart, Professor (Digital Technology, Security and Governance), Flinders University

Elon Musk’s space tech company SpaceX is rapidly advancing towards its goal of establishing Starlink – a massive satellite network capable of providing high-speed broadband internet across the world.

Starlink claims the network is already servicing more than 30 countries with high-speed internet, including the United States, parts of Australia and most of the United Kingdom. There are about 2,500 Starlink satellites in orbit, with plans to eventually create a constellation of 42,000.

The satellites are in “low Earth orbit” at an altitude of about 550 kilometres. This relative proximity provides the benefit of low latency (less delay in data processing), faster internet, and service for areas that cable internet can’t service.

Beyond internet, however, Starlink and a number of other satellite network providers are also in a race to establish global mobile phone service connection. Some of the latest proposals could be game changers, especially for people on the move and in remote parts of the world. But there are several hurdles to jump first.

Mobile phone service from space is coming

This weekend Starlink launched one of its Falcon 9 rockets for the 14th time, sending another 34 Starlink satellites into space.

The same rocket also carried a very different payload into orbit – a satellite called the BlueWalker 3. It’s the largest commercial antenna array ever launched into space.

Operated by American company AST SpaceMobile, the BlueWalker 3 is expected to provide global satellite phone service (distinct from internet) directly to standard mobile phones from space.

For now, satellite-to-phone connections still require special dedicated handsets, such as through the Iridium network. Iridium provides satellite phone services via its 66 satellites in low Earth orbit (at an altitude of 780km).

AST SpaceMobile will need to launch at least 100 more satellites to obtain global coverage. It has partnered with a number of mobile service providers, who will participate in connectivity tests starting next year. Currently, no date has been set for when the service will become commercially available.

T-Mobile, Apple and Verizon

Musk too plans to expand his Starlink network to provide satellite mobile phone connection directly to mobile devices.

In August, Musk announced a partnership between Starlink and US telecommunication provider T-Mobile. This will link T-mobile users directly to Starlink satellites, providing a limited service of text, MMS, voice messaging and potentially some messaging app connectivity to most of the US (including outside standard service areas).

The service is expected to launch in beta phase by the end of 2023, pending the deployment of second-generation Starlink satellites with larger antennas. However, at this stage it’s only intended as a connection of “last resort”, providing coverage for rescue and emergency services in areas currently without coverage. There are no plans for expansion beyond the US.

These announcements come around the same time as the launch of Apple’s iPhone 14 – the first regular smartphone to allow direct satellite connectivity.

From November, iPhone 14 users will be able to send short SOS messages where no other connection is available. The connection, which uses the Globalstar satellite network, will rely on access to clear skies and may not be available at all times and in all locations.

Read more:
Space debris is coming down more frequently. What are the chances it could hit someone or damage property?

Similarly, US-based mobile phone service provider Verizon has partnered with Amazon’s proposed Kuiper satellite network to provide mobile services. But the Kuiper network has yet to launch any of its planned 3,200 broadband satellites, so it’s unclear when the additional capacity for mobile phone service connection would roll out.

Moreover, all of these arrangements will involve working out the complicated allocation of mobile phone spectrum licences across the globe.

A licence to operate in the US would not necessarily give access to such rights in another country. For example, America can grant AST SpaceMobile a licence to provide satellite mobile phone connectivity to people in America, but Australia would have to grant a different licence for it to service people in Australia.

Starlink is lobbying to prevent changes to the allocation of the 12GHz spectrum in the US. Last year, the US Federal Communications Commission proposed opening up the 12GHz frequency band (currently used for space-based services) for more widespread use on Earth for 5G mobile connection.

Starlink satellites use this band to communicate data to the ground, so this change would lead to significant interference in its services.

Internet on the move

Starlink internet users within Australia can’t currently obtain a fully mobile service. With some exceptions, such as mobile homes, their service is locked to a single location where their satellite dish is placed.

Elsewhere, things seem to be advancing. In June the US Federal Communications Commission granted Starlink a licence to operate in moving vehicles, including cars, boats, planes and trucks.

And cruise operator Royal Caribbean (which services Australia) recently began installing Starlink terminals on its fleet, after successful internet trials on a cruise earlier this year.

SpaceX is also in negotiation with several commercial airlines regarding its internet service, which will be installed on Hawaiian Airlines flights beginning next year.

