Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Last week’s formal recognition by the United Nations Human Rights Council that the right to a healthy environment is an essential human right has been heralded as a historic victory for environmental protection and an important step forward for the world’s most vulnerable people.

It’s also significant for coming on the eve of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 26) in Glasgow next month, billed as the last best chance to pledge emissions reductions large enough to head off the worst consequences of global heating and associated ecological harm.

On the other hand, UN recognition doesn’t make the right to a healthy environment legally binding. No New Zealander can now claim a remedy from the courts because our environment doesn’t meet the standard of being clean, healthy and sustainable.

So, what does a human right to a healthy environment really mean? Is it largely rhetorical, or will its adoption have tangible consequences both internationally and in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Better global standards

Despite its limitations, this new human right is certainly not useless. It’s the first time a right to a healthy environment has been explicitly recognised at the global level.

The right obliges states to protect against environmental harm, to provide equal access to environmental benefits and to ensure a minimum standard of environmental quality for everyone to enjoy.

Arguably, this paves the way for better global standards, bolder climate litigation, and even for more equitable sharing of the burdens and benefits of climate change.

Read more:
Who’s who in Glasgow: 5 countries that could make or break the planet’s future under climate change

It also creates a Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Climate Change, focused on tackling the effects of climate change on people’s enjoyment of their human rights.

And it’s likely other global and regional bodies, including the UN General Assembly and the Council of Europe, will soon acknowledge the right to a healthy environment.

Developments like this would make the right more credible and more visible, transforming it into an effective tool for challenging states and corporations to do more on environmental protection.

Enshrining the right in law

Overall, the right to a healthy environment reflects a new urgency to push environmental issues back up the international agenda. For example, plans to adopt a “Global Pact for the Environment” next year are gaining momentum.

Proponents are describing the pact as the most comprehensive international text ever on environmental rights, essential for protecting everyone and everything from the “triple planetary emergency” of climate change, pollution and nature loss.

Already, in places where a right to a healthy environment is part of domestic law, court decisions are resulting in stronger climate action.

Read more:
What is COP26 and why does the fate of Earth, and Australia’s prosperity, depend on it?

The Colombian Supreme Court, for example, recently decided that deforestation of the Amazon violated a right to a healthy environment for present and future generations, and required the government to put protections in place.

Meanwhile, the Nepalese Supreme Court has held that the government must take action on climate change as part of its citizens’ constitutional right to a clean environment.

From these and many more national examples, we can be confident that recognising a right to a healthy environment will help improve the implementation of environmental laws, help fill gaps in legislation and support respect for human rights generally.

Implications for New Zealand

New Zealand’s courts and policymakers look to international human rights for guidance and standards. As recognition of the right to a healthy environment grows internationally, we can expect to see greater reliance on it here.

But there is one specific area where I anticipate this right may provide a new approach: climate-change mitigation.

When it comes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and New Zealand, the elephant in the room – or the cow in the field – is the dairy industry. Between 1990 and 2018 New Zealand’s GHG emissions rose by 24%. The increase was driven largely by methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from fertilisers.

Both of these GHGs are many times more potent than carbon dioxide. Continuing to operate with this level of GHG emissions will make it extremely difficult for New Zealand to do its fair share of climate change mitigation or meet its international climate change obligations.

Read more:
Human progress is no excuse to destroy nature. A push to make ‘ecocide’ a global crime must recognise this fundamental truth

Protecting people and nature

The right to a healthy environment, then, could become a new lever for achieving big changes in a small window of time.

A rights-based approach to the environment will encourage a conversation around what a healthy environment means and who should enjoy it. It may even provide a fresh vocabulary for discussing broader issues, such as land use, transport and power.

As we battle COVID-19 at home, it’s tempting to take our eye off the grave environmental challenges ahead. To do that would be a mistake.

The full potential of a human right to a healthy environment remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that a healthy environment is essential for human health and well-being – and that protecting people and protecting nature are always interconnected.

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

– ref. How the new human right to a healthy environment could accelerate New Zealand’s action on climate change – https://theconversation.com/how-the-new-human-right-to-a-healthy-environment-could-accelerate-new-zealands-action-on-climate-change-170187

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jon Wardle, Professor of Public Health, Southern Cross University

The natural or “alternative” health community is often held up as being vaccine hesitant.

Yet, the relationship between the natural health community and vaccination is complex.

Stories such as the Adelaide naturopath recently disciplined for using a newspaper column to spread vaccine misinformation may make headlines.

But other stories like the director of Australia’s largest natural medicine society or even Nimbin’s herbal medicine columnist publicly advocating for COVID vaccination are more representative.

Although the link between natural health beliefs and vaccine hesitancy gets a lot of public attention, there’s actually little evidence on the topic.

I led a 2016 review which found opposition to vaccination was a minority opinion among natural health practitioners and users. Opposition was more likely related to an individual’s personal beliefs than a default philosophical position associated with natural medicine.

Some have suggested natural health practitioners could even help support vaccination activities. This isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. There are growing communities of natural medicine practitioners highlighting the alignment between vaccination and natural approaches to health.

One thing people often overlook is the adaptive immune response caused by vaccination is natural. Vaccination prepares the body’s immune system in the same way “natural” exposure to infection does. It just does it in a safer, controlled way with a much lower dose.

Given there’s no underlying reason why natural health and vaccination cannot coexist, why does this perception exist, and why does it persist?

Opposition to vaccines wasn’t always a given

One main reason for historical opposition to vaccination in natural health communities wasn’t due to the vaccine. It was because they rejected “germ theory” itself – the concept that unseen external pathogens like bacteria and viruses led to disease.

Early naturopathic pioneer Henry Lindlahr rejected vaccination in the early 1900s because “germs, bacteria and parasites are products of disease rather than its cause”. He argued “germs themselves cannot create disease – if they could, humanity would soon be extinct”. Also in the early 1900s, chiropractic founder Daniel Palmer rejected the notion there was any cause of disease beyond misalignment of the spine.

It’s important to view this historic opposition in context, given germ theory had only become mainstream in conventional medicine in the recent decades before these statements. Views of these natural health professions have similarly evolved.

Natural health communities sometimes raised “toxins” in vaccines as a concern. It’s important to remember, however, that vaccines up until the mid-1900s weren’t like the vaccines of today. First generation smallpox vaccines, for example, were crudely produced from calf lymph in a process considered cruel by animal rights groups, which were often closely linked with natural health movements.

Also, the natural health community didn’t reserve judgement for vaccines and pharmaceutical medicines. Natural health adherents saw other “drug systems”, such as herbal medicine and homeopathy, as equally invasive and unnatural. Although few would see these therapies as incompatible with natural health today, their adoption by naturopathic practitioners caused significant tensions in the budding “drugless” profession.

Just as vaccine hesitancy can be a proxy for deeper concerns about medicine and the state, conflict between the natural health community and medicine also came to influence vaccine views.

Opposition wasn’t always a given. One of Australia’s earliest Australian naturopathic journals blamed medicine for stealing vaccination from natural healers without credit.

Towards the second half of the 20th century, anti-vaccination statements increasingly began to target those vaccinating (usually medical doctors) as much as the vaccine. Eventually the oppositional stance of “alternative” health subsumed parts of the natural health community.

Due to their marginalisation by the medical community, parts of the natural health community started taking on positions that were more about opposing conventional medical practice than about aligning with natural health philosophies.

These underlying factors are similar to why so many people opposing COVID vaccines as unnatural put their faith in equally unnatural alternatives such as ivermectin today.

What are the natural alternatives to vaccination?

To put it bluntly, there aren’t any.

Homeopathic remedies are marketed by some practitioners as alternatives for childhood vaccinations. The most commonly promoted are those claiming to protect against infectious diseases such as malaria and even COVID. A 2011 survey found nearly one-quarter of Australians thought these “homeopathic vaccines” were an effective replacement for conventional vaccinations. Some have even unknowingly received homeopathic vaccinations thinking they’re conventional vaccinations.

Linking homeopathy and vaccination isn’t surprising. Both emerged during the same period in the 1790s and both focused on infectious diseases (vaccination for prevention of smallpox, homeopathy to address symptoms of malaria).

Homeopathy’s founder Samuel Hahnemann viewed vaccination not only as effective and powerful, but also as an extension of and validation of his own theories.

It might not surprise you homeopathic vaccination alternatives aren’t supported by the scientific community. But it may surprise you to know they’re not supported by the homeopathic community, either.

According to homeopaths, this is because the mechanism of action of “homeopathic vaccination” is wholly incompatible with homeopathic theory.

Homeopathic vaccines are neither homeopathic nor are they vaccines.

What about just increasing immunity ‘naturally’?

Some natural health practitioners have claimed their therapies can offer similar immunity as vaccines. However, these views are usually fringe and roundly rejected by their natural health practice and research peers.

What’s more, boosting for a bigger immune response isn’t necessarily better. Boost the wrong parts in favour of others, and a hyperactive immune system can make things worse in the short term, as well as the long term. Autoimmune disease (where an overactive immune system starts attacking the body) is thought to be one of the causes of “long COVID”.

In natural health we talk about the therapeutic hierarchy. This recommends using low level interventions which encourage self-healing processes to avoid more intrusive and invasive therapies where possible.

Vaccines – once properly tested and assessed for safety and efficacy – clearly fit this bill. They’re a minimal dose, preventive intervention that support and develop the body’s own healing resources to fight disease.

And they offer the opportunity to avoid the alternative of aggressive treatment and management of infection and associated symptoms later on.

