While filming herself putting on makeup before work recently, TikTok user @gracie.ham reached deep into the ancient foundations of mathematics and found an absolute gem of a question:
How could someone come up with a concept like algebra?
She also asked what the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras might have used mathematics for, and other questions that revolve around the age-old conundrum of whether mathematics is “real” or something humans just made up.
Many responded negatively to the post, but others — including mathematicians like me — found the questions quite insightful.
Is mathematics real?
Philosophers and mathematicians have been arguing over this for centuries. Some believe mathematics is universal; others consider it only as real as anything else humans have invented.
Thanks to @gracie.ham, Twitter users have now vigorously joined the debate.
For me, part of the answer lies in history.
From one perspective, mathematics is a universal language used to describe the world around us. For instance, two apples plus three apples is always five apples, regardless of your point of view.
But mathematics is also a language used by humans, so it is not independent of culture. History shows us that different cultures had their own understanding of mathematics.
Unfortunately, most of this ancient understanding is now lost. In just about every ancient culture, a few scattered texts are all that remain of their scientific knowledge.
However, there is one ancient culture that left behind an absolute abundance of texts.
Babylonian algebra
Buried in the deserts of modern Iraq, clay tablets from ancient Babylon have survived intact for about 4,000 years.
These tablets are slowly being translated and what we have learned so far is that the Babylonians were practical people who were highly numerate and knew how to solve sophisticated problems with numbers.
Their arithmetic was different from ours, though. They didn’t use zero or negative numbers. They even mapped out the motion of the planets without using calculus as we do.
Of particular importance for @gracie.ham’s question about the origins of algebra is that they knew that the numbers 3, 4 and 5 correspond to the lengths of the sides and diagonal of a rectangle. They also knew these numbers satisfied the fundamental relation 3² + 4² = 5² that ensures the sides are perpendicular.
No theorems were harmed (or used) in the construction of this rectangle.
The Babylonians did all this without modern algebraic concepts. We would express a more general version of the same idea using Pythagoras’ theorem: any right-angled triangle with sides of length a and b and hypotenuse c satisfies a² + b² = c².
The Babylonian perspective omits algebraic variables, theorems, axioms and proofs not because they were ignorant but because these ideas had not yet developed. In short, these social constructs began more than 1,000 years later, in ancient Greece. The Babylonians happily and productively did mathematics and solved problems without any of these relatively modern notions.
What was it all for?
@gracie.ham also asks how Pythagoras came up with his theorem. The short answer is: he didn’t.
Pythagoras of Samos (c. 570-495 BC) probably heard about the idea we now associate with his name while he was in Egypt. He may have been the person to introduce it to Greece, but we don’t really know.
Pythagoras didn’t use his theorem for anything practical. He was primarily interested in numerology and the mysticism of numbers, rather than the applications of mathematics.
The Babylonians, on the other hand, may well have used their knowledge of right triangles for more concrete purposes, although we don’t really know. We do have evidence from ancient India and Rome showing the dimensions 3-4-5 were used as a simple but effective way to create right angles in the construction of religious altars and surveying.
Without modern tools, how do you make right angles just right? Ancient Hindu religious texts give instructions for making a rectangular fire altar using the 3-4-5 configuration with sides of length 3 and 4, and diagonal length 5. These measurements ensure that the altar has right angles in each corner.
In the 19th century, the German mathematician Leopold Kronecker said “God made the integers, all else is the work of man”. I agree with that sentiment, at least for the positive integers — the whole numbers we count with — because the Babylonians didn’t believe in zero or negative numbers.
Mathematics has been happening for a very, very long time. Long before ancient Greece and Pythagoras.
Is it real? Most cultures agree about some basics, like the positive integers and the 3-4-5 right triangle. Just about everything else in mathematics is determined by the society in which you live.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Kemish, Former Ambassador and Adjunct Professor, School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, The University of Queensland
We fully respect local customs and culture when interacting with the Pacific countries. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Let’s set aside the argument over the incident itself. I’d just note in passing there were several occasions when, as a senior Australian representative in the region, I had to quietly back away from ceremonies where my involvement could have sent the wrong signal.
The foreign ministry’s statement raises a more important point. As a genuine regional partner, it’s not enough for China to “do as the Romans do”. Those who aspire to a meaningful partnership with the Pacific also need to be clear about what they stand for themselves.
What then, does China stand for in the Pacific? Does it really have what it takes to be a constructive, long-term partner for the region?
Others say China’s financial aid is essentially “debt-trap diplomacy”, with unsustainable loans providing a pathway for China to control the strategic assets of Pacific states.
The Lowy Institute has shown that China has not been a major driver behind rising debt in the Pacific, but it nevertheless has a responsibility to help prevent future debt risks. The scale of its lending patterns — and the absence of mechanisms to protect recipients from debt — present substantial hazards for some countries.
There’s been no sign yet that Beijing is prepared to collaborate with western donors as they engage with regional countries to mitigate these risks. This would signal China cares about the region’s sustainability — an important qualification for a genuine partner.
A development site for a Chinese Investment bank in Nuku’alofa, Tonga.Mark Baker/AP
A top-down approach isn’t going to be effective
Chinese representatives sometimes struggle to understand that centralised control is not the Pacific way. In the commercial sphere, effective partnerships require patient management of multiple stakeholder relationships — with landowners, local authorities and environmentalists.
In Papua New Guinea, however, Chinese firms like Shenzen Energy and Ramu Nickel have been disappointed that agreements they have signed with the country’s prime minister haven’t guaranteed smooth project implementation.
China also showed great frustration in the Solomon Islands when provincial leaders thanked Taiwan for coronavirus-related aid, which was delivered after the national government had switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing.
Success also requires conscious support for national development aspirations and a willingness to lean in at difficult moments.
Australia and New Zealand don’t always escape criticism from the region; climate change and labour market access continue to be sore points.
But over time, these traditional partners have shown their commitment to the region’s development through the investment of billions of dollars. They have helped run elections, repeatedly deliver disaster relief and mount stabilisation missions in regional hot spots.
This kind of comprehensive partnership, recently reaffirmed in a new economic and strategic development agreement signed between Australia and PNG, is outside Beijing’s traditional comfort zone.
Australian humanitarian aid sent to Vanuatu earlier this year after Cyclone Harold.Andrew Eddie/Department of Defence
China hasn’t stepped up with real coronavirus support
The current pandemic poses very serious risks to the fragile economies of the Pacific. It’s an important moment for regional partners to show their commitment.
Beijing has highlighted its Pacific Conference on COVID-19, a video link-up in May between the Chinese vice foreign minister and senior Pacific representatives, as a sign of its support for the region.
But there were no substantive outcomes, and despite multiple press releases, China appears to have announced only A$3.5 million in virus-related regional support.
It also pales in comparison to the A$100 million that Australia announced in March would be redirected from existing aid programs to mitigate the regional effects of the virus.
China might actually have some things to offer the region, including lessons from its highly successful development model.
But it will need to be more thoughtful about the region’s actual needs and aspirations if it wants to build a substantial and effective partnership with the Pacific in the wake of this pandemic.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic O’Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and Associate Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University
Unfair and avoidable differences in health outcomes separate Māori from other citizens, said a report from this month’s parliamentary select committee inquiry into Māori health.
The report focused mainly on why cancer screening and treatment are not as effective for Māori.
But it also showed clinical and policy decisions don’t always give Māori the same chance at good health as other people, and identified significant systemic racism in the health system.
Among the recommendations was the setting up of a new agency focused on improving Māori health, to be run by Māori. Similar recommendations have been made in the past, but have not been implemented.
The causes of ill health
Contemporary health policy research is heavily influenced by the argument that inequitable health outcomes are partly caused by social determinants of health. This includes things such as poor housing, low incomes and limited education increasing people’s chances of getting sick.
These ideas help policymakers think about the causes of ill health and develop coherent policy responses. But they only address part of the problem.
For example, racism is a political determinant of health. So is the exclusion or marginalisation of indigenous voices from decisions about how public health systems work and how resources are distributed.
Clinical skills treat ill health. But a health practitioner’s political values may influence how those skills are used.
Some practitioners might try to find ways around policies and practices that disadvantage some patients over others. On the other hand, race may be a political determinant of health when decisions are made about the level of care given to one patient or another.
Political determinants may also influence how health systems direct their resources, and what services are provided to which communities.
The right to self-determination
New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States initially opposed the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the UN in 2007. The declaration confirms that, like everybody, indigenous people have the right to self-determination.
Self-determination includes people’s right to make their own health policy decisions. All four countries have since decided that this, and the declaration’s other presumptions, are reasonable aspirations and support it.
But what they haven’t done is fully develop policies to put this aspiration into practice.
In New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi affirms Māori rangatiratanga on one hand and citizenship on the other. In short, rangatiratanga means authority to make decisions over one’s own affairs. Citizenship means the political capacity to be part of state decision-making.
The latest parliamentary select committee report makes a recommendation that could be developed to respect both rangatiratanga and citizenship. It could then help eliminate political inequities from the health system.
Māori responsible for Māori health
The committee recommended a government-funded entity be made responsible for eliminating health inequities for Māori. It should be given the authority and resources to do so, and should monitor and report annually on the health system.
Just one month earlier, the government-commissioned Health and Disability System Review recommended such an entity, which it called a Māori Health Authority.
This authority would be an independent advisory body. It would be responsible for monitoring and reporting on the health system’s effectiveness for Māori.
Assuming the authority would have a representative and professionally skilled Māori membership, it could become an important policy advocate.
But the review committee was divided on whether this authority should also be able to make decisions about funding Māori health services.
Indigenous right to make decisions
In 2009, a review into Australia’s health system recommended an independent indigenous purchasing authority. Through a tender process, the authority would procure primary health services for indigenous people, primarily from indigenous community-controlled health services.
Indigenous communities would define their own health priorities. Their bids for public funding would be evaluated by an expert indigenous authority.
The proposal was not accepted, but it is an instructive model for New Zealand. It would mean Māori values, aspirations and expectations would be foremost at every stage of the funding decision.
It would also mean a Māori body would become accountable to Māori people for the effectiveness of policy decisions. It would strengthen Māori health providers and ensure their capacity to deliver health outcomes would be evaluated according to Māori criteria.
Some claimants to the Waitangi Tribunal’s 2019 health inquiry argued the NUKA System of Care in Alaska was an example of what stronger Māori health providers could look like.
The NUKA system doesn’t have patients; instead it serves “customer-owners”, the local indigenous people, who own the system and to whom the system is accountable. It has more independence from the state than Māori providers and takes an integrated and holistic approach to health care.
The NUKA system is not entirely dependent on the state, as much of its funding comes from philanthropic sources. So it has a level of independence that may be possible for Māori as iwi (tribal) economic bases develop.
An independent Māori authority with the power to monitor and report on service providers’ effectiveness, but also the power to discontinue their funding, would ensure meaningful Māori voice.
French Polynesian unions say they will hold a general strike this Thursday unless covid-19 measures are tightened.
Five unions jointly issued the warning as the number of covid-19 infections this month rose to 444.
They said they acted to protect the health of employees which was no longer assured by the “explosion” in the number of cases, which were concentrated on Tahiti.
Their demands include the reintroduction of a 14-day quarantine for arriving travellers which the local Tahitian government and the French High Commission abolished in mid-July to boost tourism.
The unions want passengers to be isolated in two dedicated places despite a court ruling which disallowed such restrictions.
They also said they wanted class sizes to be limited to 15 students and a school to close if covid-19 was confirmed in two classes.
Furthermore, they want masks made available to students for free.
A meeting between the unions and the authorities is expected on Wednesday.
Earlier the government and the French High Commission ruled out another general lockdown to curb the spread of the virus.
However, the Health Minister said the territory, which was again on maximum alert, could see targeted restrictions affecting some neighbourhoods.
Since the start of last month, four airlines have resumed flying between Tahiti and both France and the US.
This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says the New Zealand alert level system is designed to work when there are active cases at lower levels, despite some experts saying it could be too soon.
She told RNZ Morning Report covid could not only be managed at levels 3 and 4.
She said the move to level 2.5 while the Auckland cluster continues to grow was what the system was designed for.
Ardern said she had received advice that restrictions of gatherings in Auckland to a limit of 10 was “very important”.
“You’ll see from the alert level framework that we set from the very beginning of this pandemic, it has anticipated being at level 2 whilst we’re managing cases,” she said.
“Our system is designed to be able to do that. What we need to ensure is that we’ve got really good compliance with the other things we expect at level 2 in order to be able to make that work.”
Ardern said everyone must play their part by social distancing and wearing masks.
‘Masks no substitute’ “Masks are not a substitute for keeping our distance.
“If we all play our role, then we are able to continue to manage the cases that we do have in a 2.5 environment.”
However, some experts warn it is too early to move from alert level 3 in Auckland.
The National Māori Pandemic Group says the Auckland cluster of Covid-19 cases isn’t well enough contained for the region to move down a level.
Te Rōpū Whakakaupapa Urutā had urged the government to halt the relaxation of restrictions while community transmission of the virus is at current levels.
Co-leader Professor Sue Crengle told Morning Report a number of the sub-clusters were not well defined.
Though the majority of cases were linked to the main cluster, there were still one or two where there was no clear epidemiological pathway even though there was a genomic pathway, she said.
‘Perimeter not well described’ “We still don’t think that the perimeter is really well described and contained even though it looks like it’s one large cluster with some sub-clusters.”
The group would have liked to see a “small amount of time at a higher level” while new cases were monitored over the next few days.
With Aucklanders now able to travel out of the region, New Zealand would be depending on them to take precautions against the spread of the virus, she said.
Covid-19 data modelling expert Professor Shaun Hendy yesterday said the government should consider extending level 3.
Professor Hendy was concerned by the number of cases that had been picked up through community testing instead of via contact tracing.
He said easing the travel restrictions meant people could spread the infection to other parts of the country.
And epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker said the move to alert level 2 could see a growth in the case rate.
Transmission ‘may drift up’ “It does suggest if we reduce the controls starting tomorrow that that transmission will not go away and it may actually drift up, or track up, over the next few weeks.
Ardern said restrictions were not the only way to manage the virus and places like Taiwan were almost solely reliant on contact tracing.
“We’ve talked about the fact that there have been some scenarios where, had we had a singular case we could trace back to the source right from the beginning, we might not have had to move alert levels at all.
“Restrictions alone are not the only way we manage this virus. We have many tools, we just need to make sure we deploy them properly.”
Ardern said regional boundaries were difficult for the many thousands of people who travelled across the country for legitimate purposes and general precautions across New Zealand the trade-off for lower restrictions in Auckland.
She said New Zealand took graduated moves through alert levels last time around so level ‘2.5’ should not be “too confusing”.
“We didn’t go immediately to mass gatherings of 100 people, we had a limit of 10 in the beginning. We did that last time and some people started loosely using the term 2.5 at that time.”
Adapt to new practices Ardern said the new thing this time around was mask use and that we had to be willing to learn and adapt to new practices to combat the pandemic.
An Instagram message from the Ministry of Health this weekend incorrectly urged anyone in West or South Auckland to get tested.
Ardern said she was sorry for people who felt anxiety from the incorrect messaging on Instagram and the government moved quickly to correct it.
“It was frustrating but, as I’ve said, if we were going to urge 700,000 people to get a test, we wouldn’t have shared that message solely through Instagram – you would’ve heard that from us.”
Crengle said the wrong call on testing for West and South Auckland would have meant people without symptoms were tested, so it was not the worst error to happen.
“Anyone can make a mistake, and we have to have some aroha for the person or people who made that mistake. It was cleared up relatively quickly and in some ways it was a message that would have people who were asymptomatic tested rather than actually discouraging people from testing,” Crengle said.
“If you’re going to make a mistake that wasn’t a bad one to make.
“It was cleared up very quickly, the prime minister was very clear yesterday, and hopefully it will mean anyone putting messaging out will be very cautious and double and triple check what they’re messaging.”
This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.
If you havesymptomsof the coronavirus, call the NZ Covid-19 Healthline on 0800 358 5453 (+64 9 358 5453 for international SIMs) or call your GP – don’t show up at a medical centre.
“It was an honour to get the letter … to be [offered] this role. It was a huge responsibility,” the Auckland University of Technology graduate said.
The sentence hearing lasted four days, starting on Monday, August 24, and was conducted under heightened security.
A large number of victims and their families attended with 98 people giving impact statements, with those who could not be in the room due to covid-19 restrictions watching a restricted livestream in additional courtrooms or overseas.
The terrorist, Brenton Tarrant, who represented himself after he pleaded guilty to murdering 51 people, attempted murder of 40 people, and engaging in a terrorist act, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of ever leaving jail – the harshest sentence ever handed down by a New Zealand court.
Police and health settings Dr Derbashi completed a Graduate Certificate in Arts (Interpreting) at the Auckland University of Technology in 2018, opening the opportunity for him to be a qualified interpreter in courts and tribunals, with the police and in health settings.
“I’ve worked in courts over the past few years and I’ve seen difficult situations … you need to be of your full consciousness,” he says.
Last week’s hearing was unprecedented and interpreting for it was a difficult challenge.
It was unpredictable, he said, as the victims and the relatives or anyone who represented them could be part of heightened emotions at the court, he said before the hearing.
“I am very humbled to be able to serve the country in this way. I would like to give special thanks to my legal and health interpreting lecturers, Jo Anna Burn and Ineke Crezee, both subject experts and excellent teachers.”
Interpreters do not just put together words in different languages, Dr Derbashi said. They need to be trusted and to have an ethical commitment which includes confidentiality, but also to convey the message as it is, without any omission or addition.
Court interpreting also has its own challenges.
Flexibility, impartiality needed “You need to have not just a flexibility, but to be really impartial and ready to face any situation, particularly emotionally, psychologically and when you are talking about legal terms,” he said.
“Even if somebody swears, you need to go there.”
For example, a defence lawyer in a case might use vivid language to ask a victim whether sexual harassment and rape really happened.
If the interpreter could not interpret the question properly, then there could be a miscarriage of justice with an offender getting away with a crime.
Dr Derbashi also interpreted at the Dunedin vigil for the victims of the Christchurch mosque attacks.
“That was the first huge event I did. I was chosen by the Dunedin City Council at that time… and all the feedback that came afterwards was really amazing,” he said.
“For three hours I interpreted for more than 22 speakers, without knowing anything in advance about their speeches. It was a great honour, and a great challenge as well.”
This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre from AUT News.
But people may not realise there is also a ban on overseas travel for all Australian citizens and residents, subject to a limited number of exemptions.
Since March, about one in three requests to leave the country have been granted. This comes amid reports of Australians facing huge hurdles to see sick and dying relatives overseas.
So, what’s going on? Who can actually leave Australia at the moment?
What is the ban?
The ban on leaving Australia was put in place by Health Minister Greg Hunt on March 25, as an “emergency requirement” under the Biosecurity Act. It is the first time Australia has had such a ban, and it was made on the advice of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee.
An Australian citizen or permanent resident … must not leave Australian territory as a passenger on an outgoing aircraft or vessel.
The accompanying statement explains,
[This] is in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to represent a severe and immediate threat to human health in Australia and across the globe.
Is this legal?
The government legally made the determination under the Biosecurity Act, which gives the health minister power to put in place “any requirement” they believe is necessary to prevent or control the entry or spread of the virus into Australia.
International law recognises the right to leave any country, including your own, but there is no equivalent constitutional protection in Australia.
There is a legal ban on Australians leaving Australia.Darren England/AAP
In other words, Australians don’t have a constitutional right to leave Australia.
Strict exit bans for citizens are generally associated with authoritarian states, like North Korea and the former USSR. But the Health Department has said the ban is needed because of the burden returning residents place on quarantine arrangements, the health system and testing regimes.
The government has also argued it is “impossible” to only ban travel to specific places, due to the fast-moving nature of the pandemic in different countries.
Who can leave Australia at the moment?
Anyone who is isn’t a citizen or resident is allowed to leave Australia.
Some Australians are also still free to leave. This includes those who are “ordinarily resident in a country other than Australia”, airline and maritime crew, outbound freight workers, and essential workers at offshore facilities.
All other citizens and residents must have an exemption if they want to leave. They need to apply online (which is free) and then bring the approved exemption to the airport.
To be granted an exemption, you must have a “compelling reason” for needing to leave Australian territory, and your travel must fall into one of the following categories:
compassionate or humanitarian grounds
part of the response to the COVID-19 outbreak
essential for the conduct of critical industries and business
to receive urgent medical treatment unavailable in Australia
urgent and unavoidable personal business
in the national interest.
Most applications to leave are not successful
Despite these exemptions, it is still difficult to get permission to leave. Only about one in three requests are being granted.
According to Border Force, between March and mid-August it received more than 104,000 requests to leave Australia. About 34,300 exemptions have been granted.
Exemption applications are assessed by Border Force and applicants are advised to apply at least two weeks but not more than three months before departure.
Border Force adds:
If you are travelling due to death or critical illness of a close family member, you can apply inside this timeframe and we will prioritise your application.
However, timeframes haven’t been guaranteed and people have reported significant delays even in emergency situations. If a request is refused, an applicant can reapply.
Failing to comply with the ban is a criminal offence, punishable by up to five years’ prison, a $63,000 fine, or both.
Are Victorians especially banned?
There is nothing to exclude Victorians, currently under Stage 3 and 4 restrictions, from applying to leave Australia.
The Victorian government directs residents to federal government advice regarding overseas trips.
However, Victorians would also need to comply with or seek exemptions from state-based restrictions (including for travel to the airport, for example) where an exemption was granted.
What are the problems with the ban?
Usually when governments pass legislation, they provide definitions of key terms. However, no definitions for any exemptions are included in the travel ban determination, which was made by Hunt and not reviewed by parliament.
What exemptions like “urgent and unavoidable personal business” cover is unclear, to say the least (luxury yacht, anyone?).
The ban on overseas travel was introduced in March as the coronavirus crisis took hold in Australia.Biance De Marchi/AAP
There have been repeated stories of Australians having enormous difficulties getting permission to see family and loved ones overseas. Although recent reports suggest the process is becoming easier.
One woman reported difficulty meeting the “compassionate grounds” exemption because her dying step-parent was not in hospital, due to a choice to spend his last days at home. Another received three different responses to the same request.
Applicants must provide sufficient documentation, but it is also unclear what documents are required. People whose documents are not in English must have them officially translated as part of an application. Those in distressed or bereaved states must nonetheless gather complex documentary evidence, which may include death certificates, or proof of an event or relationship.
Due to this lack of clarity, some people are seeking the advice of migration agents to help them leave Australia.
This adds to the ever-growing costs of mobility during the pandemic, while creating the extraordinary circumstance where legal advice is needed to help residents and citizens depart their own country.
When will the ban end?
Australia’s complete travel ban has not been adopted in similar countries. In New Zealand, Canada and Britain, overseas travel is strongly advised against but not banned.
Other countries to have completely prohibited travel include Kazakhstan, Lithuania and Uzbekistan.
Australia’s ban will automatically cease when the “biosecurity emergency period” is declared over, unless revoked beforehand.
But while the the current period runs until September 17, it is likely to be extended. In June, Hunt warned borders will remained closed for a “very significant” amount of time.
Although he also described Australia as an “island sanctuary”, it’s unlikely the many people held on either side of its borders feel the same way.
That’s according to the Penington Institute’s annual overdose report, released today.
The largest number of overdose deaths (more than 1,000) involved opioids (for example, heroin, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl), followed by benzodiazepines (for example, Valium).
Opioid-related deaths in Australia have been on an upward trend in recent years, having doubled since 2006. This means we’re now not far off numbers recorded in the late 1990s, when opioid-related deaths were highest. There’s more we could be doing to curb this problem.
What kind of opioids are causing harm?
Unlike North America, where illicitly manufactured fentanyl has been involved in many opioid deaths, most opioid deaths in Australia involve pharmaceutical opioids.