Subject to licensing approvals, the Starlink network will also provide internet for its Tesla vehicles – with emergency phone connection only available in the US.

What about Australia?

Australia, with its vast remote areas, would certainly benefit from mobile phone coverage provided by a low Earth orbit satellite network. It would particularly benefit emergency services, remote communities, long-haul travellers and adventurers.

There are no clues as to when such a rollout may happen here. Yet, with the speed at which these developments are occurring, it seems likely Australians will get access to satellite-to-phone connections sooner rather than later – subject to the necessary licensing approvals.

In the interim, many are concerned about the congestion and light pollution that will arise due to the deployment of so many satellites. The BlueWalker 3, at 64 square metres, has only added to these concerns.

Read more:
Thousands of satellites are polluting Australian skies, and threatening ancient Indigenous astronomy practices

Melissa de Zwart is a member of the Strategic Advisory Board of Leo Labs and Deputy Chair of the Space Industry Association of Australia. She received funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on the regulation and use of Low Earth Orbit.

– ref. Starlink, Amazon and others are racing to fill the sky with bigger satellites to deliver mobile coverage everywhere on Earth – https://theconversation.com/starlink-amazon-and-others-are-racing-to-fill-the-sky-with-bigger-satellites-to-deliver-mobile-coverage-everywhere-on-earth-190237

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

In Australia, as in Britain and the United States, professional mass media are part of the Establishment. This status even has its own name: the fourth estate. So at times like the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the pressure to conform to political and social expectations is intense.

Those expectations include treating such a story as being of overwhelming importance, and preferring to promote unity over divisiveness, respectfulness over criticism, the status quo over radical change, politesse over frankness, and sentimentality over hard-headedness.

It is a time when the fourth estate puts aside its fundamental role of holding power to account so as not to risk being pilloried for betraying those expectations.

The end result is what we have seen in abundance since Queen Elizabeth II died on September 8 2022. If it looks like a reflection of Establishment interests, that’s because it is.

But it is also, to an immeasurable but unmistakable extent, a reflection of public expectations too.

Queen Elizabeth was the only head of state any Australian not in their seventies has ever known. The esteem in which she was held has been obvious for many years simply by virtue of the accepted political wisdom that the prospect of Australians voting for a republic in her lifetime was nil.

It is only fair, then, that any critique of the coverage be set against the background of those realities.

The Australian media certainly treated this as a story of overwhelming importance. On the Friday and Saturday immediately following the Queen’s death this was amply shown by rolling television coverage, commemorative lift-outs and wraparounds in the newspapers, followed by extensive coverage on inside pages.

There is a fixed routine to covering events like this – a trunk story summarising the main news points, reaction from political leaders, tributes, stories of ordinary people’s encounters with the queen, a potted history of her reign, reminiscences of her visits to Australia. It was all there.

So was the shmaltzy tone. From the Sydney Morning Herald: her “lasting love for the harbour city” and “We did but see her passing by […]”.

However, there was also in the SMH and elsewhere clear-eyed analyses of the fragile state of the United Kingdom and the contrast between the two Elizabethan eras. In the late 16th century, England was growing into a mighty military and commercial power; the reign of Elizabeth II was a period of long-run decline.

Read more:
The Queen has left her mark around the world. But not all see it as something to be celebrated

A striking aspect of the television coverage was that on the Friday night, Seven’s and Nine’s news bulletins heavily outrated the ABC’s. OzTAM TV ratings, from Australia’s five biggest cities, showed Seven News attracting 852,000 viewers, Nine News 736,000 and the ABC’s Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022), only 201,000.

Even allowing for the fact the commercial bulletins usually out-rate the ABC’s, on a story like this it might be expected that the national broadcaster would at least close the gap.

However, over the weekend none of the networks’ news specials attracted many viewers. Seven’s coverage of the proclamation of Charles III attracted 279,000, its tribute to the Queen 279,000, and the ABC’s continuing coverage 206,000.

There is a lesson here. Public expectations about how stories of overwhelming importance are covered have clearly shifted. Rolling television coverage now loses impetus swiftly unless there is new material continuously replenishing it, as with the September 11 attacks on the US or bushfire emergencies. The same lesson probably applies to the print media also.

The steam had started to go out of the royal story by Saturday evening. The death of the Queen and the proclamation of the King had been done.

By Sunday, the only development was the start of the journey bringing the Queen’s body from Balmoral Castle to London.