Ultimately vaccination, like the use of natural therapies, is a matter of personal choice. But as someone passionate about both natural health and public health, it’s one I would highly recommend people take up.

If you’re hesitating to get vaccinated because you’re concerned it may not align with your preferences for a natural approach to health, there’s no need to be. Vaccines may have more in common with natural health approaches than differences.

Jon Wardle received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for part of this work. He is Maurice Blackmore Chair of Naturopathic Medicine and Foundation Director of the National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine, which was established with a gift from the Blackmore Foundation. He is also co-convenor of the complementary medicine special interest group of the Public Health Association of Australia.

– ref. Follow a natural health philosophy? Vaccination may have more in common with it than you think – https://theconversation.com/follow-a-natural-health-philosophy-vaccination-may-have-more-in-common-with-it-than-you-think-167981

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

As well as Michelle Grattan’s usual interviews with experts and politicians about the news of the day, Politics with Michelle Grattan now includes “Word from The Hill”, where all things political will be discussed with members of The Conversations’s politics team.

In this week’s episode, politics + society editor Amanda Dunn and Michelle discuss the tortuous negotiations with the Nationals over the 2050 net zero target the PM intends to take to Glasgow. The Nationals claim they’re not holding the government to ransom, but they’re playing hardball in extracting protections for the regions.

They also canvass Anthony Albanese’s reference of Labor MP Anthony Byrne – who gave sensational evidence to IBAC last week about branch stacking – to the Finance Department to determine whether he breached rules by employing taxpayer-funded staff who didn’t even turn up at the office.

Additional audio

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

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Mustering the government’s rural rump into the 2050 tent – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-mustering-the-governments-rural-rump-into-the-2050-tent-170218

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

Few of us who have survived the last year aren’t grateful for technology.

Zoom, email, connected workplaces and solid internet connections at home have made it possible to work, shop, study and carry on our lives in a way that wouldn’t have been possible had the pandemic hit, say, 20 years earlier.

But parts of big tech — the parts that track us and drive us to think dangerous and antisocial things just so we keep clicking — are doing us enormous damage.

Although it might seem like we can’t have the best of both worlds — the connectivity without the damage — I reckon we can. But we are going to have to change the way we think about big tech.

The first thing is to recognise that big tech is intrinsically weak. Yes, weak. The second is that it has only become strong each time we have let it.

By “big tech” I mean Facebook and Google and related companies such as Instagram and YouTube (owned by Facebook and Google respectively).

The firms that came before them were indeed weak in the sense that they didn’t have a guaranteed future. Think back to Netscape, Myspace, MSN and all those other montholiths we were told at the time would become natural monopolies.

Terrified of losing its edge

Much of the behaviour revealed by Facebook whistle-blower Frances Haugen this past month is that of a market leader terrified it is losing its edge.

It switched what it showed away from news towards posts that inflamed and enraged people in 2018, with “unhealthy side effects on important slices of public content” in part because users had begun to interact less with it.

Facebook knew that “we make body image issues worse,” in the words of one of its memos, but did little to change the way Instagram worked. In part this was because teens spent 50% more time on Instagram than Facebook. Instagram looked like the future.

When engagement on Instagram started flagging, Facebook developed plans for Instagram Kids, seeing pre-teens as “a valuable but untapped audience”.

These don’t sound like the actions of a company confident of staying on top.

And nor does its initial purchase of Instagram in 2012 when it could have started its own photo-sharing service on mobiles, leveraging all that it had.

Facebook also bought WhatsApp in 2014 because its own messaging platform, Messenger, was losing ground.

It couldn’t grow anything like as big by itself, because when firms grow beyond a certain size they turn sluggish, bureaucratic.

Google got bigger by buying DoubleClick (the platform it uses to sell the advertisements that drive its income) and all manner of emerging platforms including Android, YouTube, Waze and Quickoffice.

They are the actions of a hungry company, but not one supremely confident of staying at the top.

Australian academic Stephen King, a former member of Australia’s Competition and Consumer Commission and a current commissioner with its Productivity Commission, says we need to apply special tougher rules to takeovers by companies such as Google and Facebook.

Big tech grows bigger by takeovers

Usually we only block takeovers where the target is big. Instagram and WhatsApp were small. Instagram reportedly had 13 full-time employees at the time of its takeover, WhatsApp reportedly had 55. Yet Facebook paid billions for them.

In the US and the UK both takeovers were waived through.

Big tech companies can do things with tiny takeover targets others can’t. Takeovers can give them access to vast networks of existing users and their data.

As King puts it, Instagram is big because it was acquired by Facebook, not because Instagram was necessarily the best target.

Read more:
We allowed Facebook to grow big by worrying about the wrong thing

In Europe the authorities were on to this possibility and approved the takeover of WhatsApp only after Facebook informed them it would be “unable to establish reliable automated matching between Facebook users’ accounts and WhatsApp users’ accounts”.

This statement was incorrect, Facebook has done it, and paid the European Commission €110 million for providing incorrect or misleading information.

Had Australia been tougher, had the US, the UK and the European Commission been tougher, Facebook and Google would be nothing like the behemoths they have become today. They might have peaked and be losing market share.

We are able to say no

Their future is largely in our hands. For big tech companies able to use the weight of their networks (and only for those companies) we could “just say no” to takeovers. It’s hard to think of a reason for one to proceed.

If needed, we could change the law to make “no” the default.

Read more:
Why Facebook and other social media companies need to be reined in

This wouldn’t shrink the companies in a hurry. Most of the users of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the like are locked in, because that’s where their friends are.

But where the friends are changes every generation.

Facebook and Google know this, which is why they are so keen to take over upstart competitors and emerging platforms in fields they haven’t thought of.

If we stopped them, we wouldn’t stop them growing straight away, but we would make it hard for them to fight the natural order in which the new and fashionable displace the old and predictable. It’s their deepest fear.

.

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

– ref. The easy way to rein in Facebook and Google: stop them gobbling up competitors – https://theconversation.com/the-easy-way-to-rein-in-facebook-and-google-stop-them-gobbling-up-competitors-170104

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Giuffre, Senior Lecturer in Communication, University of Technology Sydney

When Emma Watkins took over as “The Yellow Wiggle” in 2012 there were huge headlines. Her casting was a seismic shift for those who grew up loving her male predecessors (Greg Page, and then briefly Sam Moran), but also a challenge to the status quo. As Forbes proclaimed: “the Wiggles are dead. Long live the Wiggles.”

For over 20 years, The Wiggles was headlined by four men. With the first female Wiggle, “the girl with the bow in her hair” and “Emma Ballerina”, the cult of Emma Wiggle became a huge part of Australian (and international) playrooms: 50% of current Wiggles merchandise sales are attributed to her alone.

In her nine years as the Yellow Wiggle, Emma became an obvious favourite and point of difference in the band. As she hangs up the yellow skivvy, it is worth reflecting on just how important her casting was at the time – and what her legacy means for the band going forward.

Early childhood role models

When The Wiggles started in 1991, it was a massive statement to have four men lead as early childhood role models, musicians, artists and teachers.

The original Wiggles proved Australian men could exist without needing to be in close proximity to a crocodile or sporting field – they could dance, play, and invite their audiences to come along just for the pure joy of it all.

That’s not to say the going was always easy. According to Blue Wiggle Murray Cook, the group’s iconic “Wiggle fingers” move was actually a deliberate decision made to show where their hands were at all times while working with children.

Read more:
Shows for little people: why seeing live music early matters

As musicians, songwriters, performers and innovators, The Wiggles have been hugely successful.

In Australia, they are multi ARIA and APRA award winners, and the original Wiggles Anthony Field, Greg Page, Murray Cook and Jeff Fatt have been awarded the Order of Australia and honorary doctorates from Macquarie University. In January, the group hit one billion music streams across streaming services. For years, AC/DC and The Wiggles vied for the top of the BRW Top 50 Entertainers rich list.

In the early 2000s, The Wiggles won the hearts of America too via The Disney Channel, selling out 12 consecutive shows at Madison Square Garden. They were so well known (and loved) that Tina Fey’s 30 Rock made a hilarious (but not safe for kids!) parody of them, “The Waggles”.

When most of the original line up retired and Emma, Lachly and Simon came on board in 2012, it was proof the skivvies and songs could live on.

The first ‘girl’ Wiggle

Emma has always made the Yellow Wiggle position her own: bringing something new to the role. From the start, her performances with the otherwise male-dominated group were highly accomplished. A skilled dancer, her focus was often on movement first and sound second – this allowed different ways for audiences to engage.

While all the group dressed up, her flowing skirt and huge bows were clear points of difference. But it was never just the girls doing ballet: the whole extended cast joined in a range of styles and genres from Irish dancing to hip hop. All audiences were invited to participate in these extended styles of movement.

When “purple wiggle” (and former husband) Lachy Gillespie appeared on Instagram wearing an Emma bow he proudly declared “Boys can be Emma”.

More important than her costumes was Watkins’ advocacy for Auslan and other inclusive practices. Anyone who has ever seen the show, or her self-titled spin off, can at least sign “E, M, M, A” in Auslan.

Innovations

The Wiggles have entertained generations of Australian children and their families. They are not just “children’s music”: The Wiggles belong to everyone. This is perhaps most true in the other news from today, that the original line up, the “OG Wiggles”, will be performing again in another series of 18+ shows.

The band is now a truly cross-generational line up: with founder Anthony Field still writing and performing in his late 50s; Lachy and Simon each very new parents; and Watkins’ replacement 16-year-old Tsehay Hawkins, a wonderful dancer and performer who has already appeared with the group as part of their earlier broadening this year into an eight-piece main cast for “Fruit Salad TV”.