Among all opioid deaths, just over half of people overdosing have a history of injecting drugs, and substance use problems. We know people with chronic non-cancer pain are becoming dependent on pharmaceutical opioids and are also among these statistics.
Some 80% of opioid deaths are accidental, while 16% are intentional overdoses (the remaining 4% we don’t know). Intentional overdoses are twice as common with pharmaceutical opioids.
As many of these changes have only been implemented recently, it’s too early to know whether or not they’re having a positive effect.
But regulatory responses run the risk of unintended consequences. We saw this in Australia with the re-formulation of oxycodone tablets to a product that’s more difficult to inject. Heroin-related ambulance call-outs and emergency department presentations increased significantly in Victoria after this change was introduced.
In North America, restricted opioid prescribing was associated with dramatic increases in heroin and illicitly manufactured fentanyl deaths.
Restricting the availability of pharmaceutical opioids can steer people towards illicit opioids.Shutterstock
One key response to opioid overdose has been providing opioid agonist treatment (for example, methadone or buprenorphine) to opioid dependent people, typically those with a history of injecting drugs.
Barriers to treatment include critical shortages of prescribers (addiction medicine specialists and trained GPs), stigma, and the requirement to attend a clinic or pharmacy daily at the start of treatment.
We need to double treatment capacity to meet the demand for people who may benefit from opioid agonist treatment.
What else can we do?
We can make opioid use safer.
The two supervised injecting facilities in Australia play an important role in reducing public injecting, and responding to overdoses on site. Neither service (in Sydney or Melbourne) has had a death since opening.
The Victorian government has approved a second Melbourne facility, and a study currently underway is looking at whether a facility would be useful in Canberra.
Establishing these facilities requires a lot of planning as well as changes to legislation, and scaling them up to reach more Australians who inject drugs has proven difficult. There has been no movement on calls made several years ago to set up a second service in Sydney.
But we know these services save lives and help get people into treatment, so we need to keep scaling them up. In the past three years Canada has opened 24 new supervised injecting facilities, while Australia has opened just one.
We also need to consider innovations to ensure safer opioid supply.
In Europe and North America drug researchers monitor the heroin supply for dangerous contaminants, and we’ve seen early work like this in Australia, including at Sydney’s safe injecting centre.
These monitoring services provide critical information on opioid supply and can help people using opioids make informed decisions.
Safe injecting centres can help get people into treatment.Tracey Nearmy/AAP
But one thing is clear: the pandemic has shown we can respond quickly to implement change. Treatment services have rapidly adapted to COVID-19 restrictions, for example by making it possible for people to receive methadone and buprenorphine without having to visit a clinic or pharmacy every day.
As well as making treatment more flexible, the pandemic has addressed broader needs for some people who are dependent on opioids, such as providing temporary accommodation. Hopefully these changes will provide longer-term benefits, including encouraging people to remain in treatment.
In addressing opioid overdose deaths in Australia, we need to follow the best evidence, extend our vision to responses implemented internationally, and evaluate them locally.
Importantly, responses should be formulated within the frame of good clinical care, rather than relying on punitive responses, such as mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. This creates further problems, such as stigma, for people who use drugs.
California is ablaze, again. Currently, the second and third largest fires in the US state’s history are burning at the same time, and are only partially controlled. Already, seven people have died and 2,144 structures are damaged – and their fire season still has months to run.
The outbreak continues a relentless trend of bigger and more destructive fires in the western US, including California’ largest fire in 2018.
For Australians, the spectacle of California burning is deeply concerning. It’s just months since our last fire season, concentrated in a band of eucalyptus forests along the continent’s southeast coast.
There are strong parallels between the two disasters: drought, parched landscapes, high temperatures, prolonged heatwaves and dry lightning storms to set it all off. And both Australia and California are particularly vulnerable as climate change makes bushfires worse. So let’s look at the fiery fate we share with those across the Pacific – and how we must all adapt.
Australia endured its own bushfire disaster just months ago.David Mariuz/AAP
An uncertain future
We know bushfires are being made worse by human activity and climate change. But, owing to a lack of long-term data and the complex interactions between humans, climate and fire, it’s hard to predict exactly how fires will change – for example how frequent or severe they will be, how long fire seasons will last and how much land will burn.
In research published last week, we describe recent trends in fire activity and examine projections for the near future. From this, it’s clear the global impact of bushfires due to human-induced climate change will intensify.
Among the areas expected to be worst hit are flammable forests in populated temperate zones, such as Australia’s eastern states and California.
Climate is not the only driving factor here. Human changes to landscapes – such as urban sprawl into flammable forests – are also making fires worse.
The damage is not just environmental, but also economic. Already, Australia’s last bushfire season is likely to be our most expensive natural disaster, costing around A$100 billion. And the California fires in 2017–2018 caused an estimated A$55 billion in structure losses alone.
Scorched homes and vehicles in a mobile home park in California. The economic toll of bushfires globally is set to worsen.Noah Berger/AAP
The escalating threat demands an urgent rethink of our inadequate and inappropriate fire management strategies. These span land use planning, fuel management, communications, evacuation and firefighting capacity. All are constrained by complex administrative arrangements, limited physical and human resources, and poor budgets.
Climate change also raises the frightening sceptre of a “positive feedback” loop in which climate change exacerbates fire, producing carbon dioxide emissions which worsen climate change further. This vicious cycle threatens to fundamentally alter the Earth system.
What’s more, fire seasons in southern Australia and the western US increasingly overlap. As California burned last week, uncontrolled winter bushfires ripped through northern New South Wales. Australia is sending firefighters to California this time around. But as fires increasingly rage in both hemispheres simultaneously, our respective nations will have fewer firefighting resources to share.
The COVID-19 crisis is making these difficult circumstances even more challenging. For example in California, authorities are dealing with both the fires and the pandemic; the state reportedly has the highest number of infections in the US.
Firefighters must practice social distancing: that means fewer people in each vehicle and no communal eating or sleeping arrangements. And Australian firefighters will be forced into quarantine for two weeks upon their return home.
Australians look on with sympathy as California burns.Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP
Accepting reality
In this context, recommendations handed down by the NSW bushfire inquiry last week are a landmark in how we adapt to bushfires. Central to the report is an avowed acceptance climate change is transforming bushfire management.
The report contains 76 recommendations, all accepted by the NSW government, providing creative licence to rethink how we sustainably co-exist with bushfires. They include:
reforms of arrangements to manage bushfires, such as better coordination between agencies, better shared data and streamlining fuel management programs
trialling new approaches to reducing fuel loads, fighting fires and managing smoke pollution
involving Aboriginal people in managing landscapes
maintaining the safety and mental health of those on the frontline such as fire fighters, first responders and affected citizens
improving disaster management through improved training and work practices for firefighters, better communication, new technologies and investing in equipment.
The scope and scale of the recommendations underscores the huge task ahead of us.
Importantly, underpinning the recommendations is a clear commitment to analysing which approaches work, and which do not. This accepts our current state of knowledge is partial and imperfect.
Amanda Shields from the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council inspects the plant regrowth after a fire. Indigenous people should be more involved in fire management.Joel CArrett/AAP
Our fire-filled futures
Co-existing with a flammable landscape is a massive and complicated task – a fact California is now being brutally reminded of. Australia can lead the way globally, but to do this requires significant investment in bushfire management to build the necessary tools, techniques and talent.
Climate change is making bushfire seasons longer, more dangerous and socially demanding. Like it or not, we have embarked on the bushfire adaptation journey, and there is no turning back.
The question now is, how far do we go? All Australians must turn their minds to this critical social and political challenge.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angela Lehmann, Honorary Lecturer, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University
COVID-19 has not stopped international education. As of August 24, 524,000 international students were living among us in Australian cities and communities. They represent 78% of all student visa holders, according to data the Department of Home Affairs provided to us.
These students are potential ambassadors for Australia and our institutions. They could help shape our country’s reputation as a safe and welcoming destination in the post-pandemic world – but only if we look after them.
Data as of August 24 2020 provided by Department of Home Affairs, Author provided
The numbers of students now in Australia vary across sectors. Currently, 73% of our international higher education students and 78% of postgraduate research students are here. The vast majority — 78% — of our international secondary school students are still here too.
The percentage is even higher for vocational education and training (VET): 91% of the sector’s international students are here, 159,233 in all.
Non-award programs (shorter courses that don’t lead to a degree or diploma) and English language programs (ELICOS) have the largest percentages of students now offshore.
Data provided by Department of Home Affairs at authors’ request, Author provided
The experiences these large numbers of students are having now will have a direct impact on their decisions and patterns of mobility once borders reopen.
However, institutions and government agencies continue to focus on outward-looking approaches to recovery, such as offshore recruitment and delivery, negotiating pilot safety corridors, and scenario planning for the reopening of borders. The onshore response to international education risks being severely neglected.
International students in Australian cities and communities are of course talking about their situation. They are using social media, creating blogs and interacting constantly with families and friends back home and around the world.
During the pandemic, this peer-to-peer form of marketing is heightened in its global reach. Our students are constantly comparing their lives with students in both their home countries and Australia’s major competitor destinations.
As a result, the crisis of international student social support is the subject of global comparisons. Students and their families are weighing up what they are going through “here” compared to what others are going through “there”.
Arya is a full-time postgraduate student from India who is staying in Melbourne. We spoke with Arya as a part of a series of interviews with international students during COVID-19.
Her dream of studying in Australia was made possible through a combination of a student loan, borrowing from family, and savings after working for two years as a journalist. Prior to COVID-19, she relied on part-time jobs to support herself. This income was essential to her financial survival in Melbourne.
The first lockdown meant she lost both her jobs — one in hospitality and one at her university. As these sectors are struggling in this crisis, her prospect of finding a new job is bleak.
She has struggled to pay rent, but the moratorium on evictions has prevented her from becoming homeless. Her university and local community groups in Melbourne have also provided food hampers.
Arya’s goal was to study in Australia at a world-class institution and solidify her status within the upwardly mobile middle classes in India. Her life has been transformed into a struggle to eat, pay rent and avoid homelessness while keeping her grades up. Arya observes:
It is becoming more than an education. The question is shifting to how students live and survive in a global city midst a pandemic.
Arya is in contact with friends and fellow Indian students studying overseas. While her situation in Melbourne is dire, her friends in the US are struggling every day. Arya introduced us to Dhanya.
Dhanya, who moved to New York in 2017 to study, says she is struggling “despite doing everything right”. After recently graduating and finding a job, Dhanya lost her H1B sponsored visa for skilled workers as a result of the Trump administration’s recent freeze on visas. “The US government has not considered that we can’t get home,” Dhanya says.
She reports that she and many of her friends in similar situations have been told they can choose to work as unpaid interns.
President Donald Trump has frozen visas permitting foreign students to work in the United States.Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/AAP
Many American states enacted a patchwork of temporary eviction moratoriums and the federal government issued a partial ban on evictions. These moratoriums have now largely expired, forcing students to rely on the discretion of landlords. As a non-citizen, Dhanya cannot receive unemployment benefits or a stimulus cheque.
Dhanya is unaware of any non-monetary support from her university or the government for international students. There are no free meal plans, grocery vouchers, or community-based food schemes.
Despite our Melbourne-based student living with the daily anxiety about her finances, she is comparing her experience relatively positively to her friends in the US.
Some countries are enhancing reputations
Students are paying attention to countries that are including international students and temporary migrants in their social policy response to COVID-19. Arya says:
The way countries handle this now is definitely going to impact how students see your country as a destination in the future.
Arya and her friends are keeping a keen eye on European destinations such as Germany and Sweden. They have also been impressed by Canada’s timely support for international students during this crisis.
It is not enough for Australia to rely on other nations doing badly on social welfare and support. We need to do more than aim to receive a comparatively “good” score on poverty, exploitation and vulnerability based on others doing worse.
Australia urgently needs to actively reshape international education market perceptions by demonstrating that we offer not only world-class education, but also world-class student support. And that starts with helping the cohort of more than half-a-million international students who currently call Australia home.
Most of us can remember a favourite teacher. Some of us can also remember a teacher we didn’t get on with or with whom we always seemed to get in trouble.
Relationships between students and teachers at school are important. They predict students’ motivation, performance, and expectations of future relationships.
We interviewed 96 students from a range of schools in Years 3 to 9. We wanted to find out who students remember as their favourite and least favourite teachers. We also wanted to find out what made those relationships positive or negative.
In our study, published in the journal School Psychology Review, all students described similar factors that made them like their teachers — care, kindness and humour.
What we wanted to find
Past research shows students with disruptive behaviour are more likely to experience negative relationships with their teachers than their less disruptive peers. Teachers often rate relationships with such students to be low in closeness and high in conflict.
But these relationships aren’t always negative. Even self-described troublemakers and class clowns often remember a specific teacher who stood up for them, who took them under their wing, or who changed their perceptions of school for the better.
The first group we interviewed consisted of 54 students who had a history of disruptive behaviour, such as acting out in class or being frequently suspended. Around half were in a special behaviour school for disruptive behaviour, and the remainder attended a mainstream school.
The second group consisted of 42 students with no history of disruptive behaviour. They were often high achieving (such as school prefects or A-students), and all attended a mainstream school.
We were particularly interested in the “magic ingredients” that would support positive student-teacher relationships, even for disruptive students. We also wanted to determine if there were “contaminating ingredients” that could sour these relationships, even for exemplary students.
Who is your favourite teacher?
We first asked students if they could remember any teachers they’d had a really good relationship with. If the student replied yes, we then asked what made the relationship good.
The reasons students liked teachers were almost identical across groups. Even highly disruptive students bonded with teachers who were caring, kind and funny.
One 13-year-old with disruptive behaviour (in a special school) said of their favourite teacher:
Every time I’d go there without food … Miss H always used to buy me lunch, let me go on excursions. … I was never allowed to go on an excursion [before] because of my ADHD.
A 15-year-old with disruptive behaviour (also in a special school) said of their favourite teacher:
Mr M, he’s just hilarious. He’s the funniest man on earth. He’s always saying this weird stuff […] walking around with this big puffy jacket, like some kind of Russian guard […] pretending his pencil is a cigar […] we just laugh.
These answers show how important it is for teachers to separate student disciplinary matters from relationship matters.
Around 16% of students highlighted teacher helpfulness, while 10% highlighted effective teaching, as a key advantage of their favourite teachers.
One 12-year-old without disruptive behaviour said about their favourite teacher:
She gave me and some of the other smart kids harder work. [I liked that] because it challenges me.
What causes conflicts?
We next asked students if they could remember any teachers they really didn’t get on with or clashed with. If a student replied yes, we asked what sort of things would bring that on.
While not all students could remember a teacher they clashed with, a large proportion of each group could.
Students in both groups overwhelmingly agreed on the key factors contributing to negative relationships.
Nobody likes to feel like they’re being treated unfairly.Shutterstock
Across groups, 86% highlighted instances where they had perceived the teacher being unnecessarily hostile towards them, or where they felt they were treated unfairly.
One 13-year-old with disruptive behaviour (in a mainstream school) said:
I usually have my earphones in and I just sit there and just listen to music […] she just like opened the door, seen me listening to music […] She comes up, grabs the earphones, she just rips them out of my ear [pretend shouting] ‘Listen to the teacher!‘
A 16-year-old with disruptive behaviour (in a special school) said:
She just used to pin stuff on me. If I done the littlest thing wrong and someone done somethin’ major wrong, she would […] go for me first […] She just hated me, and I hated her.
Another 10-year-old with no disruptive behaviour said:
She was always yelling […] Because she gave us a real hard book, and we were only in Year 1, and we couldn’t really read it that good […]
Frequently, students’ descriptions of unfair treatment included pre-emptive punishments and reprimands:
One 15-year-old with disruptive behaviour (in a special school) said:
Well, I remember one time that, like, I went inside the classroom and she just, like, came up to me and she was like, you had better not talk this lesson and I wasn’t even talking at all.
Another 15-year-old with disruptive behavior (in a mainstream school) said:
Well, she always picked me out, as well, for misbehaving, so I got in a lot of trouble for that, but […] like, a lot of people were just doing a lot worse than I was doing, but she was like, no, no, you’ve been bad before.
A 12-year-old with no disruptive behavior (in a mainstream school) said:
Every time I did something in the playground that was good, someone told her I’d done something bad and [Miss C] always believed them.
What teachers can take from this
Based on our research, below are some things teachers and parents can do to promote positive relationships with teachers for the young people in their care.
remember empathy and humour go a long way to building positive relationships with students. Caring about students as individuals genuinely does break down barriers. Most teachers already report caring deeply for their students. It may simply be a matter of making one’s acts of kindness and care more visible
consider how warnings are given. Students benefit when they are allowed to start the day with a clean slate, and when reprimands are held back until an offence has actually been committed
separate classroom management from relationship building. Students who are most disruptive are also often the ones who could use a positive relationship the most
parents can help by encouraging students to reflect on their relationships with teachers. Sometimes situations are ambiguous, and understanding a teachers’ perspective may help in interpreting situations that would otherwise feel unreasonable to a young person. Students and teachers both win when they work on the same team.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peta Murray, Vice-Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University
A search for “Coronavirus Diary” on Google yields 910,000 results. News outlets like the Guardian, The Atlantic and The New York Times have chronicled an increase in personal record-keeping.
And today’s diaries aren’t just handwritten reflections in bound notebooks. They might be social media posts, video entries or visual collages – so long as they are regularly updated over an extended period and personal in nature, they fit the bill. The secret is in the repetition, and the pledge that drives it.
The word diary entered the English language in the late 16th century, via the Latin word, diarium, which comes from dies, meaning day. The diary asks us to attend to this day.
Diary-keeping sharpens observational skills, so it is no wonder then that cultural institutions have begun projects to crowd-source details of what otherwise might be quite banal aspects of our lives.
The State Library of Victoria has a Facebook group, Memory Bank, where posts of shopping lists and sourdough recipes have given way to more melancholy images of closed shops and empty streets in the CBD – a collective chronicle both hyperlocal and universal.
The State Library of New South Wales subtitles its Diary Files an “online community diary”, and currently contains nearly a thousand entries, searchable by keywords. School, time, home and COVID are among the most commonly written words, and the greatest number of contributions come from Sydneysiders between 10 and 15 years of age.
Video “lockdown” diaries can also be viewed online, via BBC Reel, or listened to through Corona Diaries, the interactive open source project which collects audio stories from around the world.
Social researchers have identified the diary as a tool to capture the impact of the pandemic on daily life. UK sociologist Michael Ward began his research through CoronaDiaries, where 164 participants ranging in age from 11 to 87 submit entries in a variety of forms. Ward suggests:
These entries are able to highlight the multiple different lives behind the dreaded numbers we hear announced each day.
Vic Lee self-published a Corona Diary. He sold 2,500 copies and donated some proceeds to charity.
Most of us can name some famous literary diarists of history – Samuel Pepys, Virginia Woolf, Adrian Mole. When we stray far beyond this list, it is often the times, rather than the writer, that make the diary notable.
There is Lena Mukhina’s perspective on the Siege of Leningrad, 13-year-old Anne Frank’s account of the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands and the poignant scratchings of Sir Robert Scott’s on the day he perished: “For god’s sake, look after our people”.
Nelson Mandela’s desk-calendar notes, kept in prison, speak to extraordinary experiences under extreme conditions.
Diaries from the 1918 influenza pandemic came into their own as more than ephemera for both historians and scientists in 2020.
For a book length account, we can look to Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year, about life in London in 1665 – bearing in mind the author was only five years old at the height of the epidemic, so it is likely a factual-meets-fictional rendering.
Diary-writing serves broader society, and can help individuals make sense of difficult times.
Interviewed for this story, psychologist Robyn Moffitt told us:
From a psychological perspective, keeping a diary is a really useful (and evidence-based) way to engage in healthy self-monitoring of thoughts, feelings, and behaviour … writing things down as they happen can provide some objective evidence and perspective on the frequency and severity of different events, and we can use this to correct distorted thinking.
The process of writing itself can also be quite therapeutic. It can allow us to process and reconstruct past events, problem-solve, and create new meanings, and in some ways this makes it similar to psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is often referred to as the “talking cure”, and writing can provide similar therapeutic benefits (the “writing cure” perhaps)?
It might be argued that social media has since overtaken the diary as a means to chronicle one’s life. Indeed, there is crossover in the ways lives are shared and curated across different media, from the handwritten diary to blogs.
The ritualistic structure offered by the personal diary can be repurposed in digital spaces. The notion of publicly committing to post something – an image, a video, a song – every day offers another way of marking out time when every day is Blursday the fortyteenth of Aprilay.
We have experimented with each recording a sound a day, collected from the few spaces we were still able to inhabit.
A diaristic practice, whether written or not, supports us to stay in the moment, as psychotherapists and life coaches exhort us to do.
A favourite pen or notebook can heighten the journal experience.Unsplash, CC BY
And it’s never too late to start diarising. Here are some tips:
1. Decide on your platform
Digital or analogue? Decide on your medium. The written or spoken word? A photo? A sound? A song? Choose something that pleases you (a special pen, a fancy notebook) to heighten the experience.
2. Make a vow
Make an entry every day, or on a set number of days for four weeks. 28 days is said to be a good target if aiming to break or start a habit – though it may take longer.
3. Make time
Set aside time at the same hour each day to capture your experience.
4. Rinse and repeat
Carpe diem. Seize the day!
The Symphony of Awkward is hosting a free online forum on September 24, 2020 to discuss diary practices.
Six out of every ten of the 2.24 million people set to be on JobKeeper in the December quarter are expected to be in Victoria, according to estimates issued by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.
Looking ahead to the 2021 March quarter, Treasury estimates about 60% of 1.75 million expected to be on the scheme will be in the state which is currently under a hard lockdown. Parliament this week is set to extend the scheme, in a scaled down version, for six months from the end of September.
Treasury
Releasing the Treasury analysis of data on spending from the Commonwealth Bank and unemployment benefits Frydenberg said: “Restrictions imposed by the Victorian government have had a devastating impact on the economy.
“The number of Victorians on unemployment benefits has significantly increased with the impost of restrictions while numbers in other states have declined.
“At the same time household spending in Victoria is down more than 30% through the year while the rest of Australia is only down around 3%.
“The accommodation and hospitality sector has borne the brunt of the restrictions with the growth in spending in dining and takeaway down more than 60% and in the accommodation sector more than 80%.
“In July the effective unemployment rate in Victoria, before the stage four lockdown, was around 10.5%, while it was around 8.5% in NSW where they are managing the virus and have reopened their economy.”
Earlier Frydenberg, criticising Premier Daniel Andrews, told Sky, “I want to hear more about a message of hope for the people of Victoria. Daniel Andrews and the Victorian government need to be talking more about the road out than about a longer road in”.
He attacked the “over-reach” and “very bad call” by Andrews in seeking a year’s extension of the state’s emergency powers legislation. This is now being negotiated with the Victorian upper house crossbenchers for a reduced length of time.
Treasury
Frydenberg said there had been a “litany” of failures in Victoria.
It was only a fortnight from the scheduled end of the stage 4 restrictions and “businesses are in the dark as to how they’ll get their workers back and their doors open,” he said.
But with the latest Victorian tally of 114 new cases and 11 deaths, Andrews on Sunday said it was too early to put forward a definitive plan for reopening.
The Treasury analysis shows that through May, as restrictions eased in Victoria, numbers on unemployment benefits fell and spending recovered, as elsewhere in the country. But since July Victoria’s story has been different from that of other states.
Since late June Victorians on unemployment benefits rose by 27.600 (7.2%). More than half the increase was in the three weeks to August 21, when the stage 4 lockdown was operating.
According to Treasury’s analysis of the Commonwealth Bank data, since the Victorian lockdown was reimposed, there has been a large fall in Victorian household spending growth relative to elsewhere.
It has declined from about 0% through the year in mid-July, to be down about 30% through the year in recent weeks.
In contrast, spending growth was 3% down over the year in the rest of the country.