Read more:
Beheaded and exiled: the two previous King Charleses bookended the abolition of the monarchy

Yet the ABC’s 7pm bulletin stuck with this for 24 minutes, nearly all of it rehashed from the previous day, and on Monday the newspapers were still giving over six or more forward news pages to it.

The coverage has just got more bizarre and banal by the day: clouds containing visions of the queen’s head or the queen on a horse; the new king losing his temper over a leaky fountain pen; a little girl who dresses up like the queen when she rides her horse; another little girl cuddling a corgi.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine there has been a decisive thrust by Ukrainian forces, which has pushed the Russians out of a substantial part of the Donbas region.

There comes a point at which editors and news directors need to recognise that expectations about the big story have been met. That point was reached by Saturday evening. Then was the time to cut back hard and wait for the funeral.

The fact that thousands of dollars have been spent sending teams to London doesn’t justify clogging up the news with non-stories.

Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Media coverage of Queen Elizabeth’s death began well, but quickly descended into farce – https://theconversation.com/media-coverage-of-queen-elizabeths-death-began-well-but-quickly-descended-into-farce-190645

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Toole, Associate Principal Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

It is difficult to understand the ease with which we have accepted a major proportion of the Australian population getting infected with COVID in just a matter of months. Many have been infected multiple times, potentially exposing them to long COVID and other problems we are only beginning to understand. In the past 75 years, only the second world war has had a greater demographic impact on Australia than COVID in 2022.

As of September 12, Australia had reported more than 10 million cases of COVID. Of those, 96% were reported in 2022, coinciding with a succession of various Omicron sub-variants and the removal of most protective measures. What’s more, the number of reported cases is probably an underestimate.

While the midsummer wave of Omicron led to the highest number of reported cases since the pandemic began, the subsequent winter waves have killed thousands more people.

Between January 5 and March 16 this year, 3,341 Australians died with COVID, compared with 8,034 between April 4 and September 16, with August being the most deadly month of the pandemic for Australia. One often forgotten impact of these deaths is that an estimated 2,000 Australian children have lost at least one parent as a result of the COVID pandemic.

Rather than national cabinet looking at pandemic leave and under pressure to cut isolation periods, what’s needed is a shared vision and a strategic COVID plan that acknowledges it is not “just like the flu”.

A disease evolving quicker than our defences

The deadly July-August wave happened despite greatly increased immunity from third- and fourth-dose vaccination, natural infection, and lifesaving therapies introduced in April this year.

In other words, Omicron has evolved faster than the tools we are using to combat it. So far in 2022, more than 12,000 Australians have died with COVID, six times the number of deaths in the previous two years.

This is a disease so significant it has reduced global life expectancy, one of the best measures of human development.

No other war or disease has done that in more than 65 years, not even the HIV pandemic. The global estimates have been reinforced in several countries, including the United States, where life expectancy has fallen by almost three years since 2019.

Changes in life expectancy only happen when very large numbers of people die “before their time”. In Australia there were 17% more deaths reported this year to the end of May by the Australian Bureau of Statistics than the five-year average. This does not count our most recent and lethal BA.5 wave.

The ABS report shows two things. First, COVID is killing large numbers of people both directly and indirectly. At this rate, we can expect to lose many more lives by year’s end. Second, people are dying earlier than they otherwise would have, meaning our life expectancy trajectory will take a hit.

Then there is all we know about long COVID and its effects on the lungs, heart, brain, kidneys and immune system. It affects at least 4% of those infected with Omicron, including those vaccinated and those with mild initial illness.

We are being warned to prepare for what is effectively a mass disabling event with no known cure or end point.

Read more:
Long COVID should make us rethink disability – and the way we offer support to those with ‘invisible conditions’

Not ‘like the flu’

How did we come to this point? A key reason we have become so complacent is the common narrative comparing COVID to influenza – in the sense that we should live with COVID in the same way we do with the flu.

The statistics demonstrate a different picture. From the start of this year to August 28, there had been just under 218,000 reported cases of flu and 288 deaths this year. There have been 44 times as many COVID cases and 42 times as many related deaths. (It is worth noting here authorities are urging caution when comparing this flu season to previous years, given COVID measures and changes in health behaviour.)

Around 1,700 people have been hospitalised with the flu this year. Yet on just one day in July, 5,429 COVID patients were in hospital.