The cast of eight also reflects a changing and increasingly culturally diverse Australia. While politician Matt Canavan criticised the expansion as The Wiggles “going woke”, for many it was proof that representation matters not just for children, but for the adults (and artists) they become.

There is no question that positive and diverse role models influence audiences of all ages, but especially those of pre-school age.

Read more:
Why it’s so important for kids to see diverse TV and movie characters

Onto the next generation

As a parent, I can’t wait to see how The Wiggles continue to grow, as the next Wiggle girls appear on screen wearing pants, riding skateboards and leading the songs.

So, Emma Wiggle: thanks for everything. Thanks for literally being up with us while everyone else is asleep (either with a baby who is up very late or a toddler very early). And thanks not just for the little kids – but for the comfort you and the other Wiggles continue to give to us bigger kids too.

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

– ref. Emma is hanging up the yellow skivvy: how the ‘first girl Wiggle’ created a powerful legacy – https://theconversation.com/emma-is-hanging-up-the-yellow-skivvy-how-the-first-girl-wiggle-created-a-powerful-legacy-170200

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily van der Nagel, Lecturer in Social Media, Monash University

Have you heard of OnlyFans? It’s a social media platform – like YouTube or Instagram.

Access isn’t open to everyone, however. Only subscribers (“fans”) can see the photos and videos posted by OnlyFans content creators. Most subscriptions cost around US$10 (A$13.50) a month, with tips as optional extras.

Visiting the OnlyFans homepage, you’re invited to “sign up to support your favourite creators”. The platform describes itself as a place where “creators can monetise their content and interact with their fanbase”.

So, if you’re new to OnlyFans, it may surprise you to learn it is overwhelmingly understood as a site for adult content. The phrase “to start an OnlyFans” is commonly understood to mean someone is selling access to erotic, or sexually explicit, photos and videos of themselves.

Why is there this disconnect? And why is this a problem?

Studying OnlyFans

In a new article for journal Porn Studies I analysed 100 news articles (from February to December 2020), 100 OnlyFans memes (gathered January 2021), as well as 100 posts to the official OnlyFans blog (from mid-2018 to early 2021).

Read more:
The rise of the ‘porntropreneur’: even hustlers need side hustles in the gig economy

These sources represent different perspectives. News articles reflect mainstream understandings. Internet memes – remixed snippets of popular culture – reveal our shared norms and values. Meanwhile, official blog posts can tell us about the image Only Fans is attempting to cultivate.

My study drew on the work of social media scholars Karin van Es and Thomas Poell, who argue, what people think a platform is for matters – they call this the “platform imaginary”. It impacts how people use it: their expectations and experiences. Importantly, it also impacts who thinks the platform is for them.

A ‘celebrity porn app’?

My analysis discovered very different ideas about what OnlyFans is for, or a contested “platform imaginary”.

News articles were most likely to call OnlyFans a “celebrity porn app”, an “X-rated subscription platform”, or “adult entertainment site” for “racy snaps”.

In a similar vein, memes about OnlyFans implied the platform was for adult content, with jokes about how easy it is for women to make money by showing off their bodies.

Other memes include a man taking a photo of his behind, with the tagline, “when you find out how much money they make on OnlyFans”. Another is a picture of a serious-looking young man on the phone, captioned, “Me calling customer support when her OnlyFans is just pictures of her in a bikini”.

The memes were especially telling – they didn’t just joke about OnlyFans being a platform for adult content, they also slut-shamed the creators by inferring that selling adult content was degrading.

Or a place for makeup and workout tips?

By contrast, 87% of posts to the OnlyFans blog don’t mention adult content at all.

Instead, the blog showcases fitness instructors, beauty experts, photographers, artists, and musicians. One (rare) post to do this claims the platform will support, and never censor, pole dancers.

This ties in with its official (vague) line that OnlyFans contains “content creators from all genres”. This emphasis is misleading, given OnlyFans CEO Tim Stokely created the platform in 2016 to capitalise on the rising demand for customised porn.

OnlyFans has thrived during COVID lockdowns. From November 2019 to November 2020, it posted revenues of US$400 million (A$541 million), up 540% over the previous year. Although there is an argument the company needs to “rebrand” to stay profitable. As Axios recently reported, while sexual content makes the site popular, “it also scares off venture capitalists”.

Profiting from, then banning, explicit content

In August, OnlyFans announced it was going to ban sexually explicit content, explaining it must “evolve our content guidelines”,

In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the platform, and to continue to host an inclusive community of creators and fans.

There was an immediate backlash. Not only was it ridiculed as nonsensical (a site for adult content that doesn’t allow adult content?), sex workers, porn performers, and adult content creators were outraged about being banned from a site they had helped make famous and profitable.

The company reversed the decision just a week later, after resolving a undisclosed issue with its payment providers. But anger and distrust remains, as now the door is open to OnlyFans banning explicit content in the future.

Deplatforming sex

There is also a bigger issue here about maintaining spaces where sex workers are safe and able to do their jobs.

Often debates around “deplatforming” (removing someone’s access to a web site) centre around free speech and whether people like Donald Trump should be allowed a Twitter. But deplatforming is also a serious threat to sex workers and porn producers as part of a “gentrification” of the internet.

Read more:
Does ‘deplatforming’ work to curb hate speech and calls for violence? 3 experts in online communications weigh in

There are multiple harms flowing from this.

Banning sex from a particular platform means sexually marginalised people lose somewhere safe to interact. As queer studies scholar Stephen Molldrem wrote when microblogging site Tumblr banned porn in 2018:

many queers, kinksters, people who engage in various kinds of sexual commerce, and transfolk who use the platform […] are going to get shafted by the decision (and not in a good way).

It also cuts off important avenues for sexual experimentation, and education. And destroys the livelihoods of those in the adult industry.

Further adding to the uncertainty is the issue of chargebacks – payment providers see sex and porn as high-risk industries because of the high rate people denying they paid and getting a refund.

What OnlyFans should do now

My research shows the split identity of OnlyFans. This is something it will need to resolve going forward (both for itself and its creators). But there’s an opportunity here for OnlyFans to declare its support for sex workers and porn performers.

Read more:
OnlyFans controversy highlights the bind facing most gig workers

Openly stating adult content creators are welcome, including them prominently on the OnlyFans blog, and proactively working with payment companies to ensure they can profit from their work would set an example. As an aside, Fortune notes, going G-rated might help OnlyFans secure investors in the short term, but could cost the business over the long term.

Meanwhile, for those in a stigmatised, precarious industry, a place that cultivates a sense of belonging for adult content creators is a platform worth imagining.

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

– ref. OnlyFans has a split identity – it needs to declare its support for adult content creators – https://theconversation.com/onlyfans-has-a-split-identity-it-needs-to-declare-its-support-for-adult-content-creators-169358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rochelle Constantine, Associate Professor of Marine Biology, University of Auckland

The world’s rarest marine dolphin, Māui, is found only along the west coast of the North Island of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Based on our surveys over the last two summers, during which we collected small tissue samples for DNA analysis, we estimate there are currently only 54 Māui dolphins over one year of age.

These estimates are similar to previous surveys carried out over the past decade, since the establishment of the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary in 2008, which restricts or regulates the use of setnets, trawling and drift nets within 12 nautical miles of most of the west coast.

The prevailing narrative remains that fisheries pose by far the most significant threat, but we argue it is time to act on other causes of death, including the parasite that causes toxoplasmosis, a disease that starts in cats.

Māui dolphins are a genetically distinct subspecies, separated by about 15,000 years from the closely related Hector’s dolphin. They look identical but Māui dolphins are found only along the west coast of the North Island and are critically endangered, while Hector’s are mainly found around the South Island.

Historically, there were several hundred Māui dolphins, but numbers declined rapidly from the 1970s, largely because they were being caught in fishing nets. Despite warnings during the 1980s and 1990s about the unsustainable number of deaths, there was initially a lack of urgency to address this threat.

We now risk repeating history by ignoring other known threats.

Dolphin deaths from toxoplasmosis

We know toxoplasmosis kills Māui dolphins, but the greatest challenge in determining the exact cause of death is finding their bodies. Some wash ashore, but with so few dolphins spread over a sparsely inhabited, rugged coastline, only a small percentage are found. Many are too decomposed to determine their cause of death.

Post-mortems show they die from “natural” causes such as old age, disease and shark predation, but also from human-related factors, including toxoplasmosis.

Researchers found over half of the dead Māui and Hector’s dolphins examined were infected with the parasite that causes toxoplasmosis. Of the ten Māui dolphins found dead since 2006, two had died of toxoplasmosis.

This parasite completes its life cycle inside a cat, producing millions of eggs that enter the environment in cat poo. These eggs are extremely resistant. They can survive hot, cold, dry and wet conditions, including in seawater, for at least a year.

Read more:
Toxoplasma ‘cat poo’ parasite infects billions – so why is it so hard to study?

The eggs enter the sea in freshwater runoff, where they are eaten by fish, shellfish and crabs. Māui dolphins are most likely infected by eating fish that have consumed the parasite eggs. Once inside a dolphin, the parasite multiplies and can cause death.

Toxoplasmosis also kills native birds and can cause disease in humans.

The fact that cats can indirectly kill dolphins is difficult for many people to comprehend, leading some to discount this as a serious threat. While the overall impact of toxoplasmosis is currently unclear, ultimately this is a human-caused threat which should be openly discussed, as has happened for fisheries threats.