As with the initial lockdown, the reimposition of restrictions in Victoria led to a significant fall in discretionary spending growth – but the move to stage 4 hit spending harder. Growth in discretionary spending in the state was about minus 40% through the year in mid-April. As things eased it improved to about minus 5% through the year in mid-June. Then it has fallen to about minus 45% through the year in recent weeks.
The metropolitan area has been harder hit than regional areas of Victoria.
The number on unemployment benefits has risen by 7-8% across Melbourne since restrictions started to be reimposed, compared with 3% in regional Victoria.
Over the same time, household spending growth across Melbourne and regional Victoria has fallen by similar amounts. But because of a limited recovery in this spending when restrictions were eased, through-the-year spending growth in Melbourne is presently about 24 percentage points below pre-COVID levels, while spending in regional areas is about 5 percentage points lower than before COVID.
Frydenberg said more than $12 billion in JobKeeper payments and about $6 billion CashFlow Boost credits had been delivered to Victorian businesses and employees.
Polling from the Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, done late last week found when people were asked which level of government was doing a better job handling the COVID crisis, 31% thought their state or territory government, compared to 25% who said the federal government, and 32% who thought both governments were doing an equally good job. Some 13% said they didn’t know or were not sure.
Australian Institute
But in Victoria only 25% said the state government was doing a better job, compared with 32% who nominated the federal government and 31% who rated both governments equally.
Green Party co-leader, James Shaw. Image, Green Party New Zealand.
Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards
Political scientist, Dr Bryce Edwards.
Was it just a terrible stuff-up? Or a reflection of the political direction the Green Party is shifting in? The announcement this week by co-leader James Shaw that he had secured nearly $12m for a private school has angered educationalists and raised significant questions about the Greens and what they now stand for.
The decision to give this huge amount of money to an environmental school in Taranaki is further evidence for many that the Greens have either lost their way, making poor and unprincipled decisions in power, or are simply shifting towards a more “green capitalism” approach.
Anger from the education sector
In a time of heightened concern about economic inequality and the run-down state of New Zealand schools, the decision to put such a large amount of money into a new for-profit school was always going to be controversial. It’s not surprising to see the whole of the public education sector speaking out angrily against Shaw’s funding announcement.
One of the strongest reactions has come from a Decile 2 school in the same area. New Plymouth’s Marfell School acting principal, Kealy Warren has written an open letter to the Prime Minister saying: “This action makes the rich richer and says loud and clear that you have little regard for the state school system. You have given to those who already have so much and yet again left us hanging” – see Rachel Sadler’sNew Plymouth principal writes scathing letter to Jacinda Ardern over ‘elitist’ funding for private school.
The letter also says: “This is totally unacceptable, elitist, and completely inequitable. It is a clear statement that you value the rich while actively keeping the low socio-economic schools in their place at the bottom of the heap.”
The problem for Kealy Warren is that her school, like many others, has leaky classrooms, and fixing these isn’t being prioritised. The article also quotes Shaw himself, perhaps making it worse, saying “This is an area I think that New Zealand should be frankly ashamed of in terms of our continuing underinvestment in this area.” But his own defence is that his decision was not about schools, but about jobs: “In terms of the infrastructure spend, it is in many ways just another construction project.”
The New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) representing 50,000 teachers, has also reacted with disbelief at the Green decision, with national secretary Paul Goulter saying “We just can’t understand why the Government would go ahead and fund a private school with public money at a time when public schools in the Taranaki region are crying out for this type of investment” – see Thomas Coughlan’sGreens caught bending party policy to grant $11.7m to private school in Taranaki.
The union points out that the Government’s current programme for improving ageing public school infrastructure has a cap of $400,000, and this grant to the private school “would be enough to fund nearly 30 schools at that rate.”
The Principals’ Association in the region has also hit out at the lack of fairness, saying: “We’ve got state and state-integrated schools all around our province and the country screaming for funding for leaky buildings, modernisation projects and lots of overcrowding issues and we’re just a bit worried this going to set a precedent” – see Robin Martin’sTaranaki education leaders furious at govt funding for private school.
This article also reports the Post Primary Teachers’ Association saying “New Zealand education is about equity. They’re big on equity and I don’t think we would see this as equitable for all our people.”
In another article, the PPTA’s regional chair Erin MacDonald says “it’s a kick in the guts” and that other schools have “shovel-ready” projects urgently needing funding: “Colleagues all over the region and country are teaching in libraries, in hallways and in damp and mouldy rooms” – see Newstalk ZB’s ‘Gutted’: Outrage after money allocated to private green school.
Dismay from within the Greens and the political left
Not only are educationalists and political opponents appalled at the Green decision, embarrassingly, party activists and former MPs are also publicly revolting. Jo Moir’s article reports: “Sue Bradford described the move as incredible, and a total hand-out to the wealthy. Mojo Mathers took to Twitter to say she was furious, while Denise Roche warned the party’s credibility was being ruined by such a move. Catherine Delahunty, who was a Green MP for nine years – holding the education portfolio for many of them, says she’s astonished. ‘This is a mistake, fix the mistake and the electorate will respect you for it. Don’t fix it and they will lose faith in you, it’s that simple’.”
The problem is that the Green decision goes directly against the party’s core policy of opposing private education. They have campaigned strongly that the party would “phase out funding for private schools” not increase it.
The party’s Young Green wing has denounced their leaderships’ decision, putting out a statement to say they are “appalled that James Shaw took the stance of allowing funding to be given to a private school when there are so many low-decile and kura kaupapa Māori that would greatly appreciate this sort of funding… This is not what the party stands for. This is not creating access to free, high-quality, and accessible public education” – see Alice Webb-Liddall: Green Party under fire for $11m public funding of private ‘Green School’.
Many on the political left are also aghast that the party is responsible for transferring money to private schooling. Blogger No Right Turn sums the funding up like this: “This is a private school, providing exclusive education for the rich. Having ‘green’ in the name and an ecological focus doesn’t change that” – see: The Greens are supposed to be better than this. He concludes that it’s “another example of how being in government has changed the Greens, how power has corrupted them”.
Not everyone is critical of the decision. Writing on the pro-Government blogsite The Standard, Greg Presland gives his sympathy not to the state schools missing out, or disillusioned Green members, but to the party leadership: “I feel for Shaw. Politics is difficult and when you have a pandemic and a major economic hit and you need to shovel lots of money out the door into projects that have to be ready to go you can quickly get yourself into awkward positions” – see: Kia kaha Greens.
Reaction from the right
Not surprisingly, the political right is pushing strongly against the Green decision, with a variety of objections to it. National’s education spokesperson Nicola Willis called the $11.7m funding “eye-wateringly generous” and questioned why an “exclusive private school has been granted such an extraordinary amount of money” when there’s such need in state schools.
Some on the right argue that the funding of this particular private school is questionable. This is best put in David Farrar’s blogpost, Outrage over Greens taxpayer funding of private school. He says he supports the current “modest” funding of private schools (“$1,500 per student subsidy”), but believes that $12m is “horrendous” for an untested “school hand picked by Green Party Ministers because it shares their name and ethos”.
Farrar also points out that the new school will be one of the most elite and expensive in the country, for the use of the wealthiest 1% in society. In terms of fees charged, he says “If a child attended the school for all 13 years of primary and secondary it would cost the family $317,300.”
Not all on the right see the shift in policy from the Greens as a bad thing. Former Associate Minister of Education and Act MP Heather Roy has blogged her admiration: “Congratulations James Shaw! I never thought I would be complimenting the Green Party co-leader for his support of school choice for parents and students” – see:Green Party hypocrisy good for school choice.
Pressure on the Greens to reverse the decision
Since the backlash, Shaw has come out with some ambiguous statements about his regret over the decision. Talking to party members on Friday night on a Zoom conference call, he apologised for the controversy, saying he was aware that it has jeopardised support for the party. According to a report on this, “he would not make the same decision if given another opportunity. He told the group of 460 people he had thought of the project as a building and construction project rather than an education one” – see RNZ’s James Shaw apologises for signing-off on funding for ‘green’ private school.
But talking publicly, Shaw has since been less clear in his apologies, taking responsibility but not necessarily saying it was wrong. On Newshub The Nation he said that if faced with such a decision again “I probably would have taken a second look” – see Anna Bracewell-Worrall’sGreens co-leader James Shaw takes the blame over private school funding ‘hypocrisy’.
Will the Greens and Government reverse the private school funding? There is certainly mounting pressure for them to do so. A petition has been launched calling for this, which currently has 10,500 supporters – see: Reduce the Green School Grant.
The principal of New Plymouth’s Marfell School, Kealy Warren, has reacted to Shaw’s apology by questioning exactly who he is apologising to, suggesting he’s only worried about the impact on Green support: “When he says he caused damage, does he mean to his party and himself? Or is he acknowledging the principals, the children, the schools, the teachers, and the families of Taranaki and the damage he’s caused us?” – see Stephanie Ockhuysen’sJames Shaw invited to see mouldy, leaky state schools after million-dollar grant to private school.
Warren wants Shaw to withdraw the funding and focus on fixing state schools. Shaw is reported as looking for another solution. Meanwhile, Finance Minister Grant Robertson has come out against reversing the decision, saying “I think the Government’s got to act in good faith here with an applicant and so I’ve got no intention to do that”.
Coalition partner NZ First also wants the decision to remain, with the Minister in charge of the Provincial Growth Fund, Shane Jones, saying it’s not so easy to do a U-turn on the funding: “I understand that there are members of the Green Party who are warning of buyers’ remorse but quite frankly this is not a situation where it’s a pig in the poke” – see Amelia Wade’sGreen School funding: Infrastructure Minister Shane Jones says controversial project isn’t a ‘pig in the poke’.
This article reports both NZEI and the National Party wanting the decision reversed and pressuring the Government to explain why it can’t do so. National’s Nicola Willis wants more transparency on the issue, and believes the “Government should be asking Crown Law for advice on whether it was too late to back out or if they were locked into a contract which they had to honour.”
Damaging for the Greens
A number of commentators point to the potential damage for the Green Party, as they are precariously close to the 5% MMP threshold, The scandal might help push the party out of Parliament, especially if leftwing voters are disillusioned by the political direction the party is heading in.
Unfortunately for the Greens the controversy has undermined one of the party’s key strengths – it’s reputation for being principled. This is explained well by a Stuff newspaper editorial, The perils of having a political conscience: “The fear since 2017 is that the Greens would be somehow tainted by the proximity to power. No one minds too much when other parties flip-flop on their principles. We almost expect it from some. But the Green brand is based on a holier-than-thou sense of moral purpose. If that seems unfair, it is an image they courted.”
The must-read column on the matter comes from Stuff political editor Luke Malpass – see: Hypocrisy, thy colour is Green. He argues that the Greens are in trouble, because they trade heavily on their ideals, but this controversy makes them look like any other party.
More so, it reveals what the true political nature of the party is and which economic interests they serve. Malpass argues that: “The leader of the Green Party, which purports publicly to be the party of the downtrodden and dispossessed, has inadvertently revealed itself for what many think it actually is – a party that mostly serves well-heeled Kiwis in secure and well-paid employment that care about the environment, climate change and want to go cycling and tramping on the weekend.”
Malpass says that Shaw’s political credentials with the left are now badly tarnished: “The key political takeout of this confirms what many in politics have thought about James Shaw both within and without the Green Party: that he is a ‘tree Tory’ who is out of touch with a lot of the Green Party’s ‘watermelon’ base.”
Finally, New Zealand’s semi-official poet laureate, Victor Billot, reflects on the Greens’ shift towards environmentalism for the rich – see: A(nother) poem for James Shaw.
The five consecutive consecutive hikes in compulsory super contributions due to start next July should be deferred or abandoned in the view of the overwhelming majority of the leading Australian economists surveyed by the Economic Society of Australia and The Conversation.
Two thirds – 29 of the 44 surveyed – want the increases deferred or abandoned. Only 13 think they should proceed as planned.
An even larger majority, including some economists who want the increases to proceed, believe they will hit wage growth. Several are concerned they will hit employment.
Compulsory superannuation contributions are paid by employers.
Ahead of the most recent increase to compulsory super, from 9% of salaries to 9.5% in 2013 and 2014, the then Labor superannuation minister Bill Shorten said the move would cost employers nothing because they would be taken from wage rises.
“A portion of what would have been employees’ increases will go into compulsory savings,” he said.
That conventional wisdom has since been challenged in work funded by the superannuation industry and has been examined extensively in the retirement income review at present with the government.
The two most recent increases in compulsory superannuation in 2013 and 2014 were small by design – 0.25% of salary each.
The next five increases, originally due to due to begin in 2015 but postponed to start in July 2021, are much bigger – 0.5% of salary each – at a time when wage growth is much smaller.
In 2012 Shorten was expecting wage increases of 3-4% and “assuming that a quarter of a per cent of that 3% to 4% may well go into your compulsory savings”.
Wage growth has since slipped to 1.8%, the lowest on record. If the best part of 0.5% is taken out of that each year for the next five years it is unlikely to climb.
Wage growth has slipped to 1.8%
Wage Price Index annual growth, public and private, all industries, seasonally adjusted.ABS 6345.0
The 44 members of the Economic Society’s 57-member panel who responded include Australia’s preeminent experts in the fields of microeconomics, macroeconomics economic modelling, labour markets and public policy.
Among them are former and current government advisers and a former head of the Australian Fair Pay Commission and member of the Reserve Bank board and a former member of the Fair Work Commission’s minimum wage panel.
Each was asked whether the legislated increases in compulsory super contributions should proceed as planned, be deferred or be abandoned.
Only 13 of the 44 thought the increases should proceed as planned. 29 thought they should be deferred or abandoned, nine of them preferring they be abandoned altogether.
Economists Society of Australia/The Conversation, CC BY-ND
Those who thought they should be deferred argued that now is “not a time to encourage saving”. In the current circumstances we should be “far more worried about spending power today than in the golden years of present-day workers”.
Economist Saul Eslake said he had changed his mind. The latest evidence (which will be updated in the retirement income review) suggests that the current 9.5% so-called super guarantee will be enough to provide most people with an adequate income in retirement .
“In saying that I acknowledge that there is still a significant problem with regard to the adequacy of superannuation savings for women relative to men, but I don’t see how raising the super rate for everyone to 12% solves that problem,” he said.
“Not a time to encourage saving”
Economic modeller Janine Dixon said it was not clear that the optimal contribution was 12% rather than 9.5%. The increase would force some households into greater debt. While this would pose a risk to economic stability at any time, Australia could “not afford to let the household sector weaken further at present”.
Economist Geoffrey Kingston said anyone who felt 9.5% was not enough remained “free to make voluntary contributions”.
Among those believing the increases should proceed as planned were two former politicians, Labor’s Craig Emerson and former Liberal leader John Hewson.
Emerson said 9.5% was “considered inadequate by the burgeoning retiree population”. Without an increase, that population “would successfully demand increased pension levels from the Commonwealth”.
Opponents more confident
Hewson said compulsory super had become a fundamental part of an effective retirement incomes strategy and, COVID and economic collapse notwithstanding, we should “finish the job”.
Sue Richardson, a former member of the Fair Work Commission’s wage panel, believed any deferral might lead to another deferral and be “hard to recoup”.
The economists were asked to rate their confidence in their responses on a scale of 1 to 10.
Unweighted for confidence, 20.5% of those surveyed wanted to abandon the increases altogether. When weighted for confidence, that proportion climbed to 21.6%. The proportion that wanted the increases either deferred or abandoned climbed to 67.1%
Economists Society of Australia/The Conversation, CC BY-ND
Asked whether the increases were likely to be largely paid for via slower wage growth than otherwise, 30 of the 44 economists agreed. Only eight disagreed.
Economist Nigel Stapledon said this “should not be controversial”.
Private sector economist Michael Knox said: “unless one lives in an unreal world, increases in superannuation guarantees are funded by employers out of the total wage the worker might otherwise receive”.
Super and wages come from the same pool
Several enterprise bargains explicitly make a trade-off between wages and superannuation, providing for wage increases that will be 0.5 points higher should compulsory super contributions not climb by 0.5 points.
Economist Alison Booth said if employers weren’t able to trim wage rises to pay for the scheduled increases in super contributions, they might “attempt to adjust on other margins”.
In a recession, when workers lack bargaining strength, “employers could coerce them to accept other adjustments to their contracts”.
Economists Society of Australia/The Conversation, CC BY-ND
Two of the eight economists who disagreed with the proposition that the increases in compulsory super would come at the expense of wages thought that employers wouldn’t grant wage rises anyway. Increases in super contributions might be one way for employees to get something.
A concern among both those who agreed and disagreed was that if the increase didn’t come at the expense of wages, it would push up the cost of hiring and come at the expense of jobs.
“Inflation is very likely to be very, very low and wages to be sticky,” said government advisor Matthew Butlin.
A drag on jobs if not wages
“Higher superannuation payments in an environment where wages are unlikely to rise and cannot fall will raise real labour costs and reduce the incentive to employ.
Economic modeller Janine Dixon said that while over time the increase in contributions would probably come from wages, the immediate impact would be to “increase the cost of hiring, which is an unacceptably large risk in the present climate”.
When adjusted for confidence, the proportion of those surveyed expecting the increases to largely paid for via slower wage growth climbed from 68.2% to 71%. The proportion disagreeing fell from 18.2% to 17.8%.
Economists Society of Australia/The Conversation, CC BY-ND
A mad race to produce a vaccine against covid-19 has begun with the world’s superpowers leading the pack. At stake are millions of lives and billions of dollars.
Among the frontrunners is the United States with its futuristic-sounding Operation Warp Speed. Europe and China also have their own leading candidate vaccines.
As the race heats up, cheering and waiting on the sidelines for the crumbs are the less developed Asian, Asia-Pacific, African and South American countries, where most of the clinical trials for the vaccines will be or are being conducted already.
Normally, it takes at least four years to develop a vaccine before it is marketed. But in the covid-19 age, health experts are optimistically predicting a vaccine in one year or less.
There is a sense of urgency and we hope for an early breakthrough.
The typical vaccine research, testing and production cycle. Image: SciDev.Net
Meanwhile, at the head of the line waiting for the vaccine, expected to be ready by the end of the year, are the populations of the Western countries. They are, of course, the priority for their governments which funded the research in the first place.
Developing world as trial labs Poor Asian countries and the rest of the developing world, unfortunately, have to wait at the end of the line. That is why some of them have agreed to be guinea pigs for the vaccine trials in the hope that they will be given preference when the vaccines are rolled out for use. Beggars cannot be choosers.
Mid-August President Rodrigo Duterte committed the Philippines to participate in the phase 3 trials of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. Joining the Philippines in the clinical trials are Saudi Arabia and the UAE. However, the Philippine President’s rash acceptance of the Russian offer of clinical trials in the country might be a catastrophic mistake because the Russian project is suspect.
Indonesia has started a late-stage human trial of a Chinese-made covid-19 vaccine that will involve as many as 1,620 patients. No less than the Indonesian President Joko Widodo launched the trial at a ceremony in Bandung, West Java, in mid-August.
The Indonesian decision to be a clinical trial partner with China might be a better bet because China is a leader in the race to produce a vaccine.
The vaccine candidate produced by Sinovac Biotech is among the few in the world to enter phase 3 clinical trials, or large-scale testing on humans — the last step before regulatory approval. CoronaVac, is undergoing a late-stage trial in Brazil and Sinovac expects to test it in Bangladesh also.
Asia is the favourite destination of drug manufacturers for clinical trials for several reasons. Among them are medical expertise in specific therapeutic areas, availability of vast patient pools, excellent laboratories and infrastructure, comparable quality and lower costs. Another factor is comparable incidence and prevalence of Western diseases. (1)
There is likewise worldwide data acceptability. Data from clinical trials in Asia are routinely accepted by the regulatory agencies — US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA). Also, the costs in Asia for procedures, diagnostic tests and visits are generally 30-40 per cent lower than in the US and Europe.
Science must trump politics As the race heats up, a word of caution is in order. Scientists must not sacrifice scientific integrity for politics but should follow the strict protocols for scientific research and production. Governments must put science over politics in the race to the vaccine.
“Scientists must not sacrifice scientific integrity for politics but should follow the strict protocols for scientific research and production.”
– Crispin Maslog
Safety and effectiveness are crucial to vaccine development. A blunder in the clinical trials caused by rushing procedures, for example, could lead to deaths that will set back research and development by many years.
As it is, there is already “vaccine hesitancy” among the public everywhere, especially among the uninformed. Polls show that US citizens have become less confident about the safety of vaccines.
Polling by the opinion and data company YouGov in May found 55 percent of US adults saying that they would get a covid-19 vaccine. By the end of July, that figure had dropped to 41 per cent — well below the 60—70 percent experts think will be needed to achieve “herd immunity”.
There is also substantial scepticism against vaccines in other countries, according to a recent study by the Wellcome Trust. In France, less than half of people believe vaccines are safe. In Ukraine — the most sceptical country in the world — the figure is just 29 percent.
Let us not feed this vaccine hesitancy with instances of failure.
Who gets the vaccines first? As the superpowers rush to the finish line, the rhetorical question arises: who gets the vaccines first? Rhetorical because, unless an international body intervenes, we know the poor will get it last.
Some Asian and African countries have negotiated agreements, but not most of Asia and Africa. And even for those who negotiated for agreements, there are no guarantees, and whether the amount of doses that will be obtained will be enough to cover the majority of the population.
Unless governments subsidise the vaccines partially or fully they will be unaffordable for the poor. Early reports say the Chinese vaccines will cost US$145 per shot in the open market, while those from Oxford, UK, will only cost US$4-10 because they will be subsidised.
Some countries plan to provide free vaccinations, and even pay people to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity, about 70-90 per cent of the population.
There is hope on the horizon via COVAX, a consortium of 172 economies now being organised and “working with vaccine manufacturers to provide countries worldwide equitable access to safe and effective vaccines, once they are licensed and approved”. (2)
“It is the only global initiative that is working with governments and manufacturers to ensure that covid-19 vaccines are available worldwide to both higher-income and lower-income countries,” say the organisers in a news release. (2)
Richard Hatchett, CEO of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, one of the organisers of COVAX, says: “In the scramble for a vaccine, countries can… come together to participate in an initiative which is built on enlightened self-interest and also equity, leaving no country behind.” (2)
This is a welcome development and we hope it succeeds. May the best developed vaccines and humanity win. No shortcuts, please.
Dr Crispin C. Maslog is a former journalist with Agence France-Presse, is an environmental activist and former science journalism professor at Silliman University and the University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines. He is a founding member and now chair of the board, Asian Media Information and Communication Centre, Manila.This article was produced by SciDev.Net’s Asia & Pacific desk and is republished by the Pacific Media Centre with the permission of the author.
References 1. Asia: Preferred Destination for Clinical Trials: A Frost and Sullivan White Paper. 2. COVAX News Release Geneva/Oslo, 24 August 2020
Papua New Guinea and French Polynesia have reported sharply rising Pacific statistics in the covid-19 coronavirus pandemic.
National Pandemic Response Controller David Manning reported in a statement yesterday that there were 29 new Papua New Guinean cases of the virus, taking the total of confirmed infections to 453, and one death in the previous 24 hours.
Manning said details of the death would be given later.
In Tahiti, RNZ Pacific reports health authorities cited a further 35 covid-19 cases, bringing the French-governed territory to a total total of 420 for the month.
In Papua New Guinea, 23 out of the 29 new cases were from Ok Tedi mine in Western Province, which has increased the total confirmed cases in that province to 166.
The remaining 6 are from the National Capital District, which now has a total of 268 confirmed cases.
In announcing the new cases, Manning repeated his call for health workers throughout the country to step up in their efforts to collect samples for testing for covid-19 to help show how far the virus has spread in the country.
Heed health measures plea He also urged everyone to take heed of the health measures being introduced by the National Department of Health and partners, including the news media.
“Covid-19 is going to be with us for a long time. We all need to be aware of this and take care of our health as well as our loved ones,’’ he said.