In Australia, we have just had our worst COVID wave in terms of the number of deaths and people admitted to hospital, a wave that is ongoing with thousands still in hospital and around 360 people dying each week.

Government health advisers are warning of another COVID wave in the coming months. Independent MP Monique Ryan is calling for a national COVID summit and more transparency regarding planning. In contrast, this year’s influenza wave looks to be over.

Read more:
5 virus families that could cause the next pandemic, according to the experts

Expendable lives

This has been a devastating year for older Australians. More than 3,000 residents of aged care facilities have died of COVID, triple the combined number who died in 2020 and 2021. As things stand, these lives appear invisible and expendable.

The most important discussion now is not about changes to any one intervention. It is one of overall strategy, one that focuses on reducing the spread of the virus.

Immunity from infection is, of course, real. It’s why people usually recover from infection, why waves disappear, and indeed what drives viral evolution to “escape immunity”.

But the more important questions are how much protection it offers, for how long, and at what cost? We now know immunity from Omicron infection is relatively poor and short-lived and is outpaced by rapid viral evolution, even in the face of vaccination.

Although vaccination vastly reduces the risk of serious illness, waves of infection continue to sweep through large populations, with many susceptible to reinfection within months. This continues to damage our short and long-term health, our health system, and our society.

COVID is nothing at all like the flu. It is causing a vastly worse scale of damage. We must change our tactics to dramatically cut transmission. In addition to a more vigorous campaign to increase vaccine booster coverage, we need to invest in indoor ventilation and actively promote the benefits of wearing high-quality masks in crowded indoor settings.

And we need a powerful messaging campaign to wake us from our “just like the flu” slumber.

Read more:
The pandemic changed what it means to have a ‘good death’

Michael Toole receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Brendan Crabb and the Institute he leads receives research grant funding from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia and other Australian federal and Victorian State Government bodies. He is the Chair of The Australian Global Health Alliance and the Pacific Friends of Global Health, both in an honourary capacity. And he serves on the Board of the Telethon Kids Institute

– ref. Imagining COVID is ‘like the flu’ is cutting thousands of lives short. It’s time to wake up – https://theconversation.com/imagining-covid-is-like-the-flu-is-cutting-thousands-of-lives-short-its-time-to-wake-up-190545

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neil Saintilan, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

Over the summer of 2015, 40 million mangroves died of thirst. This vast die-off – the world’s largest ever recorded – killed off rich mangrove forests along fully 1,000 kilometres of coastline on Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria.

The question is, why? Last month, scientists found a culprit: a strong El Niño event, which led to a temporary fall in sea level. That left mangroves, which rely on tides covering their roots, high and dry during an unusually dry early monsoon season.

Case closed. Or is it? While evidence clearly implicates El Niño, we found this climate cycle had a very large accomplice: the Moon.

In our study, released today, we mapped the expansion and contraction of mangrove forest cover over the past 40 years, and found clear evidence that the Moon’s orbital wobble had an effect.

Our mapping also shows mangroves are expanding and their canopy thickening across the entire continent, which is most likely due to higher carbon dioxide levels. Spectacular though it was, the Gulf of Carpentaria mangrove dieback event was entirely natural.

What clues gave away the Moon’s role?

During El Niño cycles like the one in 2015, sea levels fall around Australia and other countries in the western Pacific.

But these climate cycles affect the whole Indo-Australian region. If El Niño was the main cause, mangroves elsewhere should have been hit too. But the deaths of these tidal-flat dwelling shrubs and trees were largely localised to the Gulf of Carpentaria. Death rates were highest along shorelines that experience the full range of the tide. By contrast, mangroves continued to thrive at the tidal limits of the estuaries, far into the floodplains where climatic effects ought to be most strongly felt.

Read more:
Mangroves from space: 30 years of satellite images are helping us understand how climate change threatens these valuable forests

That’s where the Moon comes in – and particularly the “lunar wobble”. Back in 1728, astronomers noticed the plane in which the Moon orbits Earth isn’t fixed. Instead, it wobbles up and down, a bit like a spinning coin as it begins to slow.

When we mapped the extent and distribution of Australian mangrove forests over the past 40 years, we found clear signs of the Moon’s wobble at work. This 18.6-year orbital cycle turns out to be the main reason why mangrove canopy expands and contracts around most of Australia’s coastlines – and explains the patterns of mangrove mortality in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

You might be wondering why the wobble has such influence over whether mangroves live or die. It’s the tides. The wobble changes how the Moon’s gravity pulls on the world’s oceans, so periods of exceptionally high tides are followed by exceptionally low tides 9.3 years later.