We believe the current focus on fisheries bycatch, to the exclusion of all other threats, puts Māui dolphins at risk of further decline.

Repeating history

There is considerable uncertainty around this threat, but we do know Māui dolphins die of toxoplasmosis and this disease causes population-level impacts on other species of marine mammals, including sea otters and Hawaiian monk seals.

In terms of action, we’ve been here before: lack of certainty around Māui dolphin bycatch deaths in the 1980s and 1990s meant that the threat from fisheries was largely ignored, with the loss of more dolphins.

We risk repeating history if we again ignore the known threat of toxoplasmosis because we are unable to have courageous conversations about managing the risk to the few remaining Māui dolphins.

We believe the fisheries risk, while not entirely eliminated, has largely been controlled. However, because of the exclusive focus on fisheries from some sectors, New Zealand is at the centre of a US lawsuit to ban our fish imports.

This lawsuit claims there is insufficient protection from bycatch. It is based on unsupported information about Māui dolphin distribution. If the lawsuit is successful, it could cost New Zealand up to NZ$200 million.

Considering the Māui dolphin’s status and the financial risk to New Zealand, the government seems slow to support open discussion, research and actions to manage poorly understood risks, including disease.

Read more:
Study identifies nine research priorities to better understand NZ’s vast marine area

Millions of research dollars are spent on terrestrial species that have less urgent immediate conservation needs and less reputational risk to Aotearoa. The Māui dolphin is our most urgent conservation priority, and we face challenging decisions.

If we are to learn anything from the lack of action to manage fisheries threats when they were first identified, it is that we should not let uncertainty stop us from acting to manage other threats to Māui dolphins.

Rochelle Constantine receives funding from the Department of Conservation – Te Papa Atawhai and Fisheries New Zealand – Tini a Tangaroa. She is affiliated with MAUI63.

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

– ref. The critically endangered Māui dolphin is a conservation priority — we shouldn’t let uncertainty stop action to save it – https://theconversation.com/the-critically-endangered-maui-dolphin-is-a-conservation-priority-we-shouldnt-let-uncertainty-stop-action-to-save-it-167987

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabi Mocatta, Research Fellow in Climate Change Communication, Climate Futures Program, University of Tasmania, and Lecturer in Communication – Journalism, Deakin University

Our children are growing up in a volatile climate. It’s already damaging their health, wealth and well-being. Universities can be leaders in helping young people gain the knowledge they need to navigate this uncertain future. Curious Climate Schools, a project that connects young people directly with experts who can answer their climate questions, is a model for just this kind of leadership.

Universities across the globe come together this week to support climate action leadership in their communities as part of Global Climate Change Week. In Tasmania, our Curious Climate Schools project has connected over 1,000 school students, aged 10-18, with 57 climate researchers from diverse disciplines to answer students’ questions.

Climate change will increasingly affect our children’s lives, even if we take the profound action needed this decade to avert the worst of it. Young people will need to be climate-literate for the world they are inheriting. Although learning about climate change is established as vital in enhancing understanding and action, climate literacy education is not mandated in the Australian Curriculum.

Our aim is to empower children to develop essential climate knowledge through student-led enquiry. Our experts’ answers to questions from schools across the state will be made public on the Curious Climate Schools website on November 1. This will coincide with the COP26 climate summit, connecting local and global climate leadership.

Read more:
More reasons for optimism on climate change than we’ve seen for decades: 2 climate experts explain

What do young people want to know?

Students have submitted questions to our project that range from the global to the local. Key themes in their questions included:

• who is responsible?

• how urgent is action?

• how do we adapt and care for the planet and its future inhabitants?

• why aren’t politicians listening?

The children had many queries about the science of climate change, but even more about our social and political responses. For example:

“I’m 13. What do you think climate change will alter about the world in my lifetime, and what can I do about it?”

“Does the climate crisis have the potential to unite humanity in response?”

“When it comes to future generations, how will they feel about what we have done?”

While children are interested in the physical science behind climate change, their questions show they are equally concerned with how we should act on climate as a society. This suggests that when climate change is taught in schools, it should be taught holistically. While understanding the drivers of climate change is important, teaching must also address the social challenges we face and the decision-making processes this wicked problem demands.

Read more:
Free schools guide about inclusiveness and climate science is not ideological — it’s based on evidence

A way to counter climate anxiety

The current silence on climate in schools’ teaching is bad for children’s mental health. Research has established that speaking about climate change is an important first step in easing legitimate climate anxiety. Education that enables students’ agency through climate literacy could reduce the mental health burden on young people.

We need climate-literate young people. Empowering them to talk about climate change could both improve their mental health and help to build the engaged citizenry and leadership we need to face the climate crisis.

Acknowledging that children have a stake in climate action and decision-making is vital. Without this, they feel disempowered and frustrated. We saw this in some of the questions submitted to Curious Climate Schools.

“Do you believe that we as the future leaders are being heard enough? For example, Scott Morrison or the other politicians, are they listening?”

These students are our future leaders. They deserve to be heard.

A model for university climate leadership

Many universities are well equipped to address local climate challenges in partnership with their communities. Curious Climate Schools is an example of how universities can engage with the public to enhance climate knowledge and action.

Read more:
This is how universities can lead climate action

Our project is harnessing the knowledge, care and enthusiasm of 57 experts. They work in a range of fields, including climate modelling, biodiversity conservation, pyrogeography, chemistry, law, social science, engineering, geology, oceanography, paleoclimatology, Indigenous knowledges and health.

The Curious Climate Schools website will equip students with holistic climate knowledge and help teachers to address a subject at the forefront of students’ minds – if not the Australian Curriculum.

With initiatives like Curious Climate Schools, universities can be leaders in climate action. In this decisive moment, it is crucial that we harness our collective talents in whatever ways we can to ensure a liveable world for our children.

Gabi Mocatta received funding from the University of Tasmania and from the Tasmanian Climate Change Office for the research and engagement reported in this article. She is vice-president of the Board of the International Environmental Communication Association and co-lead of the Climate Change Communication and Narratives Network, funded by Deakin University.

Chloe Lucas received funding from the University of Tasmania and from the Tasmanian Climate Change Office for the research and engagement reported in this article. She is also funded by the Australian Research Council. Chloe is a member of the Institute of Australian Geographers and the International Environment Communication Association, and is a member of the Editorial Board of Australian Geographer.

– ref. Children deserve answers to their questions about climate change. Here’s how universities can help – https://theconversation.com/children-deserve-answers-to-their-questions-about-climate-change-heres-how-universities-can-help-169735

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

Anthony Albanese has referred Labor MP Anthony Bryne to the finance department to investigate his employment of taxpayer-funded staff who didn’t turn up to his office.

Albanese said he had first spoken to Byrne about whether he would refer himself to the department over the staff, who were taken on at the behest of a factional boss.

But Byrne said he had legal advice it was not appropriate, because of the undertakings he had give the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission.

“Therefore I referred Mr Byrne,” Albanese said.

At IBAC last week the Labor MP, who has held the Victorian federal seat of Holt since 1999, admitted to engaging in branch stacking and to agreeing to engage two staffers at the request of then factional powerbroker Adem Somyurek. The men didn’t even appear in the office.

Byrne was a long time ally of Somyurek, but after they fell out he became a whistle blower.

The resulting exposure of the branch-stacking scandal has led to the fall of four Victorian government ministers including Somyurek, who is out of the part and sits on the crossbench.

IBAC is holding public hearings “into allegations of serious corrupt conduct involving Victorian public officers”, including MPs.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Anthony Albanese needed to walk the talk on Labor integrity issue

These are part of a coordinated investigation between IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman, looking at matters including the allegations of branch stacking aired in the media last year, when footage was shot secretly in Byrne’s office.

Branch stacking is against ALP rules but not illegal. But the misuse of staff employed on taxpayer money can involve breaches of the law.

Last year federal minister Michael Sukkar and former minister Kevin Andrews were investigated by the finance department after allegations of the misuse of electorate officers to recruit Liberal party members to boost factional numbers.

They denied the allegations and were both cleared. The finance department said: “Further investigation of the matters within the scope of the review is not warranted as there is not a sufficient basis to form a view that there was serious misuses of Commonwealth resources”.

Albanese dodged questioning about whether Byrne will be Labor’s candidate at the election, but it seems increasingly unlikely he will be.

Read more:
IBAC vs ICAC: what are these anti-corruption commissions and how do they compare?

“We’ll deal with those matters at the appropriate time,” Albanese said. “IBAC at the moment is still having hearings.”

Byrne has resigned his membership of the parliamentary intelligence and security committee and the privileges committee.

Albanese has been under increasing pressure to take a firm stand against him, especially given how strongly he spoke out against Sukkar.

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

– ref. Albanese asks finance department whether Byrne breached official rules over staff – https://theconversation.com/albanese-asks-finance-department-whether-byrne-breached-official-rules-over-staff-170204

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca K. Runting, Lecturer in Spatial Sciences and ARC DECRA Fellow, The University of Melbourne

Nature rarely recognises national borders. Many Australian birds, for example, are annual visitors, splitting their time between Southeast Asia, Russia, and Pacific Islands.

Yet, most efforts to protect ecological processes and habitats are designed and implemented by individual nations. Not only are these traditional approaches to conservation too geographically limited, they don’t address problems that seep across borders and drive ecosystem decline.

Our new research shows international collaboration and environmental management across national borders – a truly transboundary approach – is essential. We focused on an international environmental agreement that recently came into force across the Latin America and Caribbean region.

Known as the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean – or, more commonly, as the Escazú Agreement – it offers a hopeful example of new strategies to rise to this transboundary challenge.