Papua New Guinea’s latest covid-19 figures, as reported from official pandemic response statistics. Image: PNG Today
He said experience from other countries, including China, showed that the most vulnerable were those with pre-existing medical conditions as well as the elderly. In PNG culture it was the responsibility of the children, or the younger population, to take care of the old.
“At a time when we don’t have medicine to treat covid-19, let’s all do what we can to prevent this virus from spreading further in the communities and the country.
“When you leave the home or go out, you have a responsibility to ensure you do not bring home the virus,” Manning said.
The health measures include wearing masks in public places and practising physical distancing by 1.5m in shops, banks, buildings and public motor vehicles (PMVs).
As of Friday, a total of 15,592 people had been tested for covid-19 in the country. Of this figure, 13,386 had tested negative.
West Papuan cases Of the 453 positive cases, five had died, the latest being reported 24 hours earlier, while those who had recovered stood at 231. Those still active were 188.
The 11 provinces that have confirmed cases so far are: NCD (268), Central Province (6), Western Province (166) , Morobe (5), East New Britain (2), Eastern Highlands (1) , West Sepik (1), Southern Highlands (1) , Autonomous Region of Bougainville (1), New Ireland (1) and Milne Bay (1).
Meanwhile, Western Province’s closest neighbours – Indonesia’s provinces of Papua and West Papua – have each reported 23 and 9 new cases respectively in the previous 24 hours.
This has increased the total confirmed cases in the two provinces to 4429. West Papua also reported a death, bringing the death toll in the two provinces to 54.
The Western Pacific Region, in which PNG sits, reported 5099 confirmed cases from 14 countries and areas, bringing the total confirmed cases in the region to 476,133.
It also reported 147 deaths from 9 countries bringing the death toll in the region to 10,333.
The new outbreak has affected seven times more people than the first covid-19 wave from March to June.
Covid-19 began to spread again after the government last month opened the border to boost tourism and abolished quarantine requirements for arriving travellers, particularly from California in the United States.
According to the government, about a dozen cases concerned tourists while the vast majority was the result of local transmission.
The government gave an update on the tourism sector and said in the month from mid-July to mid-August there were 70 percent fewer tourists than in July 2019.
With flights resuming between Tahiti and France as well as the United States last month, more than 90 percent of the 7500 visitors were from these two countries.
Almost two thirds of them came from France, while just nine percent were neither French nor American.
Flights half full Air Tahiti Nui, Air France, United Airlines and French Bee reported that their flights were on average about half full which was a larger load than expected.
The government said air links to and from South America remained abandoned for the time being while flights to Asia might restart in November.
Domestic air travel returned to about 68 percent of what it was a year ago.
Hotel occupancy rates were highest in Moorea at 60 percent, in part due to domestic travellers.
In Bora Bora and Tahaa, the figure varied between 35 and 50 percent while in Tahiti it was at the most 33 percent.
Warning: This story discusses details of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre.
At what point in time does an atrocity have a beginning? Is it when the first gunshot is fired? When the first victim is killed? When a killer first submits to thoughts of hatred, alienation, blame and decides to apply those emotions into physical action? Or, is it when racism is justified, when killing is considered defensible by those in whom one chooses to associate with, to support, to impress? Is it when one subscribes to another’s ideology of hate? Or when silence is a protector – chosen by reasonable people – when those around us speak of inhuman things?
“Ok lads, enough talking, it’s time for action.” With those words early on 15 March 2019, and expressed to his dark-net acquaintances, Brenton Harrison Tarrant initiated his plan to murder as many people of the Muslim faith as was possible.
Tarrant then packed six firearms into his vehicle, including two military-styled assault rifles (AR-15 .223 calibre) and semi-automatic shotguns. He added 7000 rounds of ammunition, a bayonet-styled knife, and four IEDs (improvised explosive devices).
Wrapped within a bulletproof-vest he reversed from the driveway of his rented Dunedin home and self-drove 361km northward to New Zealand’s largest South Island city, Christchurch.
Reconnaissance Christchurch is known for its gardens, parks, sport, English-Victorian-styled architecture, earthquakes, parochialism, a modest inter-faith Muslim community; and, paradoxically, its white extremist gangs.
Two months earlier, in January 2019, Tarrant visited Christchurch. The purpose: reconnaissance of Al Noor Mosque – a place of prayer and worship for hundreds of the city’s Muslim people.
In January, Tarrant parked his vehicle adjacent to Al Noor Mosque, unpacked a drone and flew it above and over the facility. He recorded an aerial view video of the grounds, noting points of entry, exits, corridors where people could escape, where they could hide.
Tarrant observed how hundreds of people would attend Friday prayers. He decided Al Noor was the location, and, Friday was to be the day of the week which provided him an opportunity to kill as many people as possible on one single afternoon.
Christchurch is also a city built on a plane. Geographically it rests on a flat ancient seabed – framed only by the Port Hills to the south and the towering Southern Alps to the west. The city’s traffic is characteristically light (compared to other cities) and the route from Al Noor Mosque to nearby Linwood Islamic Centre is a short drive. Tarrant fathomed that even with news of a mass killer in the area, traffic would most likely be light.
The massacre route … Al Noor Mosque to Linwood Mosque in Christchurch. Image: EveningReportNZ/Google Maps
Tarrant quietly, and unobserved, took notes. Once satisfied, he returned to Dunedin where he determinedly, and with precision, planned mass murder.
At no time during the reconnaissance, nor the planning phase, did New Zealand police nor Australia’s police, the Security Intelligence Services, the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau notice what was being planned and expressed online. Brenton Tarrant’s intensifying hatred grew, undeterred, against those who were not white. As is the case of many Western nations, New Zealand, along with its Five Eyes intelligence partners, Australia, Canada, Britain and the United States of America, had appeared more preoccupied with surveillance of those of Muslim and Islamic origins than they were of disarming an intensifying white extremist threat.
Alpha and Omega In the early afternoon of 15 March 2019, Tarrant arrived at his first waypoint. He parked his vehicle in a neighbouring driveway. Around 190 worshippers (children, women, men) had already arrived at Al Noor Mosque and others were still making their way there for Friday Prayers.
It was a warm late Summers day. In a nearby park, people were playing. School children were enjoying the peace and fun that the garden city offered.
Inside his vehicle, Tarrant strapped his bulletproof vest tightly to his body. He put on a helmet. Earlier, he had fixed a video camera and a strobe light to the helmet – the latter was designed to confuse his intended victims; the camera was connected to the internet via a cellphone device so as to provide Tarrant the opportunity to livestream his intended atrocity to a Facebook audience.
Tarrant then sent a “Manifesto” to a white extremist website. He also emailed his intentions (with Manifesto attached) to the New Zealand Government, to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and to national and international media.
Minutes later, Tarrant weaponed up, stepping from his vehicle he carried two semi-automatic firearms (including a shotgun) with multiple magazines, and approached the entrance to Al Noor Mosque.
“At that time four worshippers, Mounir Soliman, Syed Ali, Amjad Hamid and Hussein Moustafa, were at the mosque’s front entrance. Without warning you discharged the shotgun multiple times in quick succession, killing each of them. A wounded Mr Moustafa was despatched by you at point-blank range with shots to his back and head.” [New Zealand High Court ruling, Justice Mander, August 27, 2020].
That was just the beginning, the moment Brenton Tarrant decided to open fire, ultimately putting his plan into action. His hateful journey, once conceived in his past, had been nurtured by those with whom he chose to associate with. His racist views had become darker by the month. His decision to become a mass murderer, a terrorist by his own definition and admission, was now a reality.
Catharsis from horror Throughout the week of August 24-27, New Zealanders discovered how detailed Tarrant’s plan was. There was a risk, due to Tarrant’s guilty plea (lodged some months earlier) and his decision to refuse legal assistance, that details of his crimes – forensically applied to a timeline by detectives, scientists and prosecutors – would be sealed beyond the reach and rightful consideration of survivors. New Zealanders of all ethnicities, colour and religions too, needed to hear detail of how this monstrous act of terrorism could have occurred in this relatively peaceful land.
The New Zealand High Court judge Justice Cameron Mander … “no minimum period of imprisonment would be sufficient to satisfy the purpose of sentencing”. Image: EveningReportNZ/Media pool
Officially, the High Court summarised the charges:
“The Offender pleaded guilty to 51 charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of committing a terrorist act after shooting worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch. Court held that no minimum period of imprisonment would be sufficient to satisfy the purpose of sentencing. Offender sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under s 103 (2A) Sentencing Act 2002.”
There was also a concern, that Tarrant, who had the legal right to address the High Court, would use that opportunity to express his white extremist ideology. As a preventive measure, the High Court’s Justice Mander applied tight controls on media, and insisted Tarrant would be withdrawn from the Court should he begin such a tirade.
Victims and survivors were offered the right to speak their impact statements to the court and, significantly to tell Tarrant what they thought of him, and of the true consequences his actions had had on their lives.
Initially, 60 people wished to read their statements to the court and to the killer. Others, after observing how their fellow Muslims accounts somehow were beneficial, also wished to have their experiences told.
Self-confessed mass murderer, terrorist, white extremist, Brenton Tarrant – as he appeared for sentencing in the High Court in Christchurch, New Zealand. Image: EveningReportNZ
Some spoke of how Tarrant had failed in his purpose, as their faith had strengthened since the murders, that they as a community had become stronger, and how loved they had felt when New Zealanders of all colours embraced them as valued members of the nation’s family. A common account reiterated how ‘you sought to divide us, to alienate us. You failed’.
While in court, Tarrant’s deportment was passive, absolutely. Whenever he was ushered into the court, his hands and legs bound in shackles, he was assisted by officers to sit before the packed public gallery. When the judge addressed him, he was respectfully at full attention. When addressed by his victims’ loved ones and survivors, he was attentive, although without emotion.
At one point, a murdered victims’ mother addressed Tarrant. She stated she had “no hate for him” as a person, that she forgave him. Tarrant acknowledged her with a nod. Began to blink rapidly and appeared to wipe a tear from his eye. Shortly after, New Zealanders learned that the killer had withdrawn his intention to address the court.
A total of 98 victims and loved ones read their impact statements to the court and to Tarrant. Some expressing distress and some anger. The killer was referred to as a “coward” by a school teacher, whose brother was murdered in cold blood. Another man, the son of a middle aged worshipper addressed Tarrant as a “maggot”. Another, that Tarrant was nothing but “rotten meat” to him. Three men concluded their account with a Muslim prayer and chanted Allahu Akbar while pointing defiantly at Tarrant.
The court observed in silence, noting the tragic recount of events told by those who suffer injuries from the bullet, the experience leaving physical, mental, emotional, social wounds as a consequence of Tarrant’s crimes – but none expressed a loss of faith in Islam nor of New Zealand as a community.
As Radio New Zealand reports: “One survivor, Dr Hamimah Tuyan left her two sons in Singapore to travel to the High Court in Christchurch to speak and honour her late husband, Zekeriya – the 51st victim to die.”
She told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report she wrestled for some time if she should write a statement. Once she came back to Christchurch she decided she would listen to every victim statement delivered in court: “I was just so inspired by the brave brothers and sisters – their words, their feelings. I’m just so glad that I actually wrote it and opted to read it. That was the only way I could represent my husband and my boys,” she said on live radio.
Dr Hamimah Tuyan said she felt a weight lift from her shoulders and then left everything in the hands of God and the judge.
“We were all calm after the last session and basically waited … listening to each and every word of Judge Mander’s sentence until the end – two hours.” [Radio New Zealand].
She, and many others, spoke of catharsis in having had the courage to speak of their experience and their strength, and of the bravery of their loved ones who died on 15 March 2019.
Cold blooded reality Then came the judge’s ruling. For four hours, Justice Mander read a precise account of what happened that day. In a move that was welcomed by the victims and New Zealanders, Justice Mander spoke of each victim and of their character, of the circumstances of how each person died.
For the first time, New Zealanders learned of the cold blooded reality of the consequences of hate that tore at the heart of the Muslim community that day.
Accounts like:
“As you made your way down the hallway of the mosque to the main prayer area, you shot Ata Mohammad Ata Elayyan and Ali Elmadani, murdering both men. You then entered the main prayer room at the rear of the building. There were over 120 worshippers present. They had heard the gunfire. Appreciating that something was very wrong, they moved to each side of the large open prayer area to where there were single exits in each corner.
“When you entered the main prayer room you initially fired at worshippers who were lying on the ground. You shot Ziyaad Shah. You then turned to the two large groups gathered on each side of the prayer area. There was little chance of escape. You fired your semi-automatic firearm into the mass of people on one side of the room. The rate of fire was extremely rapid. You repeatedly moved your weapon across that side of the room before turning to the other group of trapped people on the opposite side.
“As you turned your semi-automatic weapon on these worshippers, Naeem Rashid ran at you. Despite being shot, he crashed into you, forcing you down on one knee and dislodging a magazine from your vest. Mr Rashid had been hit in the shoulder and, as he lay on his back, you fired further shots at him. Mr Rashid died but his bravery allowed a number of his fellow worshippers to escape.
“By this stage you had emptied a 60-round magazine. You replaced that with another. Standing in the middle of the room, you fired rapid bursts towards each side of the prayer room where people were trying to hide or were attempting to escape. After reloading yet again, you continued to shoot at persons lying prone or trying to escape. You discharged rapid bursts across both sides of the room before approaching individual victims and shooting them. As Ashraf Ragheb sought to escape from a side room down the hallway to the main entrance, you shot and killed him. Already there were many dead.
“You moved closer to each now piled group of people lying deceased, wounded or feigning death on each side of the main prayer room. Worshippers, who were either crying out for help or who appeared to be alive, were systematically shot in the head. One of those was a three-year-old child, Mucaad Ibrahim. He was clinging to his father’s leg and you murdered him with two aimed shots.”
The judge continued, detailing how Brenton Tarrant then made his way outside Al Noor Mosque.
“Outside you shot at people attempting to flee. You shot Mohammad Faruk in the back, killing him. Wasseim Daragmih and his four-year-old daughter received life-threatening wounds. You fired in the opposite direction, hitting Sazada Akhter in the spine. She will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life.
“Tarrant then returned to his vehicle. Quickly he rearmed himself with an assault rifle fitted with two 40 round magazines.
“You fired this weapon down a side driveway towards the back of the Mosque, murdering Muse Awale and Hamza Alhaj Mustafa, a 16-year-old boy who had escaped from the main prayer room and was sheltering behind vehicles. Another man, Mohammad Shamim Siddiqui, was critically wounded.
“You then returned to the main prayer room. As you entered you saw Md Hoq, who was wounded,sitting up against a window. You aimed one shot at Mr Hoq, killing him instantly, before firing further shots at a group of people lying in one corner. There were some 30 deceased or critically wounded worshippers in this mass of people. You delivered fatal shots to those who were still alive.
“You then reloaded your weapon and walked over to the group of people lying in the opposite corner and fired into them. You noticed Haji Nabi attempting to shelter behind a small wall. With two carefully aimed shots you murdered Mr Nabi before walking to within a metre of the piled group and firing further shots into those who were either deceased or mortally wounded. Any persons who showed signs of life were shot.”
The judge’s ruling continued on, every precise detail that the police, scientists, and prosecutors had discovered was read to Tarrant. The killer’s gaze remained attentive. Silently, he sat, emotionless, listening to every word.
Observers reflected on how Brenton Tarrant appeared a hollow shell of a human being. Immediately after his arrest, Tarrant presented as arrogant, remorseless, complaining to police that he was disappointed that he didn’t kill more people. He was then in peak physical condition, clearly having been working out regularly. But this week, he appeared without emotion, without purpose, passively listening to the accounts of victims and that of the judge detailing the facts of what he had done. He did not challenge the facts, rather he had accepted them as accurate, a true account of his crimes.
Justice Mander continued:
“After exiting the mosque for the second time you saw two women attempting to escape. You shot Ansi Karippakulam Alibava and Husna Ahmed. Ms Ahmed was killed. Ms Karippakulam Alibava was wounded. While she lay on the street, pleading for help, you murdered this defenceless young woman, firing two shots at her from point-blank range. You then returned to your vehicle and inflicted the indignity of driving over her body as she lay in front of the driveway from which you exited.”
Still, Tarrant remained emotionless, leaving some to ponder whether he was intent to create an enigma of himself, a mysterious figure who refused to offer any words or emotion upon which others may define him. Rather, he had earlier defined himself to appointed psychiatrists and psychologists as a “terrorist” and a “fascist”. He had stated to the clinicians, appointed to assess his personality and condition, that in the months leading up to the killings, he had sunken into despair, into a depression. That he was angry at the world and wanted to hurt it, damage it.
The child, the man: Radio New Zealand investigated Brenton Tarrant’s background. The following segment is a paraphrase of that investigation.
Brenton Tarrant’s life experience was unremarkable, at least in the beginning. He was born on October 27, 1990 and raised in rural Australia, in a town called Grafton some 500km north of Sydney. He was the youngest of three siblings. His parents separated while he was still at school. He played sport (rugby league) but was overweight and was bullied, to a degree, by others of his age. His father worked as a rubbish collector, and his family was respected in the general Clarence Valley area.
Brenton Tarrant while travelling in Pakistan. Image: EveningReportNZ
One of Tarrant’s cousins told Australia’s 7News, there was little in his background that would have indicated problems ahead. But, when his father died of cancer when Tarrant was 20 years of age, he was crushed by the loss. He inherited A$500,000 from his fathers estate. Dabbled in investments. Then travelled extensively. It was during his overseas experience abroad, particularly in Europe, that he was radicalised.
Details are vague, but court accounts place him in France where he was attracted to white extremist groups with which he increasingly shared commonly held racist views. He continued to travel around Europe, and developed an interest in the countries that were once ruled by the Ottoman Empire, visiting historic battle sites. He travelled through greater Asia, visiting Pakistan and the border areas of Afghanistan.
Then, in August 2017 he emigrated to Dunedin, New Zealand. He joined a rifle club, acquired a firearms licence from the New Zealand Police, and joined a South Dunedin gym.
He kept largely to himself, isolating his ideas, his anger, his purpose from those around him.
Brenton Tarrant never sought to work in New Zealand and showed no intention to get a job.
Wider family members visited Tarrant while he lived in Dunedin. They returned to Australia, noting concerns to his immediate family that he was not in a good state of mind, and had shown them that he had many guns.
Then, as Radio New Zealand reported, Tarrant’s last message to the white extremist group on 8Chan came on 15 March 2019:
“’It’s been a long ride and … you are all top blokes and the best bunch of cobbers a man could ask for,”’Tarrant posted.
“Radio New Zealand noted: ‘His friends were faceless, his interactions existent only in cyberspace.’” [Radio New Zealand]
The courtroom account continued Justice Mander:
“As you drove away from the Al Noor Mosque you continued to shoot at anyone who you considered should be the target of your hate. You discharged a shotgun at two men who appeared to be of African descent. A short distance on you saw Muhammad Nasir and his son walking towards the mosque dressed in traditional clothing. You again discharged the shotgun, seriously wounding Mr Nasir, before actioning the weapon again and pointing it directly at the boy who was trying to hide behind a wall. You pulled the trigger but it failed to fire.
“You then sped away, driving directly to the Linwood Islamic Centre. On the way you came abreast of another vehicle being driven by a Fijian man. You pointed your shotgun at him. Despite repeated attempts to discharge the shotgun it failed to fire.
“When you got to Linwood you approached the mosque on foot down a long driveway, armed with yet another firearm. You saw three people in and around a car. You shot Ghulam Hussain in the head, killing him, before firing at and wounding Muhammad Raza, who had got out of the other side of the vehicle. You shot another occupant of the car, Karam Bibi, before advancing up the driveway, where you saw Mr Raza attempting to find cover behind a fence. He attempted to retreat from you. Despite his pleas to spare him, you murdered him. A wounded Ms Bibi sought to hide in front of the vehicle. You walked to within metres of her as she lay prone with her head buried in her hands, stood over her, and killed her.”
Tarrant approached the mosque, passing a window. He saw a silhouette of a man. He shot him with a single shot to the head. The man’s name was Mohammed Khan.
With your weapon now empty, you ran down the driveway back to your vehicle. As you reached the car, Abdul Aziz Wahabazadah, who had courageously followed you down the driveway, challenged you. You retrieved another semi-automatic rifle from your vehicle and fired at him. He dived between some parked cars, before you walked back up the driveway to the main entrance to the mosque.
[Selwyn Manning’s author’s note: I wrote about this moment, in the German magazine Cicero.de in March 2019, shortly after the murders:]
“Inside Linwood Mosque was Abdul Aziz, a man who had gathered with his Muslim brothers. He had just begun his second prayer when he heard gunshots outside. At first he thought it was someone playing with firecrackers (fireworks). But then, within seconds, he heard people screaming.
“Mr Aziz picked up an EFTPOS (electronic funds transaction) machine from a table inside the mosque. He ran outside. He saw a man he describes as looking like a soldier. He said to the man: ‘Who are you?’ Mr Aziz then saw three people lying on the ground dead from shotgun blasts. He realised the man was the killer. He approached the attacker, threw the EFTPOS machine, hitting the killer, who in turn took from his vehicle a second firearm (a military style semi-automatic assault rifle) and fired four to five shots at Abdul Aziz, missing him. Then, in an attempt to lure the killer away from other people, Mr Aziz shouted at the killer from behind a car: ‘Come, I’m here. Come I’m here!’
“Mr Aziz said he didn’t want the killer to go inside the mosque and kill more people. But the killer remained focused. He walked directly to the entrance, once inside the mosque he continued his killing spree. Survivors speak of the killer wearing ‘army clothes’, dressed in ‘SWAT combat clothing’, helmeted, wearing a vest and a balaclava… Written on the rifle were the words, ‘Welcome to hell’.” [Attentat in Christchurch – Willkommen in der Hölle]
In the High Court this week, Justice Mander continued:
“There were several people standing inside the entranceway and further into the building at whom you repeatedly fired. You killed Musa Patel. Walking further into the mosque, you shot and killed Linda Armstrong. People were huddled in corners of the room or trying to escape as you fired your weapon, killing Mohamad Mohamedhosen. You continued to fire the semi-automatic rifle until it ran out of ammunition, at which point you dropped it and ran back to your vehicle.
“Mr Wahabazadah chased you down the driveway, yelling at you. You removed the bayonet from your vest but retreated in the face of his advance. As you began driving away, Mr Wahabazadah got close enough to throw one of your discarded weapons at your vehicle.
“After leaving the Linwood Mosque, your intention was to drive to Ashburton to attack another mosque, but your vehicle was rammed off the road by a police car and you were apprehended by two armed police officers. You were anxious not to be shot and offered no resistance,” Justice Mander read.
The judge then spoke about the character of each of those who were murdered, about people like:
“Haji Mohemmed Daoud Nabi was a 71-year-old who had been married to his wife for 46 years. He was a role model and leader to his family; a best friend to his children and to his wife. For them the pain and anguish never goes away. Mrs Nabi describes herself as ‘alive, but not living’.”
And…
“Ansi Karippakulam Alibava’s husband found her lying on the road. He sat down beside her until police told him it was not safe. He knew when ambulance staff were not treating her that she had died. He is devastated. He finds himself constantly reminded of the events of that day and the loss of his dear wife. He can find no solace.”
And…
“Ozair Kadir was training to be an airline pilot like his big brother. His death has left a scar on the hearts of his proud parents. His murder haunts his father.”
And…
“Sayyad Ahmad Milne was a precious 14-year-old boy with his whole life before him. His murder has left a huge hole in his parents’ hearts. Despite his father’s resilience and forgiveness, they grieve for him deeply.”
And… …
“Mucaad Aden Ibrahim was younger still — a three-year-old infant. His father described him as ‘the happiness of the household’ — a vibrant young boy who made friends with everyone he met. No family can recover from the murder of such a small child.”
In the end, Justice Mander considered what sentence is permitted under New Zealand law. As a liberal social democratic country, New Zealand repealed the death penalty for murder at the end of the 1950s.
After consideration, the judge sentenced Brenton Harrison Tarrant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole – which means, he will die in prison. This is the first time any accused has received this sentence in New Zealand.