Research by NASA scientists suggests this cycle is likely to lead to major coastal flooding in the early 2030s, as extreme high tides meet accelerating sea-level rise.

The lunar-mangrove cycle is clearly visible from above. When we mapped changes to dense mangrove forest in Northwest and Western Australia, we saw clear peaks in closed canopy – where mangrove leaves and branches thicken to cover more than 80% of the ground – coinciding with the highest tidal phase of the lunar cycle.

When the tides are at their highest, water inundates mangroves and brings nutrients, which accelerate growth. These periods potentially influence how much blue carbon is stored by mangroves over thousands of square kilometres.

But when the tides are at their lowest, mangroves can’t get the water they need. Over 2015-2016, the lunar wobble reduced tide range in the Gulf of Carpentaria – enough to slash tides by an estimated 40cm. Earlier mangrove dieback events in 1998 and 1982 also coincided with these troughs.

In 2015, tides along Australia’s northern coastline fell further still under the influence of El Niño, which moves seawater to the eastern Pacific. The result of the overlapping lunar and climate cycle in the Gulf of Carpentaria was the mass death of mangroves.

One challenge we had was to distinguish between the effects of El Niño and the lunar wobble, given they tend to occur in the same time period in the western Pacific. Some scientists have even suggested the lunar wobble may contribute to intense El Niño events.

To tease out the two causes, we relied on a quirk in the lunar wobble – and a quirk in the coastline.

The lunar wobble’s timing of the high and low tide range periods is reversed between coastlines with two high tides each day (semi-diurnal tides) and those receiving one high tide each day (diurnal tides).

The Gulf of Carpentaria is one of the few coastlines in Australia with diurnal tides. Most other coastlines have two high tides each day. Put together, this meant that in 2015, semi-diurnal coastlines had bigger-than-usual tides, while rare diurnal coastlines like those along the gulf had smaller-than-usual tides.

This explains why mangroves in the semi-diurnal coastlines directly next to the Gulf of Carpentaria were spared over the 2015-16 summer.

The northern coastlines next to the gulf were in the big-tide, high-productivity phase of the 18.6-year cycle and so were protected from El Niño. In the diurnal Gulf of Carpentaria, the small tide phase of the lunar wobble cycle combined with El Niño. Lower sea levels and lower tidal range pushed mangroves over the edge.

Interestingly, mangroves kept growing near the tidal head of rivers in the gulf despite the El Niño, because the effect of the lunar wobble was less pronounced upriver.

This is good news for mangroves. We now know short-term natural climate cycles like El Niño likely cannot cause widespread mangrove deaths by themselves. And we can anticipate the danger times when it coincides with the low tides brought by the lunar wobble.

While mangroves still face an uncertain future adapting to a world of higher seas, we can chalk the 2015 mass death up to “natural causes”.

Read more:
Climate change killed 40 million Australian mangroves in 2015. Here’s why they’ll probably never grow back

Neil Saintilan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What caused the world’s largest die-off of mangroves? A wobble in the Moon’s orbit is partly to blame – https://theconversation.com/what-caused-the-worlds-largest-die-off-of-mangroves-a-wobble-in-the-moons-orbit-is-partly-to-blame-190141

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tristram Sainsbury, Research fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

One of the most well-established practical observations in economics is that when we give an unemployed person a payment, it tends to delay their return to work.

Rightly or wrongly, it is an argument used to justify a rate of JobSeeker one third below the pension.

How well does the finding apply if the payment is a A$10,000 lump sum delivered at the height of a pandemic, funded through a corresponding reduction in someone’s retirement savings?

That is what we and colleague Timothy Watson at the ANU Tax and Transfer Institute set out to examine as part of new research.

The early release of super

By way of recap, the COVID early access to superannuation announced on Sunday 22 March 2020 was available to people who faced a 20% decline in working hours (or turnover for sole traders), were made unemployed or redundant, or received JobSeeker or related benefit.

These people were able to take out lump sums of up to $10,000 between April and June 2020, and a further $10,000 between July and December 2020.

The maximum $10,000 represented approximately 13 weeks of (effectively doubled)
unemployment benefit, and eight weeks of the minimum wage.