What is the Escazú Agreement?

In 2018, 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries were invited to sign and ratify the landmark Escazú Agreement, the first legally binding environmental agreement to explicitly integrate human rights with environmental matters.

It has so far been ratified by 12 signatory countries; 11 additional signatory countries have signed it but not yet ratified.

As we detail in our recent paper:

The agreement outlines an approach to enhance the protection of environmental defenders, increase public participation in environmental decision-making, and foster cooperation among countries for biodiversity conservation and human rights.

The Escazú Agreement and human rights

Countries from this region share transboundary species such as jaguars, as well as marine reserves containing immense biodiversity (including 1,577 endemic fish species).

But the Escazú Agreement isn’t just about flora and fauna. It also highlights the importance of human rights and public participation in environmental management – elements that are also vitally important for transboundary conservation.

Latin America and the Caribbean have a history of disputed maritime claims and a mismatch between management of terrestrial and marine jurisdictions.

Environmental protections and jurisdiction complexities have, in the past, curtailed the rights of Indigenous people who traditionally fish in these areas.

This is where the Escazú Agreement could have contributed. It sets out guidelines for public engagement and may have helped Indigenous people have their voices heard.

But Colombia and many island states are yet to ratify the Escazú Agreement. Doing so would help with these issues in future.

Many biodiverse countries with high levels of human rights violations and sharing multiple ecosystems and species have not yet ratified the agreement.

Read more:
This bird’s stamina is remarkable: it flies non-stop for 5 days from Japan to Australia, but now its habitat is under threat

Marine transboundary conservation needed

Ocean borders are extra messy. Some 90% of marine species compared to 53% of terrestrial species have habitat and migration ranges that cross national borders. Countries with large numbers of transboundary marine species include the US, Australia and Japan.

Many of Australia’s iconic ocean species – such as great white sharks, sea turtles, and humpback whales – are international migrants found in over 100 countries.

Even species that don’t move at all, like plants or corals, are often widely distributed. Take the slimy sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca), which grows along the coasts of almost 200 countries.

Marine species essentially share one ocean, making transboundary management extra challenging. Not only can threats such as pollution rapidly spread large distances over ocean currents, our traditional concept of sovereignty and borders makes even less sense on the ocean than it does on land.

Many countries must cooperate to protect species ranges across vast tracts of ocean.

Australia plays a key role

Australia must step up as a leader of domestic and transboundary management. After the US, it has the most transboundary marine species in its ocean territory.

Most species are shared with Indonesia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the high seas. As a well-resourced country, it is imperative Australia is part of international efforts to preserve this biodiversity.

Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

Australia has a poor record on protecting its terrestrial biodiversity, and is ranked among the top nations that import shark fins.

Our patchwork legislation leaves the door open for unsustainable and illegal shark finning.

Australian governments need to collaborate with other countries, industries, and socio-environmental NGOs, and local communities leading the way in best practice in environmental conservation.

The Escazú Agreement shows how this can be done.

A beacon of hope

There’s no doubt international collaboration adds challenges to environmental management.

Yet the recent Escazú Agreement offers a beacon of hope in forming just international environmental agreements that protect both the environment and human rights.

Signing agreements like these is just the first step. Then, we must work implement them consistently on land or sea, across countries and in a way that’s inclusive of local stakeholders.

The world’s nations have accepted the idea we must cooperate to combat climate change. We’ll also need international collaboration to protect the vast majority of Earth’s biodiversity and natural systems.

Read more:
What is COP26 and why does the fate of Earth, and Australia’s prosperity, depend on it?

Rebecca K. Runting receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Sofía López-Cubillos is affiliated with the International Institute for Sustainability (Australia) and Fundación Manigua desde la Tierra (Colombia).

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

– ref. Nature doesn’t recognise borders but countries can collaborate to save species. The Escazú Agreement shows how – https://theconversation.com/nature-doesnt-recognise-borders-but-countries-can-collaborate-to-save-species-the-escazu-agreement-shows-how-168253

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Damien Spry, Lecturer, University of South Australia

If some anonymous troll went after one of my children, I’d be livid. And if my colleagues supported me, I’d thank them.

So, on some level, I can sympathise with Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce when he railed against the rumour-mongering on social media that targeted his daughter earlier this month.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Communications Minister Paul Fletcher, who has recently authored a book on these matters, backed him in.

The Coalition leaders have taken aim at the social media giants, claiming they should take greater responsibility for false and damaging content on their sites, including by identifying offenders. Should they not comply, Morrison argued,

they’re not a platform anymore — they’re a publisher … and you know what the implication of that means.

Difference between platforms and publishers

What is the difference between a publisher and platform? And what exactly are the implications, under Australian law, for US-based social media companies like Facebook and Twitter when it comes to false and harmful content being posted to their sites?

The main difference between the two is that one is shielded from defamation actions in Australia (platforms), while the other is not (publishers).

Complicating matters, in a landmark ruling last month, the High Court said media companies and private individuals – but not the platforms themselves – can be treated as publishers of both the content they post and comments that are posted in response. As such, they can be liable for both if they are defamatory.

Read more:
High Court rules media are liable for Facebook comments on their stories. Here’s what that means for your favourite Facebook pages

Australian attorneys-general are considering changes to defamation law to address this issue, including whether social media companies should be considered publishers and therefore be more liable for the content that appears on their sites. This could potentially put them at risk for defamation claims.

A related question addresses the obligations of these companies to identify anonymous authors of defamatory content.

This seems to be what Morrison had in mind when he made the distinction between platforms and publishers this month. In practice and principle, it is a vitally important and complex area of media law.

Why US laws in this space are paramount

For the social media giants, however, Australia’s laws on this front are far from the most important or relevant.

Indeed, two US laws provide American tech companies with powerful protections from defamation penalties incurred internationally.

The most recently enacted law is the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (2010), otherwise known as the SPEECH Act. (US lawmakers love rousing titles.)

The SPEECH Act makes foreign defamation judgements unenforceable by US courts if they are inconsistent with US laws. This law is designed to prevent “libel tourism” – the act of taking action in countries such as the UK and Australia, where defamation claims are more likely to succeed.

The other US law that applies in cases like this is the notorious section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996), containing what has been described as “the 26 words that created the internet”. This passage says

no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information provider.

This law, enacted a decade before the rise of social media, essentially shields tech companies from legal responsibility for the content that appears on their sites, with very few exceptions.

Read more:
What is Section 230? An expert on internet law and regulation explains the legislation that paved the way for Facebook, Google and Twitter

Despite a growing consensus among US lawmakers that section 230 is a problem, there is no bipartisan agreement on the nature of the problem, or how to fix it.

The irony is that section 230 was designed to encourage emergent online platforms (blogging and chat sites, chiefly) to monitor, moderate and/or remove harmful (and “obscene”) content.

Previously, these sites were protected if they left user-posted content untouched, but they ran the risk of being seen as a publisher, and thus liable, if they took editorial action against such content.

Does Australia have any legal options?

Together, the SPEECH Act and section 230 suggest Australian defamation findings against US-based companies might be unenforceable. So threats to treat Facebook and Twitter as publishers may be toothless.

Australia can claim jurisdiction on the basis these companies are operating businesses here, but this may not be sufficient. Their complex multinational corporate structures provide the tech giants with an effective judicial shield.

Australia could also try to make enforcement easier by pursuing the matter through law reform. For example, legislation could make tech giants’ local subsidiaries liable for local content and require assets to be held locally for use as potential compensation.

But this, I predict, would meet with robust resistance.

The Australian government may claim to have beaten the tech giants once already with the news media bargaining code, which forced them to the bargaining table on the matter of compensation to media companies for news content.

Morrison has claimed as much when he said:

We have been a world leader on this, and we intend to set the pace.

But this wasn’t really a decisive victory; it was more like a negotiated ceasefire. The news media bargaining code is on the books, but has yet to be applied. The social media companies have instead negotiated arrangements separately and independently with news media providers. Some, including SBS and The Conversation, have missed out.

Similarly, if Australia actually, as Morrison threatened, designated the tech giants as publishers, they would effectively be unable to operate here, due to the unrealistic task of pre-moderating all posted content for fear of constant defamation claims.

Read more:
A push to make social media companies liable in defamation is great for newspapers and lawyers, but not you

A proposed compromise, in which social media platforms take action against content that has been reported to them, would require them to assess an endless cacophony of defamation claims. Many could be spiteful nonsense. And any claim might take an expert court months to determine.

These operating conditions would be unbearable. I agree with Tama Leaver, a professor of internet studies at Curtin University, who said the tech giants would likely withdraw from Australia altogether.

No level of self-congratulation is proof Australia can prevail against the tech giants. Despite the chest-thumping by our leaders, Australia cannot “set the pace”. The main game is always being played in Washington. Change, if possible, will have to come from there.

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

– ref. This is why Australia may be powerless to force tech giants to regulate harmful content – https://theconversation.com/this-is-why-australia-may-be-powerless-to-force-tech-giants-to-regulate-harmful-content-169826

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amalie Dyda, Senior Lecturer, The University of Queensland

New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet has announced that from November 1, quarantine will no longer be required for international arrivals who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

The federal government, which makes decisions about international borders, is supporting the plan to a point. Tourism will not reopen, with only Australian citizens, residents and their families eligible to return in the initial stages. Victoria also announced it was opening borders to fully vaccinated people coming from NSW without the need for quarantine, and then announced it was lifting lockdown restrictions.