Officially, the judge delivered his order:
“On each of the 51 charges of murder (charges 1-51) you are sentenced to life imprisonment. I order that you serve the sentences without parole.
“On each of the 40 charges of attempted murder (charges 52-91) you are sentenced to concurrent terms of 12 years’ imprisonment.
“On the charge of committing a terrorist act (charge 92) you are sentenced to life imprisonment.
“I also direct that the four psychiatric and psychological reports prepared for this proceeding be made available to the Department of Corrections.”
And then came the judge’s final order:
“Stand down.”
On writing this account, I am mindful that we cannot republish a summary of each of the victims when 91 people have been either killed or maimed by one man’s actions. It feels terribly selective when choosing who to include, and who to exclude from this report. How can one apply news values to people who have had their present and future stolen from them? One cannot.
Therefore, I encourage you, readers, to read the unabridged ruling from the New Zealand High Court. While upsetting, it will offer a sober account of what occurs when hatred is left to grow inside us, when others do not know how to react or challenge when hatred is expressed: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/R-v-Tarrant-sentencing-remarks-20200827.pdf
Also, there is this awful thing, this contemplation, this series of unanswered questions which remain after the killing ceases, well after the victims’ faces become one. Answers remain elusive even after the verdict is read, the sentence is delivered, and the survivors have been ushered home to pick up the pieces of their lives. We are left to wonder, why? That question, that one word, will haunt us for the rest of our days.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s reaction
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern … the terrorist “deserves to be a lifetime of complete and utter silence”. image: EveningReportNZ
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern:
“I want to acknowledge the strength of our Muslim community who shared their words in court over the past few days.
“You relived the horrific events of March 15 to chronicle what happened that day and the pain it has left behind.
“Nothing will take the pain away but I hope you felt the arms of New Zealand around you through this whole process, and I hope you continue to feel that through all the days that follow.
“The trauma of March 15 is not easily healed but today I hope is the last where we have any cause to hear or utter the name of the terrorist behind it. His deserves to be a lifetime of complete and utter silence.”
Alpha and Omega, as we began, so we close At what point in time does an atrocity have a beginning? Is it when the first gunshot is fired? When the first victim is killed? When a killer first submits to thoughts of hatred, alienation, blame and decides to apply those emotions into physical action? Or, is it when racism is justified, when killing is considered defensible by those in whom one chooses to associate with, to support, to impress? Is it when one subscribes to another’s ideology of hate? Or when silence is a protector – chosen by reasonable people – when those around us speak of inhuman things?
Selwyn Manning is editor of Evening Report. A German language version of this article was published by Cicero.de magazine in Germany. We also invite you to view this week’s episode of A View from Afar with Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning where they discuss, in depth, the causes, impact and possible solutions when dealing with white extremism.
Self-confessed mass murderer, terrorist, white extremist, Brenton Tarrant - as he appeared for sentencing in the High Court in Christchurch, New Zealand.
Special Report by Selwyn Manning. A German language version of this report was published by Cicero.de magazine in Germany. Caution: This report contains detail that could be disturbing to many people.
AT WHAT POINT in time does an atrocity have a beginning? Is it when the first gunshot is fired? When the first victim is killed? When a killer first submits to thoughts of hatred, alienation, blame and decides to apply those emotions into physical action? Or, is it when racism is justified, when killing is considered defensible by those in whom one chooses to associate with, to support, to impress? Is it when one subscribes to another’s ideology of hate? Or when silence is a protector – chosen by reasonable people – when those around us speak of inhuman things?
*******
‘Ok lads, enough talking, it’s time for action.’ With those words, early on March 15, 2019, and expressed to his dark-net acquaintances, Brenton Harrison Tarrant initiated his plan to murder as many people of the Muslim faith as was possible.
Tarrant then packed six firearms into his vehicle, including: two military-styled assault rifles (AR-15 .223 calibre) and semi-automatic shotguns. He added 7000 rounds of ammunition, a bayonet-styled knife, and four IEDs (improvised explosive devices).
Wrapped within a bulletproof-vest he reversed from the driveway of his rented Dunedin home and self-drove 361 kilometres northward to New Zealand’s largest South Island city, Christchurch.
Reconnaissance:
Christchurch is known for its gardens, parks, sport, English-Victorian-styled architecture, earthquakes, parochialism, a modest inter-faith Muslim community; and, paradoxically, its white extremist gangs.
Two months earlier, in January 2019, Tarrant visited Christchurch. The purpose: reconnaissance of Al Noor Mosque – a place of prayer and worship for hundreds of the city’s Muslim people.
In January, Tarrant parked his vehicle adjacent to Al Noor Mosque, unpacked a drone and flew it above and over the facility. He recorded an aerial view video of the grounds, noting points of entry, exits, corridors where people could escape, where they could hide.
Tarrant observed how hundreds of people would attend Friday prayers. He decided Al Noor was the location, and, Friday was to be the day of the week which provided him an opportunity to kill as many people as possible on one single afternoon.
Christchurch is also a city built on a plane. Geographically it rests on a flat ancient seabed – framed only by the Port Hills to the south and the towering Southern Alps to the west. The city’s traffic is characteristically light (compared to other cities) and the route from Al Noor Mosque to nearby Linwood Islamic Centre is a short drive. Tarrant fathomed that even with news of a mass killer in the area, traffic would most likely be light.
Al Noor Mosque to Linwood Mosque – EveningReportNZ/Google Maps.
Tarrant quietly, and unobserved, took notes. Once satisfied, he returned to Dunedin where he determinedly, and with precision, planned mass murder.
At no time during the reconnaissance, nor the planning phase, did New Zealand Police nor Australia’s Police, the Security Intelligence Services, the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau notice what was being planned and expressed online. Brenton Tarrant’s intensifying hatred grew, undeterred, against those who were not white. As is the case of many western nations, New Zealand, along with its Five Eyes intelligence partners, Australia, Canada, Britain and the United States of America, had appeared more preoccupied with surveillance of those of Muslim and Islamic origins than they were of disarming an intensifying white extremist threat.
In the early afternoon of March 15, 2019, Tarrant arrived at his first waypoint. He parked his vehicle in a neighbouring driveway. Around 190 worshipers (children, women, men) had already arrived at Al Noor Mosque and others were still making their way there for Friday Prayer.
It was a warm late Summers day. In a nearby park, people were playing. School children were enjoying the peace and fun that the garden city offered.
Inside his vehicle, Tarrant strapped his bulletproof vest tightly to his body. He put on a helmet. Earlier, he had fixed a video camera and a strobe light to the helmet – the latter was designed to confuse his intended victims; the camera was connected to the internet via a cellphone device so as to provide Tarrant the opportunity to livestream his intended atrocity to a Facebook audience.
Tarrant then sent a ‘Manifesto’ to a white extremist website. He also emailed his intentions (with ‘Manifesto’ attached) to the New Zealand Government, to the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and to national and international media.
Minutes later, Tarrant weaponed up, stepping from his vehicle he carried two semi-automatic firearms (including a shotgun) with multiple magazines, and approached the entrance to Al Noor Mosque.
“At that time four worshippers, Mounir Soliman, Syed Ali, Amjad Hamid and Hussein Moustafa, were at the Mosque’s front entrance. Without warning you discharged the shotgun multiple times in quick succession, killing each of them. A wounded Mr Moustafa was despatched by you at point-blank range with shots to his back and head.” (ref. New Zealand High Court ruling, Justice Mander, August 27, 2020; URL: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/R-v-Tarrant-sentencing-remarks-20200827.pdf)
That was just the beginning, the moment Brenton Tarrant decided to open fire, ultimately putting his plan into action. His hateful journey, once conceived in his past, had been nurtured by those with whom he chose to associate with. His racist views had become darker by the month. His decision to become a mass murderer, a terrorist by his own definition and admission, was now a reality.
*******
Catharsis From Horror
Throughout the week of August 24-27, New Zealanders discovered how detailed Tarrant’s plan was. There was a risk, due to Tarrant’s guilty plea (lodged some months earlier) and his decision to refuse legal assistance, that details of his crimes – forensically applied to a timeline by detectives, scientists and prosecutors – would be sealed beyond the reach and rightful consideration of survivors. New Zealanders of all ethnicities, colour and religions too, needed to hear detail of how this monstrous act of terrorism could have occurred in this relatively peaceful land.
New Zealand High Court Judge, Justice Cameron Mander. Image, media pool.
Officially, the High Court summarised the charges:
“The Offender pleaded guilty to 51 charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of committing a terrorist act after shooting worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch. Court held that no minimum period of imprisonment would be sufficient to satisfy the purpose of sentencing. Offender sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under s 103 (2A) Sentencing Act 2002.”
There was also a concern, that Tarrant, who had the legal right to address the High Court, would use that opportunity to express his white extremist ideology. As a preventive measure, the High Court’s Justice Mander applied tight controls on media, and insisted Tarrant would be withdrawn from the Court should he begin such a tirade.
Victims and survivors were offered the right to speak their impact statements to the Court and, significantly to tell Tarrant what they thought of him, and of the true consequences his actions had had on their lives.
Initially, 60 people wished to read their statements to the Court and to the killer. Others, after observing how their fellow Muslims accounts somehow were beneficial, also wished to have their experiences told.
Image by Professor David Robie, AsiaPacificReport.nz.
Some spoke of how Tarrant had failed in his purpose, as their faith had strengthened since the murders, that they as a community had become stronger, and how loved they had felt when New Zealanders of all colours embraced them as valued members of the nation’s family. A common account reiterated how ‘you sought to divide us, to alienate us. You failed’.
While in Court, Tarrant’s deportment was passive, absolutely. Whenever he was ushered into the Court, his hands and legs bound in shackles, he was assisted by officers to sit before the packed public gallery. When the Judge addressed him, he was respectfully at full attention. When addressed by his victims loved ones and survivors, he was attentive, although without emotion.
At one point, a murdered victims’ mother addressed Tarrant. She stated she had “no hate for him” as a person, that she forgave him. Tarrant acknowledged her with a nod. Began to blink rapidly and appeared to wipe a tear from his eye. Shortly after, New Zealanders learned that the killer had withdrawn his intention to address the court.
A total of 98 victims and loved ones read their impact statements to the Court and to Tarrant. Some expressing distress and some anger. The killer was referred to as a ‘coward’ by a school teacher, whose brother was murdered in cold blood. Another man, the son of a middle aged worshiper addressed Tarrant as a ‘maggot’. Another, that Tarrant was nothing but “rotten meat” to him. Three men concluded their account with a Muslim prayer and chanted Allahu Akbar while pointing defiantly at Tarrant.
The Court observed in silence, noting the tragic recount of events told by those who suffer injuries from the bullet, the experience leaving physical, mental, emotional, social wounds as a consequence of Tarrant’s crimes – but none expressed a loss of faith in Islam nor of New Zealand as a community.
As Radio New Zealand reports: ‘One survivor, Dr Hamimah Tuyan left her two sons in Singapore to travel to the High Court in Christchurch to speak and honour her late husband, Zekeriya – the 51st victim to die.’
She told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report she wrestled for some time if she should write a statement. Once she came back to Christchurch she decided she would listen to every victim statement delivered in court: “I was just so inspired by the brave brothers and sisters – their words, their feelings. I’m just so glad that I actually wrote it and opted to read it. That was the only way I could represent my husband and my boys,” she said on live radio.
Dr Hamimah Tuyan said she felt a weight lift from her shoulders and then left everything in the hands of God and the judge.
She, and many others, spoke of Catharsis in having had the courage to speak of their experience and their strength, and of the bravery of their loved ones who died on March 15, 2019.
Cold Blooded Reality:
Then came the Judge’s ruling. For four hours Justice Mander read a precise account of what happened that day. In a move that was welcomed by the victims and New Zealanders, Justice Mander spoke of each victim and of their character, of the circumstances of how each person died.
For the first time, New Zealanders learned of the cold blooded reality of the consequences of hate that tore at the heart of the Muslim community that day.
Accounts like:
‘As you made your way down the hallway of the Mosque to the main prayer area you shot Ata Mohammad Ata Elayyan and Ali Elmadani, murdering both men. You then entered the main prayer room at the rear of the building. There were over 120 worshippers present. They had heard the gunfire. Appreciating that something was very wrong, they moved to each side of the large open prayer area to where there were single exits in each corner.
‘When you entered the main prayer room you initially fired at worshippers who were lying on the ground. You shot Ziyaad Shah. You then turned to the two large groups gathered on each side of the prayer area. There was little chance of escape. You fired your semi-automatic firearm into the mass of people on one side of the room. The rate of fire was extremely rapid. You repeatedly moved your weapon across that side of the room before turning to the other group of trapped people on the opposite side.
‘As you turned your semi-automatic weapon on these worshippers, Naeem Rashid ran at you. Despite being shot, he crashed into you, forcing you down on one knee and dislodging a magazine from your vest. Mr Rashid had been hit in the shoulder and, as he lay on his back, you fired further shots at him. Mr Rashid died but his bravery allowed a number of his fellow worshippers to escape.’
‘By this stage you had emptied a 60-round magazine. You replaced that with another. Standing in the middle of the room, you fired rapid bursts towards each side of the prayer room where people were trying to hide or were attempting to escape. After reloading yet again, you continued to shoot at persons lying prone or trying to escape. You discharged rapid bursts across both sides of the room before approaching individual victims and shooting them. As Ashraf Ragheb sought to escape from a side room down the hallway to the main entrance, you shot and killed him. Already there were many dead.
‘You moved closer to each now piled group of people lying deceased, wounded or feigning death on each side of the main prayer room. Worshippers, who were either crying out for help or who appeared to be alive, were systematically shot in the head. One of those was a three-year-old child, Mucaad Ibrahim. He was clinging to his father’s leg and you murdered him with two aimed shots.’
The judge continued, detailing how Brenton Tarrant then made his way outside Al Noor Mosque.
‘Outside you shot at people attempting to flee. You shot Mohammad Faruk in the back, killing him. Wasseim Daragmih and his fouryear-old daughter received life-threatening wounds. You fired in the opposite direction, hitting Sazada Akhter in the spine. She will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life.’
Tarrant then returned to his vehicle. Quickly he rearmed himself with an assault rifle fitted with two 40 round magazines.
‘You fired this weapon down a side driveway towards the back of the Mosque, murdering Muse Awale and Hamza Alhaj Mustafa, a 16-year-old boy who had escaped from the main prayer room and was sheltering behind vehicles. Another man, Mohammad Shamim Siddiqui, was critically wounded.
‘You then returned to the main prayer room. As you entered you saw Md Hoq, who was wounded,sitting up against a window. You aimed one shot at Mr Hoq, killing him instantly, before firing further shots at a group of people lying in one corner. There were some 30 deceased or critically wounded worshippers in this mass of people. You delivered fatal shots to those who were still alive.
‘You then reloaded your weapon and walked over to the group of people lying in the opposite corner and fired into them. You noticed Haji Nabi attempting to shelter behind a small wall. With two carefully aimed shots you murdered Mr Nabi before walking to within a metre of the piled group and firing further shots into those who were either deceased or mortally wounded. Any persons who showed signs of life were shot.’
The Judge’s ruling continued on, every precise detail that the Police, scientists, and prosecutors had discovered was read to Tarrant. The killer’s gaze remained attentive. Silently, he sat, emotionless, listening to every word.
Observers reflected on how Brenton Tarrant appeared a hollow shell of a human being. Immediately after his arrest, Tarrant presented as arrogant, remorseless, complaining to Police that he was disappointed that he didn’t kill more people. He was then in peak physical condition, clearly having been working out regularly. But this week, he appeared without emotion, without purpose, passively listening to the accounts of victims and that of the Judge detailing the facts of what he had done. He did not challenge the facts, rather he had accepted them as accurate a true account of his crimes.
Justice Mander continued on:
‘After exiting the Mosque for the second time you saw two women attempting to escape. You shot Ansi Karippakulam Alibava and Husna Ahmed. Ms Ahmed was killed. Ms Karippakulam Alibava was wounded. While she lay on the street, pleading for help, you murdered this defenceless young woman, firing two shots at her from point-blank range. You then returned to your vehicle and inflicted the indignity of driving over her body as she lay in front of the driveway from which you exited.’
Still, Tarrant remained emotionless, leaving some to ponder whether he was intent of creating an enigma of himself, a mysterious figure who refused to offer any words or emotion upon which others may define him. Rather, he had earlier defined himself to appointed psychiatrists and psychologists as a “Terrorist” and a “Fascist”. He had stated to the clinicians, appointed to assess his personality and condition, that in the months leading up to the killings, he had sunken into despair, into a depression. That he was angry at the world and wanted to hurt it, damage it.
The Child The Man:
Radio New Zealand investigated Brenton Tarrant’s background. The following segment is a paraphrase of that investigation.
Brenton Tarrant, while travelling in Pakistan.
Brenton Tarrant’s life experience was unremarkable, at least in the beginning. He was born on October 27, 1990 and raised in rural Australia, in a town called Grafton some 500 kilometres north of Sydney. He was the youngest of three siblings. His parents separated while he was still at school. He played sport (Rugby League) but was overweight and was bullied, to a degree, by others of his age. His father worked as a rubbish collector, and his family was respected in the general Clarence Valley area.
One of Tarrant’s cousins told Australia’s 7News, there was little in his background that would have indicated problems ahead. But, when his father died of cancer when Tarrant was 20 years of age, he was crushed by the loss. He inherited AU$500,000.00 from his fathers estate. Dabbled in investments. Then travelled extensively. It was during his overseas experience abroad, particularly in Europe, that he was radicalised.
Details are vague, but court accounts place him in France where he was attracted to white extremist groups with which he increasingly shared commonly held racist views. He continued to travel around Europe, and developed an interest in the countries that were once ruled by the Ottoman Empire, visiting historic battle sites. He travelled through greater Asia, visiting Pakistan and the border areas of Afghanistan.
Then, in August, 2017, he emigrated to Dunedin, New Zealand. He joined a rifle club, acquired a firearms license from the New Zealand Police, and joined a South Dunedin gym.
He kept largely to himself, isolating his ideas, his anger, his purpose from those around him.
Brenton Tarrant never sought to work in New Zealand and showed no intention to get a job.
Wider family members visited Tarrant while he lived in Dunedin. They returned to Australia, noting concerns to his immediate family that he was not in a good state of mind, and had shown them that he had many guns.
Then, as Radio New Zealand reported Tarrant’s last message to the white extremist group on 8Chan came in March 15, 2019:
“It’s been a long ride and … you are all top blokes and the best bunch of cobbers a man could ask for,” Tarrant posted.’
‘As you drove away from the Al Noor Mosque you continued to shoot at anyone who you considered should be the target of your hate. You discharged a shotgun at two men who appeared to be of African descent. A short distance on you saw Muhammad Nasir and his son walking towards the Mosque dressed in traditional clothing. You again discharged the shotgun, seriously wounding Mr Nasir, before actioning the weapon again and pointing it directly at the boy who was trying to hide behind a wall. You pulled the trigger but it failed to fire.
‘You then sped away, driving directly to the Linwood Islamic Centre. On the way you came abreast of another vehicle being driven by a Fijian man. You pointed your shotgun at him. Despite repeated attempts to discharge the shotgun it failed to fire.
‘When you got to Linwood you approached the Mosque on foot down a long driveway, armed with yet another firearm. You saw three people in and around a car. You shot Ghulam Hussain in the head, killing him, before firing at and wounding Muhammad Raza who had got out of the other side of the vehicle. You shot another occupant of the car, Karam Bibi, before advancing up the driveway, where you saw Mr Raza attempting to find cover behind a fence. He attempted to retreat from you. Despite his pleas to spare him, you murdered him. A wounded Ms Bibi sought to hide in front of the vehicle. You walked to within metres of her as she lay prone with her head buried in her hands, stood over her, and killed her.’
Tarrant approached the Mosque, passing a window. He saw a silhouette of a man. He shot him with a single shot to the head. The man’s name was Mohammed Khan.
With your weapon now empty, you ran down the driveway back to your vehicle. As you reached the car, Abdul Aziz Wahabazadah, who had courageously followed you down the driveway, challenged you. You retrieved another semi-automatic rifle from your vehicle and fired at him. He dived between some parked cars, before you walked back up the driveway to the main entrance to the Mosque.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I wrote about this moment, in the German magazine Cicero.de in March 2019, shortly after the murders:
Inside Linwood Mosque was Abdul Aziz, a man who had gathered with his Muslim brothers. He had just begun his second pray when he heard gunshots outside. At first he thought it was someone playing with firecrackers (fireworks). But then, within seconds, he heard people screaming.
Mr Aziz picked up an EFTPOS (electronic funds transaction) machine from a table inside the mosque. He ran outside. He saw a man he describes as looking like a soldier. He said to the man: “Who are you”. Mr Aziz then saw three people lying on the ground dead from shotgun blasts. He realised the man was the killer. He approached the attacker, threw the EFTPOS machine hitting the killer, who in turn took from his vehicle a second firearm (a military style semi-automatic assault rifle) and fired four to five shots at Abdul Aziz, missing him. Then, in an attempt to lure the killer away from other people, Mr Aziz shouted at the killer from behind a car: “Come, I’m here. Come I’m here!”
Mr Aziz said he didn’t want the killer to go inside the mosque and kill more people. But the killer remained focussed. He walked directly to the entrance, once inside the mosque he continued his killing spree. Survivors speak of the killer wearing “army clothes”, dressed in “SWAT combat clothing”, helmeted, wearing a vest and a balaclava… Written on the rifle were the words, ‘Welcome to hell’. (ref. Attentat in Christchurch – Willkommen in der Hölle)
In the High Court this week, Justice Mander continued:
‘There were several people standing inside the entranceway and further into the building at whom you repeatedly fired. You killed Musa Patel. Walking further into the Mosque, you shot and killed Linda Armstrong. People were huddled in corners of the room or trying to escape as you fired your weapon, killing Mohamad Mohamedhosen. You continued to fire the semi-automatic rifle until it ran out of ammunition, at which point you dropped it and ran back to your vehicle.
‘Mr Wahabazadah chased you down the driveway, yelling at you. You removed the bayonet from your vest but retreated in the face of his advance. As you began driving away, Mr Wahabazadah got close enough to throw one of your discarded weapons at your vehicle.
‘After leaving the Linwood Mosque, your intention was to drive to Ashburton to attack another mosque, but your vehicle was rammed off the road by a police car and you were apprehended by two armed police officers. You were anxious not to be shot and offered no resistance,’ Justice Mander read.
The Judge then spoke about the character of each of those who were murdered, about people like:
‘Haji Mohemmed Daoud Nabi was a 71-year-old who had been married to his wife for 46 years. He was a role model and leader to his family; a best friend to his children and to his wife. For them the pain and anguish never goes away. Mrs Nabi describes herself as “alive, but not living”.’
And…
‘Ansi Karippakulam Alibava’s husband found her lying on the road. He sat down beside her until police told him it was not safe. He knew when ambulance staff were not treating her that she had died. He is devastated. He finds himself constantly reminded of the events of that day and the loss of his dear wife. He can find no solace.’
And…
‘Ozair Kadir was training to be an airline pilot like his big brother. His death has left a scar on the hearts of his proud parents. His murder haunts his father.‘
And…
‘Sayyad Ahmad Milne was a precious 14-year-old boy with his whole life before him. His murder has left a huge hole in his parents’ hearts. Despite his father’s resilience and forgiveness, they grieve for him deeply.’
And… …
‘Mucaad Aden Ibrahim was younger still — a three-year-old infant. His father described him as “the happiness of the household” — a vibrant young boy who made friends with everyone he met. No family can recover from the murder of such a small child.’
In the end, Justice Mander considered what sentence is permitted under New Zealand law. As a liberal social democratic country, New Zealand repealed the Death Penalty for murder at the end of the 1950s. After consideration, the Judge sentenced Brenton Harrison Tarrant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole – which means, he will die in prison. This is the first time any accused has received this sentence in New Zealand.