In essence, the government offered a bargain like this:

You know those superannuation savings you probably won’t be able to access until your late 60s? Well, life’s scary and uncertain. So here’s a chance to take out $10,000! You can only make use of it in the next three months though. That said, there’s a second chance in the next six months if you still qualify.

Three million Australians responded, close to one fifth of the population aged 16 to 65 with super accounts. Seven in ten took out the maximum $10,000.

This made the $38 billion withdrawn the second largest stimulus measure in 2020 behind the $88 billion JobKeeper wage subsidy, and one of the biggest stimulus measures in Australian history.

Weekly applications: a rush both times

Withdrawals delayed the return to work

We were given access to de-identified administrative records that link takeup of the offer to the length of stay on the unemployment benefit.

Focusing on the half a million Australians who arrived on payments as economic and social conditions deteriorated in the initial months 2020, we compared the length of time on benefits of the more than 230,000 who took advantage of early release with the 300,000 individuals who did not.

Read more:
Early access to super doesn’t justify higher compulsory contributions

We calculate that the withdrawers who completed their time on benefits by June 2021 (about 162,000) spent about seven weeks longer on benefits than similarly-placed recipients who didn’t withdraw.

The chart below shows the story. A big gap in the rate of exit from benefits opens up between those who took advantage of the opportunity to access their super and those who did not, with those who used more likely to stay on benefits.

The gap grows over the first 13 weeks on benefits, then narrows only slowly, taking 18 months to come close to closing.

Probability of staying on benefits, first lot of withdrawals

Interestingly, those who withdrew are also those we would ordinarily have expected to spend less time on benefits.

They tended to have higher pre-COVID wage and superannuation balances, and were more likely to be married, male, and have children.

Probability of staying on benefits, second lot of withdrawals

Factor in an extensive collection of population characteristics into our estimates, and – after a battery of sensitivity and robustness checks – we found that the large lump sums had large effects in extending benefit tenures.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Being pushed into work too soon can push people into the wrong jobs. But we find no evidence that those who stayed out longer because of withdrawing their super found higher-paying jobs.

Implications

From today’s standpoint, two years on, with unemployment the lowest in almost 50 years, it is clear that early access to super delayed rather than prevented unemployed Australians returning to work.

But that mightn’t have been the case if the early withdrawal measure had been introduced at a different time, when the labour market wasn’t about to pick up.

Read more:
Raiding super early has already left women worse off. Let’s not repeat the mistake for home deposits

It is also clear that the measure helped people when they needed it, although it is too early to assess its impact on their rest-of-life incomes and super balances.

A further thing we can say is that early withdrawals should not be considered private “off balance sheet” matters without an impact on public finances.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the cost of additional benefit payments to the 162,000 withdrawers we studied at $600 million, a figure that might climb to $1 billion if applied to everyone who used the scheme.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What happened when we gave unemployed Australians early access to their super? We’ve just found out – https://theconversation.com/what-happened-when-we-gave-unemployed-australians-early-access-to-their-super-weve-just-found-out-188440

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Portolan, PhD student, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

In 2020, Sharon Stone tweeted that her Bumble dating profile had been closed due to users reporting the account as fake. In less than 24 hours, Bumble had restored her account and apologised for the misunderstanding.

You might be forgiven for thinking the Basic Instinct star couldn’t possibly be looking for love on a mainstream dating app like Bumble. It’s not every day that you swipe left to discover the next profile to be a Hollywood celebrity.

However it would appear celebrities, are just like the rest of us. Looking for love or intimacy in a world where the face-to-face meetings are no longer commonplace. Unlike Sharon Stone, instead of using Bumble, the majority use their own special dating app called Raya.

A membership to this invite-only dating app is as exclusive as you would expect, with only a small number of elite applicants accepted on the app ⁠– which means your chances of charming and dating someone rich and famous on Tinder (insert shocked emoji) just got even slimmer.

What is Raya?

Launched in 2015, Raya, prides itself on being “an exclusive dating and networking platform for people in creative industries.”

Cara Delevingne, Ruby Rose, Alexander Wang, Patrick Schwarzenegger, Teri Hatcher, Elijah Wood, and Zach Braff are among the elite crew rumoured to be on the dating app. Demi Lovato has been a longtime user of online relationship sites. She revealed in her documentary, Simply Complicated, that she chose Raya after her split from Wilmer Valderrama in 2016. Most recently Lily Allen and David Harbour credited their meeting to Raya.