The federal government had previously announced it was reopening international borders over the coming months for vaccinated returnees, who could quarantine at home for seven days. But the NSW decision scraps quarantine altogether for vaccinated travellers.

So what are the risks and benefits, and what might Australia look like over the coming months?

Read more:
Australia’s international borders to reopen from November. It’s one big step towards living with COVID

Is this as scary as it sounds?

There are reasons for concern, but there are also some protections in place.

This rule will only apply to those who are fully vaccinated, with a vaccine approved by Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

The most recent research shows full vaccination is 65%-90% effective depending on the vaccine at protecting against symptomatic infection. And those who have had both doses are less likely to pass the virus on.

For those who aren’t vaccinated, caps will remain in place. Only 210 non-vaccinated people will be allowed to enter NSW from overseas each week. Quarantine requirements will also remain in place for unvaccinated people.

Returning travellers will also require proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of their departure flight. This significantly decreases the risk of people travelling to Australia with COVID-19, but doesn’t eliminate the risk.

Data from hotel quarantine in NSW this year has shown between 0.2% and 1.4% of people in hotel quarantine have returned a positive test. However, the risk of individual infection will likely differ depending on where people are travelling from.

Reasons for concern

While more than 80% of the NSW population over 16 years is fully vaccinated, this isn’t distributed equally.

Some regional areas have vaccination coverage of less than 60% in those aged over 16 years. This creates greater risk for people living in these communities as international travel resumes.

Importantly, Australians aged less than 12 years are still not eligible for vaccination, meaning no one in this age group is currently vaccinated.

What’s more, if case numbers do rise in response to the relaxation of international travel rules, this may increase the pressure on the NSW health-care system. Previous media reports have suggested the system is under strain already.

Relaxation of international quarantine may also increase the risk of introducing new COVID-19 variants into the population, which would increase the risk of large outbreaks.

There is some good news, too

The announcement will mean many Australians who remain stranded overseas will now be able to return home.

This is significant given the current situation is resulting in serious mental and economic impacts for those stranded.

What do we still need to know?

There are a number of key details missing from the premier’s announcement last Friday, the most important of which is: how will people be monitored when they return to Australia and what testing will be required?

It also remains unclear how this will affect families travelling with unvaccinated children aged less then 12, who aren’t eligible for vaccination.

And while it won’t change the outcome, providing more information on any health advice this decision was based on may help to boost public confidence.

What does this mean for other states and territories?

This will likely further divide the individual state and territory COVID-19 responses in Australia.

NSW has a high vaccination rate, which again provides some protection for the population when reopening. But this isn’t the case for all other states and territories. Queensland and the Northern Territory are reporting two-dose vaccination coverage of less than 60% in those aged 16 years and over.

In the short term, the NSW announcement will likely have impacts for states and territories with lower vaccination rates or those taking a more cautious approach. The details are still not clear, but it’s unlikely those coming into NSW from overseas will be able to travel freely across Australia. This may also impact states opening up to residents of other states with different procedures in place, like NSW and Victoria.

However, as vaccination rates increase and the rest of the country announces their strategies to open up, the country should end up on more even footing over time.

The home quarantine trials currently underway in some Australian states remain important.

International travellers not fully vaccinated will still be required to quarantine, which has significant mental health impacts.

Trials of home quarantine to decrease the economic and mental burden of hotel quarantine remain vital to the pandemic response.

It’s also unlikely all states and territories in Australia will follow the lead of NSW, which means quarantine will still be required for overseas travellers coming into other states for the foreseeable future.

How COVID-19 spreads in NSW and Victoria over the coming months will also be important. The effects of eliminating quarantine on the spread of disease will provide valuable information for other states to better inform their strategies moving forward.

Overall, we don’t know definitively what the implications of this announcement will be as there are many unknowns. This is a constantly evolving situation that will need to be monitored closely over time.

Even the experts don’t appear to agree as to whether this is the best way forward, but no matter what decisions are made, transparency and clear messaging are key for public health.

Going forward, let’s try to remember the good news that many stranded Aussies will now be able to return home.

And for us as individuals and a community, increasing our vaccination rates remains critical to better protect us all from the spread of COVID-19.

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

– ref. NSW scraps home quarantine for returnees. What are the risks, and what does this mean for the rest of Australia? – https://theconversation.com/nsw-scraps-home-quarantine-for-returnees-what-are-the-risks-and-what-does-this-mean-for-the-rest-of-australia-170016

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

As students return to schools in Victoria and New South Wales after months of lockdowns, many people may be worried about the risks to their kids – and transmission overall.

The role that schools play in transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19 has been difficult to work out, but new evidence can finally answer that question. Schools do amplify community transmission, but the good news is that some relatively simple mitigation measures can make schools much safer places.

To successfully navigate the next phase of the pandemic and protect our kids, we need to switch to a so-called “vaccine-plus” strategy – vaccination together with measures to clean the air.

What new evidence says about opening schools

A new study conducted in the United States found school reopening in late 2020 was associated with an increase in COVID-19 cases and deaths.

Some of the increase can be attributed to other restrictions being eased at the same time, and to parents having the ability to return to the workplace, where transmission also occurs.

But importantly, cases and deaths increased most in counties where students and teachers did not have to wear masks at school.

We shouldn’t be surprised at this finding, because face masks are one of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of COVID-19. An investigation into school outbreaks, supported by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), found that schools without an indoor mask requirement were 3.5 times more likely to have an outbreak than schools in which students and staff did have to wear masks.

This is why the CDC recommends universal indoor masking by all children aged two and older, as well as teachers and visitors to schools, regardless of whether they’re vaccinated.

More evidence to support masks in schools

One of the reasons it has been hard to see transmission in schools is because children generally have mild symptoms. This leads to infections going undetected. But the picture is very different when researchers actively look for cases.

Read more:
Can’t get your kid to wear a mask? Here are 5 things you can try

Researchers in Belgium conducted a study where primary school children and their teachers were tested once per week for 15 weeks. They found many instances of transmission between children and adults that spread beyond the school to the children’s parents and to the teachers’ partners. Some mitigation measures were in place in the school, but not mask wearing.

Other measures help too

Perhaps the most dramatic example of failing to protect schools comes from England. Schools reopened this September without a mask mandate and with very little investment in ventilation.

Within one month, random testing showed that 8% of secondary school children and 3% of pre-primary and primary school children had an active infection.

This occurred despite more than 80% of people aged 16 and older having received two vaccine doses. Accordingly, infections in adults were much lower — around 1% or less in all age groups.

This clearly shows that high levels of vaccination in adults aren’t sufficient to protect children, because children easily transmit the virus to each other.

Read more:
We may need to vaccinate children as young as 5 to reach herd immunity with Delta, our modelling shows

It also shows that infections in children don’t simply reflect overall community transmission. Schools play a key role in amplifying the spread of COVID-19.

Why we need to protect children

We need to prevent infections in children for a number of reasons. First, although most children with COVID-19 experience mild illness, a small proportion become unwell enough to need hospitalisation.

This might not sound like a big problem, but we can expect almost all of Australia’s 3.8 million children to eventually get infected if we don’t vaccinate them. A small proportion of this is a big number, and could easily overwhelm children’s hospitals, which is what happened in the US.

Children who get COVID-19 can also be left with persistent symptoms, known as long COVID. It’s not clear exactly how often this occurs, but the condition is common enough that England’s National Health Service has set up 15 long COVID clinics for children. In Israel, long COVID clinics have long waiting lists.

Read more:
No, we can’t treat COVID-19 like the flu. We have to consider the lasting health problems it causes

High levels of transmission in children also leads to educational disruption. Two weeks after the start of the autumn term in England, more than 100,000 children were absent from school due to confirmed or suspected COVID-19.

And children can easily transmit the coronavirus to other children and to adults. This will lead to parents and others in the wider community getting sick, including some vaccinated people.

Although COVID-19 vaccines are very good at preventing severe disease, they’re not perfect, and breakthrough infections can occur. To keep breakthrough infections to a minimum, we must keep community transmission low.

Here’s how we can make schools safer

It’s not difficult to make schools much safer places, but it does require putting more emphasis on cleaning the air rather than cleaning our hands. This is because COVID-19 is caused by an airborne virus that can drift through the air like cigarette smoke.

Independent scientific advisory group OzSAGE recently launched comprehensive guidance on how to prevent this type of transmission in schools.

OzSAGE recommends vaccinating children, their parents, and teachers as soon as possible; increasing ventilation and using HEPA air filters to clean indoor air; and ensuring masks are worn by all staff and children who can safely wear them.

Read more:
From vaccination to ventilation: 5 ways to keep kids safe from COVID when schools reopen

These measures will likely have benefits beyond the pandemic. Stuffy air in classrooms isn’t good for learning, and academic outcomes have been shown to improve with ventilation.

Cleaning the air is an investment for our children’s future.

Dr Zoë Hyde is a member of the OzSAGE independent scientific advisory group.

– ref. COVID-19 cases rise when schools open – but more so when teachers and students don’t wear masks – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-cases-rise-when-schools-open-but-more-so-when-teachers-and-students-dont-wear-masks-169928

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society and NATSEM, University of Canberra

The Bitcoin bulls are racing again. A year ago the cryptocurrency was valued at less than US$12,000. Now it has passed the symbolic milestone of US$60,000, nudging the US$63,255 record it reached in mid-April, before its price fell to as low as US$30,000 in July.

Bitcoin’s rally over the past month is largely attributed to speculation the US Securities and Exchange Commission is poised to approve an exchange-traded fund, or ETF, based on Bitcoin futures.

So what is an ETF, and why does this matter to the value of Bitcoin?