Officially, the Judge delivered his order:
‘On each of the 51 charges of murder (charges 1-51) you are sentenced to life imprisonment. I order that you serve the sentences without parole.
‘On each of the 40 charges of attempted murder (charges 52-91) you are sentenced to concurrent terms of 12 years’ imprisonment.
‘On the charge of committing a terrorist act (charge 92) you are sentenced to life imprisonment.
‘I also direct that the four psychiatric and psychological reports prepared for this proceeding be made available to the Department of Corrections.’
And then came the Judge’s final order:
‘Stand down.’
On writing this account, I am mindful that we cannot republish a summary of each of the victims when 91 people have been either killed or maimed by one man’s actions. It feels terribly selective when choosing who to include, and who to exclude from this report. How can one apply news values to people who have had their present and future stolen from them? One cannot. Therefore, I encourage you, readers, to read the unabridged ruling from the New Zealand High Court. While upsetting, it will offer a sober account of what occurs when hatred is left to grow inside us, when others do not know how to react or challenge when hatred is expressed . ( https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/R-v-Tarrant-sentencing-remarks-20200827.pdf )
Also, there is this awful thing, this contemplation, this series of unanswered questions which remain after the killing ceases, well after the victims’ faces become one. Answers remain elusive even after the verdict is read, the sentence is delivered, and the survivors have been ushered home to pick up the pieces of their lives. We are left to wonder, why. That question, that one word, will haunt us for the rest of our days.
Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern’s reaction to the sentence:
Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern.
“I want to acknowledge the strength of our Muslim community who shared their words in court over the past few days,” Jacinda Ardern said.
“You relived the horrific events of March 15 to chronicle what happened that day and the pain it has left behind.
“Nothing will take the pain away but I hope you felt the arms of New Zealand around you through this whole process, and I hope you continue to feel that through all the days that follow.
“The trauma of March 15 is not easily healed but today I hope is the last where we have any cause to hear or utter the name of the terrorist behind it. His deserves to be a lifetime of complete and utter silence.”
Alpha and Omega, as we began, so we close:
At what point in time does an atrocity have a beginning? Is it when the first gunshot is fired? When the first victim is killed? When a killer first submits to thoughts of hatred, alienation, blame and decides to apply those emotions into physical action? Or, is it when racism is justified, when killing is considered defensible by those in whom one chooses to associate with, to support, to impress? Is it when one subscribes to another’s ideology of hate? Or when silence is a protector – chosen by reasonable people – when those around us speak of inhuman things?
*******
PS: We also invite you to view this week’s episode of A View fro Afar with Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning where they discuss, in depth, the causes, impact and possible solutions when dealing with white extremism.
The 65-year-old Abe was finally forced to concede to the ulcerative colitis intestinal disease that had brought his first brief term in office to an end in 2007.
After being treated with a new course of medication, Abe made a remarkable political comeback in 2012. He regained the leadership of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), and led it back into government, three years after it was knocked out of power.
Abe easily defeated the weak and disorganised opposition parties in the 2014 and 2017 elections, and in 2018 secured an unprecedented third three-year term as LDP president, with his supporters speculating he could lead for yet another.
Abe was re-elected as LDP president in a landslide victory in 2018.Takehiko Suzuki/AP
Partial successes in the economy, defence
Abe kept up this political success based around his core economic policy, prominently marketed as “Abenomics”. This comprised the three “arrows” of record stimulus spending, quantitative easing (printing money to buy assets), and attempts at deregulation.
Abenomics was partially successful at restoring mild economic growth, but this started to wane after consumption tax hikes last October. The country then slipped into recession with the coronavirus pandemic.
In foreign policy, the nationalistic Abe reinterpreted Japan’s pacifist constitution, passing bills in the Diet in 2015 to allow collective self-defence with its US ally — despite a lack of public support and large student-led demonstrations.
Accompanied by a sharp increase in defence spending, Abe’s long-held desire to change the constitution to allow even more assertive use of the Japanese Self-Defence Forces was left unfulfilled. In 2019 Upper House elections, the LDP and its coalition partners lost the two-thirds majority required to allow any constitutional referendum.
Despite this setback, the lack of a strong challenger within the LDP — as well as the failure of the opposition parties to pose any credible threat — allowed Abe eventually to become the longest-serving prime minister in Japanese history.
Deeper relations with regional states
Abe energetically pursued foreign affairs throughout his tenure, maintaining the key US alliance through presidents Barack Obama to Donald Trump.
He sought greater Japanese participation in regional security by promoting a “free and open Indo-Pacific” region, and in doing so, deepened Japan’s strategic relations with India, ASEAN and Australia.
Japan’s Self-Defence Force brought recovery equipment and personnel to help in Australia’s response to bushfires this year.DAN HIMBRECHTS/AAP
Abe managed largely stable relations with China, Japan’s largest trading partner, but territorial disputes with Beijing, as well as with Russia and South Korea, also went unresolved. Relations with South Korea, in particular, reached a low point over their wartime and colonial history.
Abe nevertheless built on his image as a senior world leader, culminating in hosting the G20 summit in Osaka last year.
Abe’s erratic response to the coronavirus caused a sharp decline in his authority this year. A massive stimulus spending program sought to limit the damage to the economy, but the overall public response by Abe’s government lacked clear direction.
Regional leaders such as Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike pushed early for a national state of emergency, but Abe only reluctantly declared one in April — and it only lasted around a month. Abe also delayed making a decision to postpone the Tokyo Olympics until foreign delegations announced they wouldn’t attend.
Abe’s leadership was damaged by the government’s initial missteps in its coronavirus response.Masanori Genko/AP
While Japan has fared relatively well dealing with COVID-19, there have been other ill-considered responses by the government. These included the widely ridiculed “Abenomasks” and the “GoTo Travel” domestic tourism campaign, which entrenched the public’s impression Abe was failing to respond energetically enough to the crisis.
From mid-June, Abe held no press conferences for nearly 50 days, and made few public appearances until the commemorations around the 75th anniversary of the end of the second world war in mid-August.
As his approval ratings dropped to their lowest levels since 2012, Abe made a series of hospital visits in recent weeks. This sparked media speculation over his health, which LDP officials vainly tried to downplay.
Abe will stay on as caretaker until the LDP’s Diet members elect a new president sometime over the next two or three weeks. This person will then be confirmed as prime minister by a vote in the Diet.
Speculation about his successor was already building in anticipation of the end of his term in September 2021, but this has now been rushed forward.
Prime candidates include his main old rival, former Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who enjoys the highest public approval ratings as an alternative leader. Fumio Kishida, the LDP policy council chief and former foreign minister, is widely considered to be favoured by Abe as his replacement.
Shigeru Ishiba is seen as a potential successor to Abe.KYDPL KYODO/AP
Another long-standing ally, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga may also be in contention, as could Defence Minister Taro Kono or Economic Revitalisation Minister Yasutoshi Nishimura.
Whoever is chosen by the LDP is unlikely to greatly change the direction of Japan’s economic and foreign policy. The new leader will have the ongoing responsibility of dealing with the persistent “second wave” of the COVID-19 pandemic and trying to engineer a post-pandemic recovery, while still burdened with record public debt and an ageing population.
Japan’s next prime minister will also soon face the judgement of the electorate, as the next national election is due by October 2021. The end of this patrician era of conservative politics has dramatically brought Japanese politics into an suddenly uncertain future.
Scott Morrison has further ramped up his pressure on states to relax border restrictions by declaring “there will be a Commonwealth definition of a hotspot – come rain, hail or shine”.
The Prime Minister said he hoped such a definition was one agreed to by the national cabinet, which meets next Friday.
“But at the very least, there will be a Commonwealth one. And if there are any differences to that – well, people can explain them.”
A week ago the national cabinet asked its health advisers to come up with a definition. Borders remain the province of states and territories and Morrison is immensely frustrated that states with few or no cases continue to resist his pleas to open.
He told a rural forum on Friday state borders “are putting enormous stress and strain on Australians, especially those in regional and border communities, including by limiting access to essential health care, keeping people from their work, restricting farmers’ accesses to their property and their markets.
“I’ve had hundreds of letters and emails from cross-border communities over the recent weeks and months, as have my colleagues,” he said.
He seized on the case of a woman from Ballina in northern NSW who lost an unborn twin after waiting for a plane to travel to Sydney following difficulties accessing Queensland for treatment in Brisbane.
Describing the story as “heartbreaking”, he said: “There needs to be an explanation as to how these hard border arrangements can lead to people not getting access to this care, as it seems to be the case here”.
Accounts of the woman’s case differed.
The CEO of Northern NSW Local Health District, Wayne Jones, said in a statement that while the preferred place for the birth was in Brisbane, under the border restrictions the woman and her partner would have had to quarantine in a government hotel for 14 days at their expense.
“Following discussion with Royal Prince Alfred specialists in Sydney, the woman travelled to Sydney for the procedure where she would not be required to quarantine,” he said.
But a Queensland health spokesperson said a person from a hotspot could enter Queensland for emergency care without an exemption where that care could not be provided in the hotspot. Queensland Health had not received a formal transfer request for the woman, although a Brisbane hospital was able to accept her.
The spokesperson said Queensland Health also did not receive any exemption requests in relation to the case. “The final decision to transfer this case was made by the patient’s treating clinicians in NSW.”
Morrison said the only areas of “significant disagreement” in the national cabinet during the pandemic had been over school closures and borders.
He said the shutting of borders early in the pandemic had not been the most pressing issue. “In hindsight, I think back then we should have addressed the principles around how those borders were being handled at that time. If I had my time over then I think we would have spent more time on that,” he said.
Referring to the woman’s case, he said: “It’s unthinkable …. to know that this family has had to be dealing with border permits at a time when … the only thing that mattered was the health of their child.”
“I hope I can get some better arrangements and [states will] hear my criticisms … on behalf of Australians we’ve got to try and get this worked out.”
Morrison said “the idea that we’re going to live with domestic borders until there’s a vaccine is a recipe for economic ruin. That is not the plan.
“The plan is to ensure testing, tracing and outbreak containment, strong quarantine, COVID safe behaviours in the workplace, in the home, at the footy club, at the ground, in this conference. That is how you live with the virus and keep people in jobs. Borders don’t do that.”
These two charts show Covid19 incidence in the world as a whole, in an American country (USA), an Asian country (South Korea), and New Zealand.
The first chart shows cumulative cases, with the United States being about six times worse (close to an order of magnitude, which usually means ‘ten times’) than the world as a whole, both in recorded cases and in deaths. By contrast, South Korea and New Zealand, following a similar pattern, have Covid19 incidence and deaths an order of magnitude less than the world average.
In terms of recent cases – second chart – we see that recent Covid19 outbreaks in New Zealand and South Korea still show New Zealand with recorded rates less than one tenth of recent world averages; and South Korea falls roughly between New Zealand and the world average. Recent United States rates of Covid19 diagnosis are still well above the world average; currently about four times higher. Fortunately, both the United States and the world show signs of stabilising.
Europe and Australia.
Chart by Keith Rankin.Chart by Keith Rankin.
Some European countries still have higher cumulative death rates than any other part of the world – especially Belgium – and have case histories still above the world average. United States (see first charts) however now substantially outstrips Europe for recorded cases. Australia continues to be much better, on deaths and cases, than France, Belgium and the United Kingdom.
When we look at recent outbreaks, we see that the Australian outbreak is comparable in scale with August outbreaks in Europe, with the current French outbreak now being that of most concern. Indeed, Australian Covid19 deaths over the last week exceed such deaths – per capita – in all three European countries shown. Australia’s current outbreak – centred on Melbourne – is now clearly much worse than its March outbreak.
From the first set of charts, that Australian feature looks unlikely to be replicated in New Zealand, in relation to the outbreak that began on day 174. Further, the best news for New Zealand is that there have been no deaths so far in the present outbreak.
The UK government’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory released a study showing the citriodiol-based spray can kill SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, in a lab.
We’re all on the lookout for new ways to get the best protection against COVID-19.
But just because a product is safe to use in its current form, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will provide either safe or sufficient protection against COVID-19.
But they don’t work by killing the viruses mosquitoes spread. They stop the mosquitoes biting us in the first place by blocking a mosquito’s ability to pick up on the smells that help them find us.
The most common are diethyltoluamide (commonly known as DEET) and picaridin (also known as icaridin). There are also a variety of products that contain plant-based ingredients.
Citriodiol is a somewhat new arrival to the world of commercial insect repellent formulations, but there’s very strong evidence it provides effective protection against mosquito bites.
The chemical name for citriodiol is p-menthane-3,8-diol (commonly referred to as PMD) and it’s derived from the lemon-scented gum (Corymbia citriodora). Despite having origins in plants, citriodiol is considered a chemical repellent like DEET and picaridin.
There’s no doubt citriodiol-based repellents provide protection from mosquito bites and health authorities around Australia should routinely recommend them to reduce the risk of mosquito-borne disease.
But could this product repel COVID-19 as well as mosquitoes?
Mosquito repellents containing citriodiol are effective at stopping mosquito bites, but perhaps not COVID-19.Cameron Webb (NSW Health Pathology)
First, they used citriodiol as an anti-viral agent, applying the product directly to the virus in the lab. And second, they used it as a surface treatment of latex synthetic skin (designed to be like applying the product directly to human skin).
The first set of experiments demonstrated that, when used at a high concentration, the insect repellent killed the virus.
In the second experiments, application of the insect repellent to the latex synthetic skin reduced the amount of virus detected after four hours. But the virus wasn’t completely destroyed.
We need more research to understand how exactly citriodiol might kill the virus. The process may be similar to that of hand sanitisers and other disinfecting products.
These preliminary findings are encouraging but are intended to act as the foundation for future peer-reviewed research. They shouldn’t be grounds for recommending the use of insect repellents containing citriodiol to prevent COVID-19.
Could existing formulations of citriodiol be safe to use?
It’s important to note there are strict warnings provided on the use of citriodiol-based repellents. They shouldn’t be used on children under 12 months of age and, like many other repellents, may cause irritation to eyes or the skin. You certainly shouldn’t be drinking it.
There may well be potential in this product as an anti-viral agent or disinfectant. But for such uses, we’d need alternative registration, packaging, and directions. This may mean a completely different registration process involving other government authorities, such as the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
This is because it’s not just what’s in the product, but how it’s used. If someone was to use an insect repellent as frequently as a hand sanitiser, perhaps the risks of an adverse reaction would increase.
There have been previous examples where products with different uses are combined and require different directions to ensure they’re used safely and effectively.
Mosquito repellents that include sunscreen may pose a greater risk if they’re primarily used for sun protection. Sunscreen should be applied more frequently and at greater volumes compared to insect repellents.
University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Assistant Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics.
This week the pair discuss a week’s worth of question time, the government’s proposed bill to cancel agreements entered into by states and territories with foreign governments, the JobReady Graduates legislation, and the state of emergency in Victoria.
Warning: This story discusses details of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre.
An Auckland University law professor says there is a risk the mosque terrorist could walk the streets of Sydney if he was deported to Australia to serve his life sentence.
Justice Cameron Mander’s sentence marked the first time in New Zealand’s history that the harshest punishment has been imposed.
Shortly after the sentencing, New Zealand First Leader and Foreign Minister Winston Peters said Tarrant should be deported to his home country.
But Professor Bill Hodge told RNZ First Up there was no law in place where a sentence could be transferred, so Australia would not have to keep to the terms of the sentence.
He told First Up a new law would be required in New Zealand – but more importantly, a new law would be needed in Australia.
“Because if he’s deported now, gets on a plane and goes over to Sydney, he can just walk free because there is no statutory authority, no power to enforce the New Zealand sentence in Australia at the moment.”
Rainbow Warrior spies transfer New Zealand has been down this pathway before more than 30 years ago.
The two French spies in jail for 10 years for manslaughter in the 1985 bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour were allowed to be transferred for three years in military detention on Hao atoll in French Polynesia under a deal agreed to with France by former prime minister David Lange.
Before very long both prisoners were back home.
“We got burned quite frankly…”
Hodge said moving the terrorist would have to be with Australia’s cooperation and he could not see why they would agree to it.
“We don’t know exactly what their attitude is …let’s not go down that pathway until we get something really sealed in cement over there to make sure he will stay inside and not become part of a reality TV show, which is what happened to one person who came back from [jail in] Indonesia.”
Morrison open to prospect The ABC is reports that Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has left the door open to working with New Zealand on the issue, but there would be some hurdles to overcome.
Despite the strong ties between Australia and New Zealand, there is no formal prisoner transfer deal between the two countries.
The “David Hicks option” … Australia and the US negotiated a special agreement. Image: RNZ/AFP
Prisoner transfers are different to extraditions – which is when one country demands another help to secure someone wanted for an offence, and have them shipped over to face investigation and trial.
International law expert Professor Don Rothwell, from the Australian National University, said there were multiple options that could be pursued if the transfer was on the cards.
But he said the most likely was what he described as the “David Hicks option”.
Hicks, who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and spent time in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, was sentenced by a military commission in the United States.
“Australia and the US negotiated a special agreement purely to deal with the Hicks situation, and that was appropriate given the security concerns and legal issues,” Professor Rothwell said.
The key difference The key difference is that Hicks only had to serve another nine months in jail (his conviction was set aside by a US court in 2015).
The mosque gunman’s sentence expires when he dies. So, keeping him behind bars for the rest of his life would need to be an explicit term in any agreement.
There are two other potential options for transferring him to Australia.
The first would be for the two countries to negotiate a new bilateral prisoner transfer treaty. The second possibility would be for New Zealand to sign up to an international convention, such as the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.
“The Christchurch gunman is going to be an irritant in Australia-New Zealand relations for some time,” Melissa Conley Tyler from the Asia Institute at the University of Melbourne said.
“New Zealand is very aware that when its citizens are convicted of crimes in Australia, we deport them back to New Zealand – admittedly after they’ve served their sentences – and this is for much less serious crimes.
“From a New Zealand perspective, this is a terrorist who is an Australian citizen and New Zealand taxpayers will be footing the bill for his incarceration for the rest of his life.
“So even though Australia may not be legally obliged to agree to a transfer, I’d expect that New Zealand will continue to make this request.”
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern … the jailed terrorist will remain an irritation for Australian and New Zealand relations. Image: RNZ/AFP and Pool Getty
‘Proud’ of NZ’s justice system In relation to how the justice system has operated with regard to the arrest and trial of the terrorist, from the police response on the day of the 15 March 2019 attacks to the conclusion with the handing down of the sentence yesterday, Professor Hodge said it had been through a stress test and had been proved “fit for purpose”.
As a teacher in a law school it had made him feel proud, he said.
“I think all New Zealanders were brought into that courtroom by the judge by his very powerful speech. It was denunciation; it was speaking for the nation; and it showed a unique purpose that we don’t see very often in New Zealand courtrooms.
“I think justice has come to the fore in a very positive way and I’m proud of it.”
This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.
Where to get help: Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason:
There was public celebration of the sentence of life without parole for the Christchurch terrorist Brenton Tarrant who admitted murdering 51 people and attempting to murder 40 others.
Aged 29, the convicted mass murderer and terrorist is still relatively young, meaning he could well spend several decades in custody.
A life sentence, as with a preventive detention sentence, normally has two elements. The first is the period that must be served for punishment purposes before an application can be made for parole. The second is based on risk and is assessed by the Parole Board: only if a life-sentence prisoner is an acceptably low risk will they be released during this second period.
In short, life can always mean life. But usually, because risk is reduced, an indeterminate sentence is the period set for punishment plus any extra period when the risk remains too high. A whole life sentence means the second stage is never reached.
Is this problematic from the perspective of human rights? This was an argument addressed to the judge.
Are human rights an issue?
The guiding principle behind how we deal with prisoners is the need to attempt rehabilitation.
But if there is no incentive to rehabilitate from the prisoner’s perspective, they are effectively warehoused for the rest of their life. This means, some might argue, the detention risks becoming arbitrary. In addition, it could be said to be inhuman and degrading not to allow some hope for the inmate.
Some nations, such as Norway, do not permit life imprisonment precisely because it is seen to breach those standards.
The world’s busiest human rights court, the European Court of Human Rights, has added its support to the view that prisoners must be left with some mechanism to ensure hope is not extinguished.
But the cases before the European Court have not involved an atrocity of this nature. It may be that the judges of that court would reach a different conclusion based on the extreme facts of the Christchurch mosque attacks.
There is a powerful argument that the importance of protecting the human rights of victims and potential future victims requires denunciation through the most severe sentence available in the hope that others will not follow in the defendant’s perverted footsteps.
Why an appeal is unlikely
In the event of an appeal, our Court of Appeal could consider whether there must be some prospect of release to encourage rehabilitation.
There is also another significant point of law it could consider.
It is normal that guilty pleas can receive credit. The sentencing hearing necessarily brought back the horrors of the events in Christchurch last March. But how much worse would it have been if there had been a trial and the victims and the wider community had had to relive every shot in detail?
Saving that trauma can be reflected in a reduced sentence. The only reduction from a whole life sentence is to allow an application for parole, even at some far-distant time.
Justice Cameron Mander sentences Brenton Tarrant to life without parole.John Kirk-Anderson/The Press Pool/AAP
But in his sentencing remarks at the High Court in Christchurch, Justice Cameron Mander said the relatively late plea of guilty, in March this year, did not displace the need for a whole life sentence. He added:
There is little to indicate that your pleas denote any deeply held sense of remorse for your victims or that you are particularly distressed at having caused such terrible grief.
He attached much more weight to another principle of sentencing, which is that the maximum sentence should be used for the worst possible example of offending.
The depravity of this atrocity qualified for designation as the worst possible example of offending. A terrorist mass murder is clearly the sort of offending that should lead to life without parole, the most severe sentence in our justice system.
The judge had sensibly appointed a lawyer to be available should the defendant change his mind and wish representation. He did so, but only to have this stand-by counsel accept that the maximum available sentence was proper.
Lawyers are bound by the instructions of their clients, so the defence lawyer was unable to put any counter arguments before the judge. Those instructions are significant in that an appeal will occur only if the defendant wishes to appeal. The defendant’s surprising acceptance of the sentence suggests he will not appeal.
A lone voice in court for mass killer Brenton Tarrant: Kerry Cook was the court-appointed lawyer.John Kirk-Anderson/The Press Pool/AAP
So who made the counter arguments? The judge ensured fairness in the process by having another lawyer, Kerry Cook, make counter submissions on the law. This lawyer did not represent the defendant but appeared as an amicus curiae, Latin for “friend of the court”.
Given all of this, the only mechanism to avoid death in prison for New Zealand’s only convicted terrorist is release on compassionate grounds. The Parole Act 2002 allows this only if someone is seriously ill and unlikely to recover. Even then, it is for the Parole Board’s discretion.
When we hear of people who have allegedly escaped from mandatory quarantine — whether that’s from hotels in Perth, Toowoomba, Sydney or Auckland — it’s easy to ask: “What were they thinking? Why didn’t they just follow the rules?”.
But our recent review shows people are less likely to follow public health advice if they misunderstand, or have negative attitudes towards it.
The challenge is that while COVID-19 has been with us since the beginning of the year, we still may not necessarily know someone in our close networks who has been in quarantine. We may be relying on a deluge of misinformation about it from the media, or social media.
So how can we use our knowledge of human behaviour to better support people complying with quarantine?
Which factors affect what we think about quarantine?
We reviewed the range of factors that influence people’s engagement or compliance with COVID-19 public health advice, such as quarantine. These included:
perceptions around the rationale and effectiveness of quarantine
perceived consequences of complying (or not)
perceptions about the level of community and personal risk from COVID-19
having enough basic supplies (for instance, food, water, clothes).
Gender, age, marital status, professional status and education level also played a role in whether people complied, but clearly, these cannot be modified.
Our review found one of the major factors affecting people’s likelihood to comply with quarantine is their knowledge about COVID-19, how the virus is transmitted, symptoms of infection, and quarantine protocols.