Before you think about sneaking onto the platform sometimes known as the “Tinder Illuminati” of the dating-app-world, there’s a complex application process – which includes being referred by three people, and then being vetted by an unknown panel of judges. Rumour has it, Raya has over ten times more people waiting to get on the app – than those currently on it.

The New York Times reports only about 8% of applications are accepted, meaning Raya has a higher rejection rate than the illustrious Harvard Business School.

You’ll also need to pay for it it, with a conservative fee of AU $9.99 a month, and further in app purchases (for example, extra swipes – once you’ve swiped on a certain number of profiles, Raya temporarily stops showing you new profiles unless you choose to pay a small fee of $4.99) required. Promotional material indicates: “Raya’s primary goal is for like-minded people to have an easy, accessible, and comfortable platform on which to connect.”

The applications are “reviewed by an anonymous global committee” to “maintain that ideal.”

Read more:
‘High maintenance’ is a red flag on dating apps. Women are still expected to shrink themselves

How to find love on Raya

My research examines how and if dating apps have changed intimacy, sex and romantic relationships. How does love change as a result of a digital sieve? However, it’s difficult to locate Raya users to provide their testimonies on their exclusive experiences.

Most B grade users, that is, non-celebrities and non-influencers, report that the app is overwhelming, and doesn’t deliver matches. In simple terms if you’re not an A grade celebrity, you simply don’t have the celebrity pull to get the matches.

Insiders indicate that the app is awash with professional photos, where the majority of users look like models. On ordinary apps, such profiles are usually rejected as potentially fake profiles or as bots.

The profiles are shown in slideshow format, with users picking a song to play their slideshow to. All profiles include the person’s Instagram handle, so if you did really like the look of someone and wanted to make sure you did connect with them, you could add them on Instagram. In addition, screenshots, are not allowed within these hallowed halls.

From 40 people interviewed in Australia, only 2 had used Raya. Those interviewed described the app as a “waste of time”, indicating that while there was a plethora of recognisable talent on the app, the majority fell into the influencer category – and their strike/ or match rate was low if not non-existent.

Read more:
What is a ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ relationship launch? Explaining the celebrity-led trend

Celebrities and creatives

The app does raise a pertinent question around what we consider to be the creative industries in today’s society – and whether this terminology expands out to influencers or for example, OnlyFans content creators, and how we tier celebrities, and creatives.

Dating apps also tend to open a pandora’s box of judgemental behaviours. My research would indicate that the majority of users make split-second decisions mostly based on appearance, but also tend to continue this hypercritical behaviour as they discontinue direct message exchanges, and ultimately people.

Mainstream dating apps are highly white domains, with sexual racism proliferating, occurring in overt (for example, the common “No Asians” bio descriptions), to more covert behaviours such swiping left against ethnically diverse people.

They encourage a highly visual economy, where individuals are often reduced to a hot or not factor. Most of the participants in my focus groups and interviews felt like they had become more judgemental as a result of their dating app use – quickly rejecting punters who were not arbitrarily attractive.

Apps like Raya, while claiming to pool together like-minded people instead tend to extend and reinforce the idea that modern-day-love, categorised by the dating app, is only eligible for a certain hallowed few arbitrarily good-looking people, with solid Instagram, or Only Fans followings. Simultaneously, they warp the idea of the creative industries and creative people.

Raya opens up the promise of a private dating space in an online environment. However, in doing so it creates a digital culture where intimacy is limited to an elite group of people, no longer open to the masses.

As platforms like Tinder undergo scrutiny around pricing structures and safety, the future could entail a plethora of Rayas – defined by the attributes (and payment) of their community members. Importantly, keeping the undesirables at bay.

But in doing so are we further creating a world of intimacy haves and have-nots?

While a select few might be enjoying the sanctity of private and exclusive dating – the rest of us have been locked outside, left to navigate the wild-west of the digital dating world.

Lisa Portolan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The exclusive dating app for celebrities and influencers – why Raya has been called ‘the Illuminati of the Tinder world’ – https://theconversation.com/the-exclusive-dating-app-for-celebrities-and-influencers-why-raya-has-been-called-the-illuminati-of-the-tinder-world-186828

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Gore, Laureate Professor of Education, Director Teachers and Teaching Research Centre, University of Newcastle

The Productivity Commission has just released a review of school standards in Australia. It finds we “persistently fall short” when it comes to providing a high quality and equitable education for all students.