How does an ETF work?

An exchange-traded fund is an investment fund, comprising a pool of assets, traded on a stock exchange. The general attraction is that an ETF offers individual investors the benefits of diversification, protection and liquidity.

Suppose, for example, you want to invest $100,000 in commercial property. You can’t afford to buy an office building or a shopping centre by yourself – and, even if you could, buying just one building would be putting all your eggs in one basket.

Here’s where a funds manager with an ETF can help. The manager buys a number of office buildings and shopping centres across a range of locations. Suppose these assets cost $100 million. These are “bundled” into a fund with 1,000 units sold for $100,000 each.

It’s like buying a share in a company. It allows you, the investor, to avoid the exposure that comes from buying a single asset. Instead, you get a share of a diversified portfolio.

If the value of the portfolio rises, so does the value of your unit. If you want your money – to liquidate your asset by selling it – this is easy to do because the fund’s units are traded on an exchange.

An ETF is also regulated. This protects you from some of the risks (such as fraud) that come from buying assets directly.

How funds are managed

Rather than physical assets (as in our example), many ETFs hold securities such as stocks and bonds or derivatives. These funds can be either passively or actively managed.

Passively managed funds, which are the most prevalent, hold a basket of assets that track the market, or a market segment. An “index fund”, for example, holds shares in proportion to their weight in a stockmarket index such as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. If a company makes up 5% of the index’s value, the manager will ensure its share makes up 5% of the fund.

Actively managed funds, by contrast, hold more shares whose price the fund manager expects to rise strongly, and fewer or no shares they expect to perform poorly. Whether the return on these funds exceeds those delivered by passive funds depends on whether the fund managers’ judgement (or luck) is better than that of the market as a whole.

What has this got to do with Bitcoin?

A Bitcoin-based ETF is seen as something that will entice more investors to gamble on cryptocurrency.

Buying Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies directly can be fraught. Forget your private key (the equivalent of a password or PIN) and you lose it all. There is no friendly local bank manager who can retrieve or reset a password or make good your loss.

Scams are also on the rise. In the US alone, more than 81,000 cases of fraud were reported in 2020.

So bundling up cryptocurrencies into products overseen by traditional funds managers and regulators can be seen to have advantages, bringing greater respectability to cryptocurrency trading. (So long as you aren’t bothered by that being the antithesis of the decentralised and distributed ideals that drove techno-libertarians to create cryptocurrencies in the first place.)

Read more:
China’s digital currency could be the future of money – but does it threaten global stability?

Beware another bubble

But while investing in cryptocurrencies through an ETF brings a number of safeguards, it does not reduce the market risk. An indirect gamble is still a gamble.

Indeed an ETF of Bitcoin futures isn’t even indirect ownership of a pool of bitcoins. It’s a pool of contracts about bets on the future price of the cryptocurrency.

If this sounds a bit like the complicated derivatives known as collateralised debt obligations that led to the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, you’d be right. The more complex the financial instruments become, the more dangerous they may be.

Read more:
Vital Signs: swaps, options and other derivatives aren’t just for the financial elite

One of the few who who predicted the collapse of that market was hedge fund manager Michael Burry (portrayed by Christian Bale in the 2015 movie The Big Short). Last week he effectively warned that cryptocurrencies are a speculative bubble. This is a view shared by most economists and business leaders.

As with all bubbles, some will make fortunes, but many will lose. Take care.

John Hawkins used to work for two central banks and the Bank for International Settlements.

– ref. What is an ETF? And why is it driving Bitcoin back to record high prices? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-an-etf-and-why-is-it-driving-bitcoin-back-to-record-high-prices-170095

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Crosby, Lecturer, Department of Economics, Macquarie University

Many authors dream of overseas success for their work, but how Australian books find publication in other territories and languages is not well understood even in the publishing industry.

Our new research has found that between 2008 and 2018, the number of international book rights deals made for Australian titles grew by almost 25%. This was driven, in part, by the international success of adult fiction titles from 2012 onwards and increased demand for Australian books in China.

Interestingly, during this time, over half of all deals were for children’s books. Still, there was a significant increase in the number of deals struck for adult fiction, which now accounts for around 30% of deals each year. More than 9,000 deals were made over the decade.

While almost one in five deals specified the title would remain in English, 13.7% were made for Chinese translations, followed by Korean (7% of deals). The data also reveals the increasing importance of Eastern European markets such as the Czech Republic and Slovenia, along with decreased demand for German, Dutch and Spanish translations.

Read more:
Friday essay: is this the end of translation?

This is the first major attempt to measure the scale of Australia’s international book rights sales. Advances from them deliver a total of around $10 million each year to Australian writers, providing a valuable additional income stream.

Large, medium and even small Australian publishers are negotiating rights deals for their authors, and Australian literary agents are an established part of the international scene.

The success is across a broad range of genres including crime, romance, action thriller, contemporary women’s fiction, self-help and literary fiction.

Rights management involves a seller (who could be a publisher, literary agent or author) licensing the right to make and sell copies of a print, ebook or audiobook, and adaptation rights such as television, film and theatre.

63% of senior agents and publishers told us they felt there had been an increase in international interest in Australian authored books over the ten-year sample period.

Our findings include a report and case studies that aim to shed light on this important commercial and cultural aspect of the book industry.

The kids are alright

Titles aimed at younger readers (picture books up to young adult) were very popular with overseas buyers.

The reasons are not entirely clear: ultimately, the books themselves must work on their own terms in overseas markets. In addition to well-known series such as the Treehouse books by Andy Griffiths and Terry Denton, Judith Rossell’s books featuring Stella Montgomery, and John Flanagan’s Ranger’s Apprentice and Brotherband adventure series, there are hundreds of lower-profile titles which have “travelled”.

The decades-long expertise of Australian authors, publishers and agents in specialist children’s genres (often overlooked in the industry before the success of the Harry Potter series) is also likely to be a factor.

Deal-making

Since the 1980s, Australian publishers and literary agents have quietly been building international networks based on years of attendance at key book fairs in Frankfurt, Bologna, New York, London and more recently, Shanghai. These fairs, along with welcoming delegations of publishing executives and other strategies, help them find exactly who might be receptive to a pitch about their latest Australian books.

As Libby O’Donnell, Head of International Rights and International Business Development at HarperCollins Australia, puts it, “Every book can potentially have some readers overseas but not every book can have a market overseas that makes it viable to publish.”

While attendance at book fairs and personal relationships are key to successful deals, we observed different models of deal-making. O’Donnell was involved in international auctions for Trent Dalton’s Boy Swallows Universe and Meg Mason’s Sorrow and Bliss.

Read more:
Boy Swallows Universe: theatrical adaptation of hit novel blends pain with nostalgia to astonishing effect

She describes developing a carefully timed international campaign to draw out the biggest bids for these books. Six groups competed for the television rights to Boy Swallows Universe.

But rights sellers who work for some of the largest Australian publishers also described their passion for finding overseas publishers for books with less commercial potential. For Ivor Indyk at the highly respected literary press, Giramondo Publishing, it’s about forming alliances with like-minded literary publishers enabling overseas publication of Australian books that may become part of a literary canon.

Although publishers and agents benefit financially and in terms of prestige, ultimately, the biggest beneficiaries are authors. For most authors, the majority of their income will be from the Australia and New Zealand market. Rights income is “icing on the cake”.

A small proportion of Australian authors can live off their rights income, or sell substantially more books overseas than here. But most authors are excited by the opportunity to have their work read and appreciated overseas; offering another income stream and enhancing their international reputations.

However, the pandemic has hit the international book industry hard – with international travel on hold for so long.

Our report recommends initiatives such as mentoring arrangements and continued investment by industry and government in outgoing and incoming trade delegations (including to key book fairs). This will be more important than ever as publishers and agents re-establish connections after a hiatus of nearly two years.

Paul Crosby receives funding from Australia Council for the Arts and the Copyright Agency Cultural Fund.

Jan Zwar receives funding from the Australia Council for the Arts and the Copyright Agency Cultural Fund.

– ref. New research finds a growing appetite for Australian books overseas, with increased demand in China – https://theconversation.com/new-research-finds-a-growing-appetite-for-australian-books-overseas-with-increased-demand-in-china-170015

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

The Nationals appear to be inching towards accepting the net zero 2050 climate target, wrapped in a protective layer of cotton wool and of course accompanied by expensive sweeteners.

After all they’ve said over the years, the step is a huge one for them. But apart from the symbolism, for everyone else it’s a very small one, moving from the government’s present policy of reaching net zero “preferably” by 2050.

Scott Morrison, addressing the Liberal parliamentary party on Monday, spelled out what he intends to take to Glasgow and what he has no intention of taking.

He’s determined to present a firm 2050 commitment. He knows that if he doesn’t, Australia will be a pariah.

He’s now far enough down the 2050 target road that he can’t afford not to get his way, even if he has to add some strong-arming to the largesse on the table for the Nationals.

In his speech to the Liberals he indicated the policy decision was one for cabinet, not the party rooms (though the Nationals would contest that, and Barnaby Joyce has flagged he needs the consent of a majority of his colleagues, accepting he won’t get them all).

Read more:
Joyce says Nationals don’t want bigger 2030 climate target as party room frets about regional protections

In question time later, Morrison reiterated who’s in charge. “The government decision on the government’s commitments for Australia in relation to Cop26 will be made by the government in cabinet.”

In urging his position in the Liberal party meeting, Morrison said that on the climate issue the world had moved on, highlighting the change in the United States.
take

He referenced Australia’s place in the western alliance and warned that if it decided to be out of lockstep with its friends it would draw down very seriously on the capital it had built up over decades.