Not understanding what quarantine means and its purpose may lead to people inventing their own rules, based on what they think is an acceptable degree of contact or risk.
Perhaps not too surprising, if we believe quarantine is beneficial, then we are more likely to follow the rules. However, providing people with merely factual information may not be the answer. We need to engage with people’s emotions too.
Emotions can influence our perception of risk, sometimes more so than factual information. For example, we often hear about the negative experiences of quarantine or self-isolation, but often not the positive frame, for instance the number of people who have successfully complied. This helps normalise quarantine, and make people more likely to copy the expected behaviour.
If we think it’s normal to stick to the rules and doing so is in the collective good, then we’re less likely to muck up.www.shutterstock.com
Social norms play an important role. If people believe there is a collective commitment to protect the community from further spread of infection, they are more likely to respect the public health measure. An individual’s participation can be conditional on whether they think others are also contributing.
However, social norms can also have the opposite effect. If people think others are breaking the quarantine rules, they may follow suit.
Concerns about stigma or discrimination can also impact a person’s willingness to comply with quarantine. Stigma can make people more likely to hide symptoms or illness, keep them from seeking health care immediately, and prevent people from adopting healthy behaviours.
Lastly, people may push back against the regulations as a way of retaining a feeling of control. They may push back because they are stressed or anxious, which in turn affects how they think about the issue or how they make decisions.
So how do we use this?
To support acceptance of and community compliance with quarantine, we need to take these behavioural issues into account. We need to:
1. prepare people for what they might experience: boredom, loss of freedom or routine, irritability and/or anxiety. Priming people may help them think about ways to reduce these issues
2. encourage people to make plans as we know this helps people cope. Encouraging people to stick to similar (pre-quarantine) routines may help people avoid getting anxious or stressed. These plans need to be time-specific and intentional, not aspirational. For instance, we could encourage people to structure time for exercise and for virtual socialising. Others have suggested doing shared activities, such as watching a movie on Netflix at the same time
3. provide access to social, pyschological and medical support whether that’s via reliable internet access or access to helplines
4. provide adequate basic supplies such as food, water and clothes, and a safe and clean place to quarantine
5. encourage our leaders to clearly articulate, and others to reinforce, that complying with quarantine is in our group interest and it’s expected people will pull their weight. And if they don’t, this won’t be acceptable
6. provide media coverage that reflects the fact most people comply. Examples of people who run away from quarantine clearly represent quarantine failures, but they are outliers. Perhaps its time to look at the proportion of people who have complied with hotel quarantine as we need to establish the collective norm is to comply
7. provide people with adequate sick leave and other structural supports, such as the ability to work remotely, alongside any solutions supporting behaviour change.
There has been little comfort for AMP’s female employees in the corporate heavyweight’s bid to put its sexual harassment scandal to bed.
Nor, for that matter, women in any workplace.
The resignations of AMP’s chairman David Murray and board member John Fraser this week were the culmination of events beginning with a revolt by female employees in early July, after it was revealed the newly appointed chief executive of AMP’s investment management division had been disciplined for sexual harassment in 2017.
AMP’s blind spot may have been extreme – with the cultural and reputational costs eclipsed by the perceived value of Pahari to AMP Capital’s A$192 billion investment management business – but its reactive approach to sexual harassment is hardly unique. In fact, it’s a systemic feature of Australian corporate culture.
Even in resigning Murray made it clear he backed how the board dealt with the complaint (docking Pahari a quarter of his A$2 million bonus in 2017).
“However,” Murray said, “it is clear to me that, although there is considerable support for our strategy, some shareholders did not consider Mr Pahari’s promotion to AMP Capital CEO to be appropriate.”
A reactive approach to sexual harassment is common in Australian management culture.Shutterstock
The two board resignations, along with Pahari’s demotion, were indeed forced by an ultimatum from AMP’s biggest investors. By all appearances, the board’s approach in this case has been to treat sexual harassment as a risk to its share price, rather than a risk to the health and safety of its employees.
Current approaches to preventing and responding to sexual harassment in workplaces are inadequate. They typically focus on policies that prohibit sexual harassment and complaint mechanisms for workers to report it. They are reactive, legalistic and often contribute to ongoing (albeit unintended) harm to workers. These approaches, which have remained largely unchanged for decades, have failed to stop rising rates of workplace sexual harassment.
The inquiry was established in 2018, in light of the #metoo movement and the Commission’s own findings that one in three workers had been sexually harassed in the previous five years, with fewer than 20% making a formal complaint.
Its report notes that throughout the inquiry “the commission heard of the need to shift from the current reactive, complaints-based approach, to one which requires positive actions from employers and a focus on prevention”.
The Australian Human Rights Commission says three-quarters of those sexually harassed at work do not make a formal complaint.Shutterstock
Sexual harassment as discrimination
How sexual harassment is managed is shaped by it being regulated through anti-discrimination legislation.
This began in the late 1970s, when states enacted anti-discrimination laws. Then in 1984 the Hawke Labor government passed the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which specifically prohibited sexual harassment in the workplace. The Act defines sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance, unwelcome request or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.
Anti-discrimination law puts an emphasis on individual rights. Its remedies require individuals taking action to assert or defend those rights. The problem is that in more than 80% of cases those sexually harassed don’t make a formal complaint.
the current system for addressing workplace sexual harassment in Australia is complex and confusing for victims and employers to understand and navigate. It also places a heavy burden on individuals to make a complaint. It means most people who experience sexual harassment never report it. They fear the impact that complaining will have on their reputation, career prospects and relationships within their community or industry.
Making it a health and safety issue
A “positive” approach focused on prevention, as recommended by the Australian Human Rights Commission, requires shifting to management of sexual harassment as a work health and safety issue.
Workplace health and safety laws are premised on an employer’s “positive duty” to keep workers safe. They require employers to identify risks to the health of employees, and eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.
Workplace health and safety regulators have historically not paid attention to sexual harassment as a health and safety issue. This is partly due to the law’s focus on it as a discrimination issue, and partly due to regulators’ traditional focus on preventing physical injuries and deaths.
But with increasing awareness of mental health issues, and of psychosocial work hazards including sexual harassment, this is beginning to change.
In March, WorkSafe Victoria adopted guidance material to educate employers on their duties to prevent sexual harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004.
This material (which followed a campaign by Victorian unions and community organisations) is the first of its kind from a work health and safety regulator in Australia. It reminds employers:
Where there is a risk of work-related sexual harassment causing physical or mental injury employers have an obligation under the OHS Act to control that risk.
Unions and others are campaigning for New South Wales to follow suit. The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended law changes to the federal government to implement a “positive approach”.
AMP’s self-inflicted wounds demonstrate the need for an such an overhaul. A board treating sexual harassment as a matter of health and safety would have to eliminate or manage the risk of it.
Had AMP taken proactive steps to protect workers from sexual harassment, it could have avoided this situation.
Papua New Guinean and Australian police have linked the “black ship” intercepted by the PNG Navy north of Kavieng, New Ireland, last Saturday to a drug haul valued at K1.47 billion (NZ$626 million) in Australian waters, a senior officer said.
Deputy Commissioner of Police Operations Donald Yamasombi told The National that the Australian police and border authorities and the PNG police believe it was the vessel which took bags of cocaine and offloaded them to a commercial fishing vessel, Coralynne, near Lord Howe Island in Australia.
“The boat is alleged to be the boat that took the cocaine and transferred it to an Australian commercial fishing vessel,” he said.
Yamasombi said they were trying to piece together all the information and collate evidence – which they find very little of on board the vessel now anchored at Kavieng port.
“It is a black ship. It does not have a name and has no markings,” he said.
An Australian newspaper report said the boat was detected near Noumea a few days ago.
It was making its way through PNG waters when the HMPNGS Moresby, which was near Kavieng at the time, was alerted.
‘Morgado Square’ Captain Nathan Tombe and his men intercepted the foreign vessel in a fisheries protection zone called the “Morgado Square”, north of Kavieng.
“We warned the crew of the ship by bullhorn to stop for inspection,” he said.
“However, the warning was ignored, as were warning shots fired over the bow of the ship.
Today’s weekend edition of The National front page. Image: PMC screenshot
“As a result, the HMPNGS Moresby drew alongside the vessel and fired wounding one crew member. The ship pulled up and was ordered to accompany us to Kavieng.”
Kavieng Hospital confirmed that the wounded crew member, reported to be the captain, was recovering after an operation.
Yamasombi said if the ship had a name, it would be easy to find out where it came from.
Police are hoping that Australia can provide some information “so we would be able to know the details of the boat”.
Tracking the ship’s route “As it is, we are working with the National Maritime Safety Authority to track the ship, looking at the route it travelled.
“If the transponder had been switched on, it would be easy to track it,” he said.
Today’s PNG Post-Courier weekend edition front page. Image: PMC screenshot
The nine crew members are likely to face charges under the Migration Act and Fisheries Act, he said.
“The crew members are under investigation because it is alleged to be a fishing boat.
“We will let Fisheries do their side of investigation and then we see what possible charges we can lay on them,” he said.
“illegal entry” was the appropriate charge under the Migration Act.
The National newspaper articles are republished by the Pacific Media Centre with permission.
This week, the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks refused to take the court in protest over the police shooting of a Black man in Wisconsin, Jacob Blake, who remains paralysed in hospital.
The players’ boycott immediately threatened the viability of the NBA’s playoffs, endangering the most lucrative part of the season for the league. The players were also risking millions of their own dollars to raise their voices against racism in America.
As the Bucks players later explained in a statement,
We are calling for justice for Jacob Blake and demand the officers be held accountable. […] We encourage all citizens to educate themselves, take peaceful and responsible action, and remember to vote on November 3.
The protest quickly spread across the NBA, where players are increasingly using their social clout to demand action on labour issues from the league and owners. Under pressure from other teams, the league postponed several games. Lakers star LeBron James was quick to remind fans, however, the players were actually boycotting the games — this wasn’t a mere postponement.
And the action quickly spread across the sporting landscape: the WNBA, Major League Baseball and Major League Soccer all cancelled games to protest the Blake shooting. Tennis pro Naomi Osaka refused to play her semifinal match at a tournament, tweeting this:
Remember the backlash against Colin Kaepernick?
The NBA boycott comes four years to the day that US football player Colin Kaepernick started kneeling before NFL games. The NFL blackballed him due to the protest — and he has yet to return to the league.
Colin Kaepernick has not played in the NFL since his protest movement in the 2016 season.Mike McCarn/AP
Since then, however, other American sporting leagues, particularly the NBA, have supported their players’ right to protest and voice their opinions on political issues.
Last month, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver defended players’ right to kneel during the national anthem. The COVID bubble where the playoffs are being held also features Black Lives Matter jerseys, signs and floor decals.
Although the players have voted to resume the playoffs after a day, they made a statement that would have been unthinkable in the sports world just a few years ago.
Despite risking millions of dollars in salary, endorsements and bonuses, many players have shown they are willing to pay the price, potentially even jeopardising their careers, because they are simply fed up with unchecked police violence against people of colour.
if we’re gonna sit here and talk about making change, then at some point we’re gonna have to put our [manhood] on the line and actually put something up to lose.
Some players are also becoming political in more direct ways. James, for instance, has raised millions to pay off the fines for convicted felons to allow them to vote. Chris Paul of the Oklahoma City Thunder, meanwhile, registered his whole team to vote.
The stoppage in play across sport was in stark contrast to the response to Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling four years ago.JOHN G. MABANGLO/EPA
What happens if the NBA loses money, though?
Whether the NBA continues to stand by players in their protests, however, remains to be seen.
The league reportedly stands to lose upwards of US$1 billion in revenue if the playoffs are cancelled. Not only that, the bubble itself cost the NBA US$170 million just to set up.
If the playoffs do end early, the relationship between the league and players could very well be broken, possibly leading to a lockout next season. This, in turn, would further devastate the finances of both players and the league.
Trapped between the competing demands of its advertisers, TV partners, owners and players, the NBA has until now remained remarkably silent about the boycott. The big question is how the league will respond if fans start to tune out and the protests ultimately start to cost it money.
Crucially, it should be noted the NBA collective bargaining agreement bans strikes, so in effect, the players’ actions could be in violation of this (though there is some debate over whether this was a “boycott” or a “strike”).
Silver, the NBA commissioner, has been faced by a somewhat similar dilemma before. Last year, Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted support for the Hong Kong protests, angering the Chinese government to such an extent, the state broadcaster stopped airing NBA games — and still hasn’t resumed.
For many NBA players and coaches, police violence is personal. Some Bucks players have spoken out about their own difficult experiences with the police. Clippers coach Doc Rivers tearfully explained how hard it was loving a country so much that “does not love us back”.
But criticisms are also coming in from other parts of society. Author Juanita Broaddrick tweeted a message directly to James, telling him to “Move to China”, which was liked nearly 35,000 times.
The NBA boycott has angered some fans who want to keep politics out of sport.Rick Bowmer/AP
President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, meanwhile, said NBA players were
very fortunate that they have the financial position where they’re able to take a night off from work.
But despite the inevitable backlash, the boycott feels like the start of “something big”, to quote one sports columnist.
Taking a knee before a game or raising a fist during a medal ceremony rocked the country, but never before has a league just had to shut it down. Now we have, at least for a day.
In a sign of just how far such politically motivated protests could go, even the National Hockey League, the whitest pro sport in North America, decided to postpone games following Blake’s shooting.
Sports figures won’t stay silent anymore when it comes to politics, nor should they be expected to.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathleen McPhillips, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle
Investigative journalist Suzie Smith’s new book The Altar Boys is a searing read that raises new questions about the suicides of three former victims of Catholic clergy child sexual abuse.
Smith, a former award-winning ABC journalist, has been covering the clerical abuse crisis in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese for many years. She wrote the book in part to bring new attention to the three victims, whose suicides remain shrouded in mystery, despite two public inquiries.
The Altar Boys recounts the lives — and deaths — of Glen Walsh, Steven Alward and Andrew Nash. All three of them were victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clerics in the diocese.
Andrew Nash was just 13 years old when he committed suicide in 1974 after being sexually abused at St. Francis Xavier College in Hamilton, NSW. Andrew was in the care of two Marist Brothers who have since been convicted on child sex offences.
Walsh committed suicide in 2017, just weeks before he was due to give evidence at the trial of Archbishop Philip Wilson. Wilson had been charged with failing to report to police that paedophile priest James Fletcher was abusing boys in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese. He was convicted in 2018, but was set free after the judgement was quashed.
And Steven Alward, a respected ABC journalist and close friend of Smith’s, took his own life shortly after Walsh, in January 2018.
HarperCollins Australia
Both Walsh and Alward grew up together in Newcastle and were altar boys at the local Catholic church. They were also victims of child sexual abuse.
According to the book, Alward told his brother he was abused by notorious paedophile priest John Denham at St. Pius X High School in Adamstown. Smith details how Walsh was allegedly abused by Marist Brother Coman Sykes while he was staying at a Marist brothers-owned house west of Sydney.
Calls for new inquiry into the death of Glen Walsh
This area of New South Wales is recognised as one of the epicentres of clerical abuse in Australia, along with Wollongong and Ballarat in Victoria.
Smith’s book sheds new light on the institutional child sexual abuse and alleged cover-ups in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese, especially related to the treatment of the whistleblower priest Glen Walsh.
Last week, NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge called for an urgent judicial inquiry into Walsh’s suicide and the events leading up to the tragedy.
A letter from Bishop Bill Wright to the Catholic community in response, however, said church leaders see no reason to investigate these matters further as they are “historical” and have been addressed by previous inquiries.
The story of Walsh’s decline and suicide
In her book, Smith details what happened in Walsh’s life after his abuse, when he became a priest himself in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese.
In 2004, Walsh was sent to work in the upper Hunter parishes of Branxton/Greta to take over following the arrest of Fletcher on child sex abuse charges.
When two young men told Walsh about being abused by Fletcher, Walsh defied church practice and reported the matters to the police, including detective sergeant Peter Fox. Fox’s explosive allegations about the links between the police and Catholic clergy in the diocese would later spark the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry.
By taking this action, Walsh was ostracised and banished from the diocese. Smith recounts how his health deteriorated and he became homeless, asking to return to the diocese on numerous occasions. He finally got his wish in 2017 when Wright invited Walsh back to Newcastle.
After Wilson, the archbishop, was charged with covering up child sex abuse, Walsh became a key witness for the prosecution.
Wilson’s conviction for covering up child sex abuse was quashed by a judge in December 2018.DARREN PATEMAN/AAP
Smith describes an episode – until now not public knowledge – where prior to Wilson’s court case, Walsh was called to Rome for a private interview with Pope Francis. The pope reportedly wanted to know what Walsh would say in court, as Cardinal George Pell waited for him outside the room.
Just weeks before he was due to give evidence, Walsh took his own life.
He was vindicated during the trial when Magistrate Robert Stone found Walsh had in fact telephoned Wilson in 2004 and reported the child sexual abuse inflicted by Fletcher on numerous boys.
Questions still need to be answered
There are many unanswered questions about the deaths of all three victims. Importantly, Smith also links these deaths to the issue of ongoing suicides and sudden deaths among survivors of alleged child sex abuse in the Maitland-Newcastle area.
The Clergy Abused Network, a regional support group for survivors and their families, has kept a register of deaths by suspected suicide — the number now totals over 60.
To continue to frame this issue as “historical”, as Bishop Wright did in his letter, is problematic and harmful and ignores the ongoing tragedy of suicides in this region. This issue is hardly historical — it is happening now.
If there is further evidence, as Smith’s book suggests, of failure by Catholic officials in the investigation of suspected child sex abuse cases, then another judicial inquiry is justified.
What has compounded the trauma for survivors and their families that the findings of the Child Abuse Royal Commission’s case study 43, which examined child sexual abuse in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese, have yet to be released.
Survivors and their families should have access to the final report, which continues to be withheld. They deserve to see if it contains more answers to these tragedies.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Harris Rimmer, Professor and Director of the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith Business School, Griffith University
Australia is a nation of enthusiastic travellers, it is one of our defining national characteristics.
At any given time, around a million of us are living and working overseas. In 2019, a record 11.3 million Australian residents went on short-term trips, double the figure of ten years earlier.
But COVID-19 has radically changed our capacity to go and be overseas. Will we ever travel so easily and readily again?
You don’t have the ‘rights’ you probably thought you had
Travel may be of huge importance to Australians, but it is not a right or entitlement.
When you leave Australia, you also take on an element of risk. The federal government has long-warned their help in a crisis will have “limits”. The consular services charter says,
You don’t have a legal right to consular assistance and you shouldn’t assume assistance will be provided.
Australians don’t even have the absolute right to a passport, although in practice, it is rarely denied.
International law provides for the right to freedom of movement – both in and out of Australia. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says,
Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. [This] shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order … public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others … No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Australia ratified the covenant in 1980, but there is no Commonwealth legislation enshrining the right of freedom of movement.
Even if there was, this doesn’t mean it would override legitimate public health concerns.
Coming home is no longer simple
In March, when the pandemic took off, the Morrison government advised Australians overseas to return home.
But coming back is no longer a simple question of booking a ticket and getting on a flight. For one thing, the global airline industry has collapsed, making available flights scarce.
As part of Australia’s COVID response, caps have also now been placed on international arrivals. In July, the number of Australian citizens and residents allowed into the country was then reduced by a third, from about 7,000 to about 4,000 a week, to ease the pressure on the hotel quarantine system. This system will be in place until at least October.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison explained he knew this made it more difficult for people to come home, but the policy was not “surprising or unreasonable”. Rather,
[it will] ensure that we could put our focus on the resources needed to do testing and tracing.
Nightmare logistics
According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, more than 371,000 Australians overseas have returned since March.
But more than 18,000 are still stuck overseas, saying they want to come home. Last week, a Senate inquiry heard about 3,000 of this group were “vulnerable” for medical and financial reasons.
There are a growing number of media reports detailing the stories of those stranded overseas. Many are desperate to return for financial and personal reasons.
More than 18,000 Australians are still overseas and want to come home.www.shutterstock.com
Internal border closures in Australia have added a further level of complexity.
On Friday, The Sydney Morning Herald reported the Morrison government was drawing up new plans to evacuate Australians stuck overseas.
It is worth noting that despite people’s understandable frustrations, the Australian government has limited options to help here – and the options they do have are not simple. They can potentially charter flights or cruise ships, but this is not straightforward because it requires agreements from host countries, available planes and ships, and can be hugely expensive.
Leaving Australia is no longer simple, either
Less visible, but very concerning from a rights perspective, is the Australians who are stuck in Australia. A state generally should allow citizens to leave their own country.
There are wide-ranging bans on people leaving Australia during the coronavirus pandemic, with a limited range of exemptions.
There are obviously compelling reasons why people will still want to travel, given Australia’s strong international connections, especially when close relatives are ill or dying overseas.
But again, we don’t actually have a “right” under domestic law to leave Australia – with the federal government able to control our movements under the Biosecurity Determination 2020.
Between March 25 and August 16, Australian Border Force received 104,785 travel exemption requests. Of these, 34,379 were granted a discretionary exemption. Some perhaps more discretionary than others – entrepreneur Jost Stollmann was granted an exemption to travel overseas to pick up his new luxury yacht.
The way we think about travel needs to change
Significant Australia’s diplomatic resources have been going into supporting Australians overseas during COVID-19. In July, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reported 80% of its staff took part in the response effort.
Secretary Frances Adamson has also noted her department’s approach to COVID-19 had to go “well beyond what’s written in our consular charter”.
Pre-COVID, there were more than one million Australians living and working overseas.www.shutterstock.com
Given the range of pressing foreign policy issues at the moment, a serious question is how much of the Department of Foreign Affairs’ time and attention should be spent on consular services? What is being lost in other diplomatic efforts trying to get Australians home?
Australians need to grapple with the idea that the government doesn’t have to “get them back” if they travel overseas (even if it wants to). And under Australian law, we don’t have a “right” to leave the country.
We don’t know how long these COVID changes will last – particularly if efforts to create a vaccine are not successful. So, the way we think of travel and our risk calculations may unfortunately need to change. This might result in the biggest shift in our travel mindset since the 1950s, when international travel opened up to ordinary Australians.
With rising awareness of climate impacts of travel, this may not be a wholly negative development. But a deeper conversation is still required about the right to freedom of movement for Australian citizens.
Walking into my building just prior to New Zealand’s most recent heightened alert levels, I found students and staff alike were cramming in a last bit of social contact before the one metre rule came into effect.
I passed post-grad students on the stairs popping onto campus to collect their laptop or headphones, anxiously asking each other how they were doing.
It’s not like universities haven’t been preparing for the possibility of a return to emergency remote learning, but the sudden change in alert levels still came as a shock.
As universities return for the final months of the academic year, it’s important we recognise the challenges ahead. The re-emergence of COVID-19 community transmission in Aotearoa shows how tenuous our circumstances are. It’s becoming apparent the world will be living with this for some time, so the need to be flexible and adaptable is coming into clear focus.
Aside from all the logistical demands of the new normal, we need to listen to student voices more than ever. As the OECD has noted, COVID-19 has disproportionately affected young people, and they must be adequately represented in our responses and recovery.
Can do better
The change in alert levels meant the sudden closure of Auckland’s several university campuses and no more scheduled teaching for the duration. Remote learning via online materials, recorded lectures and online classes has become the norm.
Even in the rest of New Zealand, where the alert level was lower, university life was affected.
Strategies ranged from moving lectures online (but continuing small specialist teaching), limiting numbers in lectures while encouraging online participation, or blending organised classes and remote learning.
But not everyone has appreciated these initiatives or their implementation. New Zealand Union of Students Association (NZUSA) president Isabella Lenihan-Ikin criticised universities for not consulting more with those at the sharp end of the changes – the students.
All quiet on campus: Auckland University moves to online teaching due to the latest outbreak of COVID-19 community transmission.www.shutterstock.com
Lockdowns reinforce inequality
Te Mana Ākonga (the National Māori Tertiary Students Association) and the New Zealand Union of Students’ Association conducted rapid research on the impacts of COVID-19 on the work, personal and learning lives of students during the lockdown.