Coming in at 253 pages, there is a lot to read. And a lot we already know.

But this report comes at a crucial time for Australian education. Outcomes are slipping, despite repeated attempts to improve them. And teacher shortages mean we need urgent measures as well as long-term changes.

Why do we have this review?

In April this year, former treasurer Josh Frydenberg asked the Productivity Commission to review the National School Reform Agreement. This sets out nationally agreed initiatives for the next five years between the federal government, states and territories.

It is focused on three main areas: supporting students, supporting teaching and improving the data we have on schools in Australia. The next agreement is due to be signed in late 2023.

On Wednesday, the commission released its interim findings ahead of the final report to be delivered in December, when education ministers will begin hashing out a new agreement for the next five years.

What’s in the report?

There is little in this report we have not seen before. But the interim report certainly raises many key issues.

The report found too many students are falling behind. Every year, between 5% and 9% of Australian students do not meet year-level expectations in literacy or numeracy.

Student wellbeing is of significant concern, with one in five young people aged 11-17 reporting high levels of psychological distress, even before the pandemic.

Despite talk about improving results for Aboriginal students and those in rural and remote areas, and students with disabilities, it says, “governments are yet to demonstrate results in improving equity”. It calls for new strategies, developed with students, parents and communities, to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

We already know teacher shortages are an issue – and state and federal governments are working separately on a new workforce plan for teachers, also due in December.

Additionally, the report found teachers are overworked with “low-value tasks” and burned out. Work-life balance and wellbeing were the key reasons why teachers wanted to leave the profession.

What can we do?

There are no quick or easy fixes. But here are three practical solutions government can adopt now to improve the school system for teachers and students.

1. Quality teaching rounds

The commission’s report says quality teaching is key to improving student outcomes. It recommends teachers are given more time for planning and professional development.

The report also highlighted my work with colleagues on “quality teaching rounds” professional development. This approach brings teachers together to learn from each other, improve their teaching and lift student outcomes.

Read more:
What parents should and shouldn’t say when talking to their child about NAPLAN results

It is centred on three big ideas: a deep understanding of important knowledge, positive classrooms that boost learning, and connecting learning to students’ lives and the wider world.

Our evidence shows this approach has positive effects on teaching quality, teacher morale and student achievement, with greater impact in disadvantaged schools. This shows clear potential to narrow equity gaps and genuinely support teachers.

2. Support throughout teaching careers

The report acknowledges that school leadership roles are becoming more complex and demanding. It calls for the creation of a specific stream for aspiring school leaders.

This would see potential principals and other leaders (such as year-level and subject leaders) identified early in their careers and given specific support.

We also need a clear pathway from teaching degrees at university to induction in schools and ongoing development throughout teachers’ careers. This would mean teachers and school leaders are better equipped to do their jobs – and want to stay in the profession.

3. More funding for research

The report highlights the need for more evidence about what is working and what is not. It points out that previously agreed reforms for national data systems have stalled.

More than just creating systems of data, true reform requires rigorous research into all aspects of education.

Yet education does not receive the research dollars it deserves. For example, in the most recent round of the Australian Research Council’s discovery project grants, education received less than 1% of approved funds – some A$2.5 million of the A$258 million allocated.

If the government wants change, investing in educational research must be part of the next agreement.

What happens now?

Education in Australia has a history of reviews, reports, plans and great intentions.

But we are constantly let down by implementation of recommendations. Partly it’s due to organisational complexity. Not only do the federal and state governments have different responsibilities in education, but there is a gap between policy and what happens on the ground in classrooms.

Read more:
Australia spends $5 billion a year on teaching assistants in schools but we don’t know what they do

But with a new government and universal attention to the problem of teacher shortages, there is a rare opportunity now for Australian schools. We have a chance to make changes that genuinely support teachers and lift student outcomes.

The commission is now asking for comments on its interim report by October 21.

Jenny Gore receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Paul Ramsay Foundation and NSW Department of Education.

– ref. The Productivity Commission says Australian schools ‘fall short’ on quality and equity. What happens now? – https://theconversation.com/the-productivity-commission-says-australian-schools-fall-short-on-quality-and-equity-what-happens-now-190646