The picture that emerged indicated increased stress and anxiety, much of it caused by uncertainty over finances and the future. This won’t necessarily have abated during the 100 COVID-free days prior to the second outbreak.
Students are not a homogeneous group and online learning is not the same for everyone. So it wasn’t surprising to find issues of access and equity emerging.
The lockdown highlighted inequalities in the personal circumstances of students that affected a range of things: reliability of internet access, the ability to structure and manage their learning, and a lack of social connection and support.
When I checked with my students during a Zoom video class in the middle of lockdown, they indicated motivation, time management and routine, home life (including family responsibilities) and lack of social opportunities as key challenges.
Again, these issues won’t have changed just because we are now more experienced at the rapid pivot to online learning.
Online lectures work
The crisis has given students a glimpse into a blended and flexible teaching and learning environment and what might be possible. They are keen to explore how the successful elements from this experience might enhance the conventional on-campus environment.
For example, in a recent poll run by the University of Canterbury Student Association (UCSA) 98% said they wanted lectures to continue to be available online.
With that kind of majority saying online lectures support their learning and well-being, universities simply can’t afford to return to business as usual. Academics, too, will need support to achieve the right blend of teaching options.
Listen to the students
If COVID-19 restrictions are to be a feature of life for the foreseeable future, what will students want right now? First of all, that we talk to them to find out what their needs are. Seek quick feedback on what is working best for students and be adaptable. Consistency is also important, given the fluid circumstances we find ourselves in.
Social learning and connection are critical elements of learning. So we need to encourage virtual spaces for student interaction, such as study groups and informal learning groups on social media.
Pastoral care is more important than ever. Learning is as much social-emotional as it is cognitive. We should set up voluntary real-time interactions that don’t focus only on academic content and requirements. We need to:
keep a routine and set up learning structures – e.g. weekly objectives and tasks with suggested ways to achieve results.
If you are a New Zealand tertiary student you can share your experiences of online learning here. This is part of a cross-institutional research project exploring the challenges and opportunities experienced by students during lockdown.
This sudden move to online wasn’t a choice. But the crisis gives us an opportunity to shift our practices, focus on what we really value, and use disruption for positive and lasting change.
Thanks to the many colleagues and students who shared their insights and experiences of online learning with me during the lockdown.
Young people are increasingly frightened by the spectre of natural hazards and disasters, but they see schools as failing to equip them with the skills they need for these events.
That’s according to the recent Our World, Our Say national report, which surveyed 1,477 Australians aged 10 to 24.
While almost two-thirds (64%) of respondents said they have experienced at least three hazard events such as bushfires, heatwaves and drought in the past three years, a staggering 88% believe they’re not being taught enough to protect themselves and their communities.
In fact, they say they’re learning more about earthquakes in class than more relevant hazards, such as bushfires, floods, drought and tropical cyclones. And they are not wrong.
Young people want to learn about natural hazards and disasters that are relevant to them. After all, it’s their future, and changes in their education can help them thrive in a world of rapid social, environmental and technological change.
They don’t feel heard
The Our World, Our Say survey was conducted by the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience and World Vision Australia.
Students want politicians to give them a voice on climate change.AAP Image/Erik Anderson
Along with issues in the curriculum, the survey also shows young people are deeply worried about climate change and see an urgent need to “reduce the intensity and frequency of disasters through climate action”. On this front, most of the survey respondents feel Australia is not doing enough.
Adding to their frustrations, survey respondents feel ignored by politicians. Nearly 90% said government leaders aren’t listening to their concerns, and that they don’t have a voice on climate change and disaster risk.
The devastating Black Summer bushfires demonstrated you need not live in the bush for bushfires to affect you. Yet the coverage of bushfires in the Australian Curriculum (and its state and territory adaptations) is sparse, especially when compared with the coverage of earthquakes and volcanoes.
The Australian Curriculum for Science for Year 6 has students investigating major geological events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis in Australia, the Asia region and throughout the world.
In Year 8 they investigate the role of science in the development of technology related to earthquake prediction. In Year 9 they expand on their learning of earthquakes, and other geomorphological hazards (volcanic eruption, earthquake, tsunami, landslide, avalanche) related to tectonic plates.
The main coverage of bushfires is in Year 5 Humanities and Social Sciences, where students study “the impact of bushfires or floods on environments and communities, and how people can respond”.
Learning about bushfires is also an option in Year 8 Geography, but it’s included as an alternative to studying earthquakes and volcanoes.
Thick bushfire smoke on January 3 2020. You don’t have to live in a fire-prone area to be affected by bushfires.EPA/NASA
The only coverage of bushfires in the Science curriculum is in Year 9 where students investigate how ecosystems change as a result of events such as bushfires, drought and flooding. Once again, bushfires are an option, rather than a requirement.
Students are facing increased extreme weather events around Australia, including intense heavy rainfall, high fire danger days and high intensity storms. We must ensure current and future generations of school students have the knowledge and skills to prevent, mitigate and adapt to this future.
Climate change education is also missing
The Our World, Our Say survey respondents are also right about the curriculum not covering climate change.
Climate change-related topics in national and state curricula are found only in the senior secondary (Years 11 and 12) and secondary (Years 7 to 10) Humanities, Geography and Science learning areas, with many being optional.
But according to the Paris Agreement on climate change, Australia has a moral imperative and legal obligation to include climate change education in its curriculum. And, as the school strikes have demonstrated, students want to learn about climate change.
Students can be agents of change
Australia is a signatory to the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which says disaster risk knowledge must be incorporated into formal and non-formal education.
The Sendai Framework also recognises children and youth as agents of change who should be given the opportunity to contribute to disaster risk reduction through school curricula.
Greta Thunberg’s speech to UN Climate Change COP24 conference.
Australian research from 2018 reinforces this. It found when disaster education positions children and youth as agents of change, they not only learn essential knowledge and skills, but also make extremely valuable contributions to risk reduction activities in their households, schools and communities.
They can create workshops or games to educate others about disaster planning and preparedness; produce short films or books showcasing local knowledge or hazard management strategies; and present recommendations for youth-centred emergency management planning to decision-makers.
It aims to increase awareness of climate change and understand the response to and impacts of climate change globally, nationally and locally. It also explores opportunities to contribute to reducing and adapting to climate change impacts on everyday life.
We can also learn from Europe, where the EU Horizon 2020 Project developed a framework for child-centred disaster risk management. It started from the premise that, under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children and young people have the right to be heard on matters that affect them.
If the education of young people in Australia is about preparing them “to thrive in a time of rapid social and technological change, and complex environmental, social and economic challenges”, as the Australian Education Council recently proclaimed, then it’s clear schooling is failing them.
Warning: This story discusses details of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre.
A man who confronted a terrorist on the day of the New Zealand killings and again during his sentencing in the High Court says the perpetrator has got “what he deserved”.
Many of the 98 victims who shared their impact statements in court this week had pleaded with the judge to take this course.
Abdul Aziz Wahabzadah confronted the murderer on the third day of the hearings with some taunting words in his victim impact statement.
Survivor Abdul Aziz Wahabzadah makes a point to the gunman in the High Court. Image: RNZ/John Kirk-Anderson/Stuff/Pool
He was also hailed as a hero on the day of the attacks because he challenged and chased the terrorist from the Linwood Mosque.
At the end of his statement, the judge commended him for his bravery. Abdul Aziz told RNZ Morning Report that was “a great honour” but he was focusing on “the coward” in court who had taken away so many of his fellow Muslims.
Stirring up stark memories Facing him in court had been difficult, stirring up stark memories of seeing two elderly women and a man lying fatally shot on the ground.
“There was a lot of hate and a lot of anger but you have to control it because we have to follow the law.
“We waited for a long time for that day and we achieved what we wanted and he achieved what he deserved.”
The Muslim community will move on. “Because we don’t have any other choice, we have to move on with our lives because we cannot bring the brothers and sisters, the ones who died, back. We have no choice.”
In response to NZ First’s leader Winston Peters call for the gunman to be imprisoned in Australia, he said the terrorist was “a piece of rotten meat” that no one wanted, and it was up to the two governments.
“He held the flag of that country with hate and shame… who wants such a person back in the country?”
It was important that the killer was also found guilty of terrorism. The tragedy has helped the world see that Muslims are peaceful people, not the terrorists that they are so often portrayed, Abdul Aziz said.
‘Brave brothers and sisters’ Dr Hamimah Tuyan left her two sons in Singapore to travel to the High Court in Christchurch to speak and honour her late husband, Zekeriya – the 51st victim to die.
She told Morning Report she wrestled for some time if she should write a statement. Once she came back to Christchurch she decided she would listen to every victim statement delivered in court.
“I was just so inspired by the brave brothers and sisters – their words, their feelings. I’m just so glad that I actually wrote it and opted to read it. That was the only way I could represent my husband and my boys.”
Hamimah Tuyan and her late husband, Zekeriya Tuyan. Image: RNZ
She did not want to look at the gunman and was surprised to find herself smiling at him when she entered court. That set the tone for the delivery of her statement. “He was attentive… I appreciated that he looked at me and was attentive.”
After reading out her statement, she like many others, felt a weight lift from her shoulders and then left everything in the hands of God and the judge.
“We were all calm after the last session and basically waited … listening to each and every word of Judge Mander’s sentence until the end – two hours.”
The sentence left her feeling “very relieved, we prayed for this outcome and the judge handed it to him with such mana and such grace”.
Four months in writing Aya Al-Umari, who lost her brother, Hussein, at the Al Noor Mosque, told Morning Report her impact statement was four months in the writing.
She found it almost impossible because there were no words to express the experience of having lunch with her brother one day, and then having to think of burying him the next.
She said her mother, Janna Ezat, went “off-script” to offer forgiveness to the mass killer with her address. Her mother was a superwoman, Al-Umari said, and seemed to arouse some emotion in the gunman who wiped his eye.
“What my mum said would move mountains. So I don’t want to believe he has feelings, because he didn’t have any feelings when he killed 51 of us… I think my mother’s words really echoed, really moved mountains but I’m not sure [about the gunman’s response].”
Going on the Hajj to Mecca gave her some internal peace and tranquillity and now that the sentencing is over, she is adjusting to the new family structure without her brother.
Aya Al-Umari with her mother, Janna Ezat, standing at her side. Image: RNZ/John Kirk-Anderson/Stuff Pool
Hisham al-Zarzour, who survived the shooting at Al Noor Mosque because he was trapped under a pile of bodies, told Morning Report yesterday was a big day for all New Zealanders as well as the Muslim community.
Judgment ‘helpful for victims’ “The judgment was helpful for all the victims, especially when we know this is the first time for New Zealand… New Zealand proved to all the world this is a place for justice.”
He is grateful to Justice Mander for his thorough address before announcing the sentence. The judge had acknowledged the scale of the victims’ losses and did not believe that the terrorist felt any remorse.
“We’ll heal a little … at least we can feel we’re in a safe place.”
The terrorist had a distorted view of history, Hisham said, and in his impact statement he had tried to correct his misguided views.
Hisham al-Zarzour … trapped under a pile of bodies. Image: RNZ/John Kirk-Anderson/Stuff Pool
Despite losing his wife, Husna, in the attacks, Farid Ahmed did not attend the sentencing hearing.
Immediately after the attacks he made a point of forgiving the gunman, believing that he was a victim of wrong ideas.
The gunman had spoken through his bullets and Farid did not want to hear anything new from him.
“I didn’t want to give him the false gratification of telling him how I hurt and how I suffered.”
He said he felt love for the Muslim community and he respected their decision to take part in the hearing.
Despite not attending court, he still wanted to meet the terrorist in person to talk to him about why he carried out the massacre.
This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.
Where to get help: Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason:
Given the recent commentary about the reforms proposed for the news media sector, you would be forgiven for thinking Google and Facebook are the only game in town.
The planned reforms arose from last year’s Digital Platforms Inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which focused squarely on the corporate behaviour of these two tech behemoths.
It is clear Google and Facebook will be the first platforms regulated under the draft mandatory code that will potentially force them to pay for content produced by Australian news media companies. The move is a response to what the ACCC describes as “a significant bargaining power imbalance […] between Australian news media businesses and Google and Facebook”.
This idea that news companies are essentially stuck with Google and Facebook, for better or worse, is a common view. Yet while that might have been true a few years ago, media companies are realising there are other ways to cultivate readers, and there’s no need to be beholden to tech platforms that generate clicks but don’t want to pay for the privilege.
In the mid-2010s, many news companies seemed to follow Facebook’s every move. When Facebook promoted video, the media invested in video. When it down-ranked clickbait headlines, content writers frantically altered their style to maintain their presence in the news feed. Newsrooms have had a similarly dependent (albeit less direct) relationship with Google.
This dependency developed at a time when major platforms, particularly Facebook, were engaging substantially with the distribution of news. But in recent years this trend has declined, as governments have begun to regulate platforms in response to concerns over “fake news”.
Facebook performed perhaps the most public pivot, changing its algorithm in January 2018 to promote content from users’ friends and family. As a result, traffic to news sites fell, leaving profit-starved media companies to pursue alternative strategies or simply lay off staff.
In our research, published earlier this year, we spoke to 15 Australian journalists and editors who had collectively worked across 11 media companies after the dust had settled from the 2019 crisis.
We asked them whether their companies still depend on Facebook for traffic, or whether they have moved to other platforms, or are now doing something else entirely to cultivate their readership.
Breaking up with Facebook
Many respondents, particularly those who had worked at newer companies focused on social media, revealed they had followed the demands of the Facebook algorithm at times. They had pivoted to video and had focused on share counts. However, respondents working at older media companies also noted that lots of readers still visited their publication’s home page, which challenges the idea that companies depend totally on Facebook.
Companies were also exploring different ways of generating revenue. These included placing ads inside content (known as native advertising) and holding events.
The standout trend, however, was a renewed focus on subscriptions, ensuring that a certain percentage of readers actually paid money for the news product at some point.
The Conversation (which does not charge for access to its content) was one of the newsrooms that saw a steep drop in traffic as a result of the January 2018 algorithm change. As such, it has pivoted its digital strategy to prioritise the channels over which it has the most control, particularly its daily newsletter.
That’s not to say companies have stopped trying to engage with big platforms. Many are consciously trying to make their news easy to find via Google search (a process called search engine optimisation. Some companies (including The Conversation) have also begun distributing news through Instagram (which is owned by Facebook).
Yes, Facebook has literally billions of users. But it’s not the only way to reach readers.Eric Risberg/AP
Yet although the big platforms are doubtless here to stay, our research reveals a distinctly changed relationship between news and social media, compared with the past decade. Many companies, particularly newer ones like Buzzfeed and Vice, previously built huge audiences off the back of social media, and grew at a dizzying rate as a result. Now, companies are more interested in securing a stable revenue stream than in harvesting clicks.
The pandemic effect
This has become even more important amid the economic chaos caused by COVID-19. Advertising spending has dried up, leading to another round of media industry layoffs.
This suggests news media are still struggling to secure an alternative income stream to plug the hole in advertising revenue. The big question is whether big tech platforms will step in and help fill the gap by making financial contributions to news providers. Google’s current campaign against the draft mandatory code suggests they are deeply unwilling to do this.
Our research shows the relationship between news media and big tech platforms is far from straightforward. This is supported by a recent survey, which found that while many young people access news through social media, older people still prefer television or news websites. Not every Australian gets their news via social media.
There may come a time when platforms become the central access point for news, but it hasn’t happened yet. This doesn’t mean the ACCC should abandon platform regulation, but it does mean news companies are probably wise to find other ways of reaching their readers while they still can.
On November 3, Americans will vote not only for president, but for all members of the House of Representatives, a third of the Senate and a long list of state and local positions.
While the names of Donald Trump, Joe Biden and presumably others appear on the ballot paper, voters actually vote for a list of electors in each state, known as the Electoral College. Their composition is based on the total number of members of Congress from each state: so, California has 55 votes, and seven states plus the District of Columbia have three.
Hillary Clinton’s problem in 2016 was that she won huge majorities in several large states but lost most of the smaller states, which the system slightly favours.
The electors meet in each state capital and their votes are tallied and reported to a joint sitting of Congress. Members of the college are expected to vote for the candidate on whose list they appear. The Supreme Court has recently ruled to make this mandatory.
Australia borrowed the names of our two parliamentary chambers from the United States. But the crucial difference is that government here is determined by control of the House of Representatives. In the United States, with a separately elected president, Congress is less powerful, and within Congress the Senate is the more significant.
While the representatives are apportioned according to population, each state has two senators who serve for six years. With the power to block legislation and senior executive and judicial appointments, a hostile Senate can make a president impotent in many areas of domestic policy.
In the 1994 mid-term elections, two years into the presidency of Bill Clinton, the Republicans captured both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. In the past three decades, there have only been eight years in which the same party has held the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
This is not an usual pattern in American politics and, as long as the two parties straddled a wide range of positions, it did not prevent effective government. Members of Congress were expected to vote according to the demands of their constituency, not the party. On crucial issues, such as civil rights legislation or the impeachment of Richard Nixon, they were willing to cross the floor.
However, over the past 30 years, party allegiances have hardened as the centre of gravity in the two parties has polarised. The once-solid Democratic South has become Republican heartland, strengthening an ever-growing right-wing base. Meanwhile, a reaction against the centrist policies of Clinton and Obama has led to a shift to the left by Democrats, causing problems for Democrats from conservative states, such as Senator Doug Jones from Alabama.
Jones is likely to lose a seat he won in a special election because his opponent was an alleged serial sex offender, so the Democrats need to gain five Senate seats to reverse the Republican majority. If the two parties tie, the vice president has a casting vote, which was the case when George W. Bush was elected in 2000. That election marked the start of the “red” versus “blue” state terminology, which in American fashion reversed the usual assumption that blue was the colour of conservatives, red of radicals.
No other Democrat up for re-election looks vulnerable, but there are a number of states where the Republican candidate could lose. The tightest contests are in states that are not solidly red nor blue: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine and North Carolina.
The stakes are high in North Carolina, which is why the Republicans held their convention there.Evan Vucci/AP/AAP
The stakes are high: in North Carolina almost US$50 million (A$70 million) has been raised so far for the two candidates from the main parties. North Carolina is also a key state for the presidency, which is why the truncated Republican Convention was based there. Like Arizona, it has largely voted Republican over the past 30 years, but rapid population growth is changing party allegiances. It might join Virginia as a former Confederate state now moving back to the Democrats.
The Republicans would need to win 18 seats in the house to regain a majority, which seems unlikely. Individual candidates matter a great deal, but few observers expect more than a handful of seats to change after the Democrats’ mid-term success in 2018.
The greatest problem facing Democrats in November is the systematic way in which Republican state governments have made it more difficult for their opponents to vote. Republican state legislatures have limited the availability of polling stations, made registration more difficult and tightened ID restrictions: in Texas a gun licence is acceptable, but student ID is not. The president is constantly casting doubt over the election, aiming at postal votes in particular.
Few democratic societies have as low a turnout to vote as the United States. The Republicans believe this works in their favour and will do all it takes to keep the figures low.
This seems at odds with what we assumed about kids and COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic. Indeed, one positive in this pandemic so far has been that children who contract the virus typically experience mild illness. Most children don’t require hospitalisation and very few die from the disease. However, some children can develop a severe inflammatory syndrome similar to Kawasaki disease, although this is thankfully rare.
This generally mild picture has contributed to cases in children being overlooked. But emerging evidence suggests children might play a bigger role in transmission than originally thought. They may be equally as infectious as adults based on the amount of viral genetic material found in swabs, and we have seen large school clusters emerge in Australia and around the world.
How likely are children to be infected?
Working out how susceptible children are has been difficult. Pre-emptive school closures occurred in many countries, removing opportunities for the virus to circulate in younger age groups. Children have also missed out on testing because they typically have mild symptoms. In Australia, testing criteria were initially very restrictive. People had to have a fever or a cough to be tested, which children don’t always have. This hindered our ability to detect cases in children, and created a perception children weren’t commonly infected.
One way to address this issue is through antibody testing, which can detect evidence of past infection. A study of over 60,000 people in Spain found 3.4% of children and teenagers had antibodies to the virus, compared with 4.4% to 6.0% of adults. But Spain’s schools were also closed, which likely reduced children’s exposure.
Another method is to look at what happens to people living in the same household as a known case. The results of these studies are mixed. Some have suggested a lower risk for children, while others have suggested children and adults are at equal risk.
Children might have some protection compared to adults, because they have less of the enzyme which the virus uses to enter the body. So, given the same short exposure, a child might be less likely to be infected than an adult. But prolonged contact probably makes any such advantage moot.
The way in which children and adults interact in the household might explain the differences seen in some studies. This is supported by a new study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children and partners of a known case were more likely to be infected than other people living in the same house. This suggests the amount of close, prolonged contact may ultimately be the deciding factor.
How often do children transmit the virus?
Severalstudies show children and adults have similar amounts of viral RNA in their nose and throat. This suggests children and adults are equally infectious, although it’s possible children transmit the virus slightly less often than adults in practice. Because children are physically smaller and generally have more mild symptoms, they might release less of the virus.
In Italy, researchers looked at what happened to people who’d been in contact with infected children, and found the contacts of children were more likely to be infected than the contacts of adults with the virus.
Teenagers are of course closer to adults, and it’s possible younger children might be less likely to transmit the virus than older children. However, reports of outbreaks in childcare centres and primary schools suggest there’s still some risk.
A large outbreak occurred at Melbourne’s Al-Taqwa College.James Ross/AAP
What have we seen in schools?
Large clusters have been reported in schools around the world, most notably in Israel. There, an outbreak in a high school affected at least 153 students, 25 staff members, and 87 others. Interestingly, that particular outbreak coincided with an extreme heatwave where students were granted an exemption from having to wear face masks, and air conditioning was used continuously.
At first glance, the Australian experience seems to suggest a small role for children in transmission. A study of COVID-19 in educational settings in New South Wales in the first half of the year found limited evidence of transmission, although a large outbreak was noted to have occurred in a childcare centre.
This might seem reassuring, but it’s important to remember the majority of cases in Australia were acquired overseas at the time of the study, and there was limited community transmission. Also, schools switched to distance learning during the study, after which school attendance dropped to 5%. This suggests school safety is dependent on the level of community transmission.
As community transmission has grown in Victoria, so has the significance of school clusters. The Al-Taqwa College outbreak remains one of Australia’s largest clusters. Importantly, the outbreak there has been linked to other clusters in Melbourne, including a major outbreak in the city’s public housing towers.
Close schools when community transmission is high
This evidence means we need to take a precautionary approach. When community transmission is low, face-to-face teaching is probably low-risk. But schools should switch to distance learning during periods of sustained community transmission. If we fail to address the risk of school outbreaks, they can spread into the wider community.
While most children won’t become severely ill if they contract the virus, the same cannot be said for their adult family members or their teachers. In the US, 40% of teachers have risk factors for severe COVID-19, as do 28.6 million adults living with school-aged children.
In the US, 40% of teachers have risk factors for severe COVID-19, as do 28.6 million adults living with school-aged children.Shutterstock
Recent recommendations on mask-wearing by older and younger children mirror risk-reduction guidelines for schools developed by the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. These guidelines stress the importance of face masks, improving ventilation, and the regular disinfection of shared surfaces.
The changing landscape
As the virus has spread more widely, the demographic profile of cases has changed. The virus is no longer confined to adult travellers and their contacts, and children are now commonly infected. In Germany, the proportion of children in the number of new infections is now consistent with their share of the total population.
While children are thankfully much less likely to experience severe illness than adults, we must consider who children have contact with and how they can contribute to community transmission. Unless we do, we won’t succeed in controlling the pandemic.
.jpg?1588588937)
.jpg?1598415448)
#/media/File:Homa_during_Sri_Thimmaraya_swamy_Pratishthapana..jpg){kind=link}