Morrison also made clear the government won’t lift Australia’s 2030 target of a 26-28% reduction in emissions on 2005 levels.

This leaves the Coalition agonising over 2050 when the focus of other countries is on 2030. It would be easier to understand if the agonising were over a new 2030 target.

Read more:
Barnaby Joyce has refused to support doubling Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction targets – but we could get there so cheaply and easily

Morrison says the current 2030 target was an election commitment – that gives him a rationale for sticking with it. Regardless, the Nationals, who are having enough trouble worrying about nearly three decades away, would never buy pledging more by 2030. So their party room was not even asked to consider it.

Instead, Morrison will be armed with “projections” of what emissions reductions Australia expects to reach. The numbers aren’t yet known but it is speculated emissions could decrease by 32-36% by 2030.

The matters to be resolved to get the Nationals in the 2050 tent are said to be about money, messaging, the protections for the regions, and the practicalities of the government’s plan. The timeline is unclear.

Nationals deputy leader David Littleproud on Monday was sounding encouraging. “We’re working through this issue pragmatically, understanding what the prime minister is trying to achieve.

“There could be winners and losers in this, but we’ve got to understand where they are and who they are and how do we address that. But if you’re a coal miner in central Queensland, you shouldn’t be shuddering in your boots today. Coal mining will continue for well beyond 2040.”

What was needed, Littleproud said, was “a calm environment” for consideration of the climate plan. “There’s a lot of religion in this. But the religious zealots from both sides need to bugger off and let the adults in the room work through the issues.”

Read more:
Australia’s top economists back carbon price, say benefits of net-zero outweigh cost

He’s right of course, although the observation is more than a bit rich when Nationals’ “zealotry” has held back progress on the climate issue for more than a decade.

As he nails down his own policy, Morrison is already ramping up his attacks against Labor’s yet-to-be released one.

He declares the opposition has “no plan” and offers a “blank cheque” (as distinct, presumably, from the government’s very large cheque now being written for the regions).

And, “every time you hear Labor talking about cutting emissions, they are putting up your taxes”. No mention of the fact “your taxes” would be paying quite a lot for the government’s policy too.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: A small step for everyone else is a big leap for the Nationals – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-a-small-step-for-everyone-else-is-a-big-leap-for-the-nationals-170138

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joseph Ibrahim, Professor, Health Law and Ageing Research Unit, Department of Forensic Medicine, Monash University

An estimated 50 sexual assaults occur nationally every week in Australian residential aged care facilities. Despite this shocking figure, none of the Aged Care Royal Commission’s 148 recommendations released earlier this year specifically address the prevention of sexual violence.

Our recent study, published in the International Journal of Older Persons Nursing, found two-thirds of aged care staff had not received any training in prevention of sexual violence in the previous 12 months. Staff confirmed aged care approved providers often do not have dedicated or specific procedures to prevent or manage incidents.

Failing to combat sexual violence in aged care homes demonstrates an apathy towards older survivors and reinforces the existing difficulties faced by older people to achieve a basic human right: to live free from sexual violence.

Read more:
4 key takeaways from the aged care royal commission’s final report

Reacting, not preventing

Australia’s approach to preventing sexual violence in aged care focuses on mandatory reporting obligations set down by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The rules require staff to define “victim impact” and “incident seriousness”. This approach lacks a scientific basis and deprives the older person of their autonomy – a right included prominently in the Royal Commission recommendations. It also shifts responsibility of complex social, legal and health issues unfairly onto care staff.

In response to the concerns from the aged care sector about how to apply the new rule, this month the regulator released the unlawful sexual contact decision support tool. This tool seeks to define incidents as “Priority 1” or “Priority 2” according to how staff, not the survivor, have the perceived seriousness.

Criminal acts of sexual violence, including those perpetrated by staff members, may fall under the tool’s less urgent category – if the resident doesn’t require medical or psychological treatment as judged by the person using the tool. This means reporting to the regulator only needs to occur within a 30-day period. The longer reporting period could put others in danger and cause distress to residents and co-workers.

The regulator has argued there’s an expectation aged care providers will report any “serious” incident immediately to police and to the regulator. In a statement, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission told the ABC this was covered by the question: “Are there reasonable grounds to report the incident to the police?”

However, an earlier report commissioned from KPMG into the prevalence of abuse between aged care residents found aged staff reported no (58.1%) or minor (35%) physical or psychological impact afterwards for those raped or otherwise sexually assaulted survivors.

This report also revealed only 3 of the 1,259 incidents deemed Priority 1 or “very serious” were reported to the police. Although this was before the advent of the decision tool, it highlights the dangers of placing responsibility on individual staff members with inadequate training.

Read more:
Only 3.8% of Australian aged care homes would meet new mandatory minimum staffing standards: new research

Expecting aged care staff to do forensic work

A fundamental flaw in this tool is that it assumes certain capabilities of aged care staff.

What constitutes reasonable grounds to report to police is a complicated forensic concept. In the aged care setting, incidents of sexual violence may involve both a survivor and a perpetrator with cognitive impairment. This adds to the already difficult task of “proving” an act of sexual violence has occurred. When the crime involves staff assaulting a resident, bystander stress and the daunting task of reporting a co-worker add further complexity.

Asking aged care staff to take on decisions that require policing expertise is dangerous.

Read more:
It’s hard to think about, but frail older women in nursing homes get sexually abused too

Tailored training could help

At the Health, Law and Ageing Research Unit we have developed an e-training intervention to improve sexual violence incident detection, management and prevention. It aims to promote collaboration with expert dementia and sexual violence support services.

The e-training intervention covers key definitions and characteristics, detection, management and ways to support resident victim-survivors, as well as tools to teach staff how to manage residents and prevent incidents.

Participants in our study who did the training reported better awareness, enhanced reflection on their current practice and improvement in sexual violence workplace management. The majority said they found the training relevant, practical and useful.

Only part of the solution

This training provides a first step to identify the learning needs of this population. It provides a model curriculum to guide development of training initiatives nationally and internationally.

Advocate’s for reform have repeatedly detailed what else should be addressed. This includes engaging government, insurers, boards of management and executives to resource and develop an organisational culture that eliminates sexual violence.

Preventing sexual violence should be of critical concern to Australia. We must move past reactive measures and unsubstantiated approaches such as asking staff to assess the impact of sexual violence. Instead we should be developing solutions to protect residents from incidents ever occurring.

Joseph Ibrahim received funding from Commonwealth Social Service (2015-17) and State Health Department (ongoing) for research, education and consultancies into residential aged care services and health care services. He also is an independent advocate for age care reform details available at https://www.profjoe.com.au/

Amelia Grossi is a research assistant for The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Health, Law & Ageing Research Unit, Monash University.

Daisy Smith is a research officer for The Department of Forensic Medicine, Health Law & Ageing Research Unit, Monash University.

Meghan Wright is a research assistant for The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Health, Law & Ageing Research Unit, Monash University.

– ref. Aged care staff urgently need training to report and prevent sexual assault – https://theconversation.com/aged-care-staff-urgently-need-training-to-report-and-prevent-sexual-assault-169734

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander William O’Donnell, Research Associate, College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University

One-third of Australian children aged 12 to 13 in low-income suburbs do not take part in any extracurricular activities. That’s 2.5 times as many as those from higher-income suburbs – only 13% of them don’t take part – according to research we will present next week to the Australian Social Policy Conference. Yet research also shows it is children from disadvantaged backgrounds who are likely to benefit most from taking part in extracurricular activities.

Most children in Australia play a sport or take part in an extracurricular activity like dance, drama or Scouts. All of these activities can benefit their health and academic outcomes. For these children, such activities are typically available, accessible, affordable and safe.

However, many children who live outside major cities or in poorer suburbs face major barriers to participation. Cost is one obstacle. A Mission Australia report shows young people whose parents are not in paid work have low rates of participation in sport and cultural activities.

Poor public transport access is another barrier. Low-income suburbs also often lack clubs and facilities to run extracurricular activities.

Read more:
Young Australians’ prospects still come down to where they grow up

What help do governments offer?

State and territory governments provide vouchers or subsidies to help families cover some of the costs of such activities. But the rules of these schemes can be arbitrary and inconsistent, and tackle only some of the barriers to participation. The schemes often exclude non-sporting activities, despite the academic and psychological benefits matching or exceeding those provided by sports.

The vouchers can typically be used to part-cover registration fees. Their value varies around the country:

• $100 per year in South Australia

• $150 per year in Queensland

• $200 per year in New South Wales, Northern Territory and Tasmania

• $300 per year in Western Australia

• up to 100,000 $200 vouchers that can be claimed up to four times in 2021-22 in Victoria.

In some states and territories (Qld, Tas, Vic, WA) vouchers are restricted to children named on health care cards or pensioner concession cards. In others (NT, NSW, SA) the vouchers are more freely available.

When vouchers are widely available, affluent families and communities tend to use them more. Low-income families may not have the money to cover the full costs of taking part in an activity, or may be unaware of voucher schemes, despite their greater need for help with costs.

Read more:
Some public schools get nearly 6 times as much funding, thanks to parents

Sports vouchers do increase sport participation. Still, hefty out-of-pocket expenses remain.

Some clubs have taken imaginative steps towards reducing these costs, such as trading parent volunteer time for fees. But such approaches are not widely used and are not perfect.

Support is needed beyond sport to close the gap

While sports are great for development, lots of children also enjoy taking part in non-sporting activities. Research shows the academic and psychological benefits of these activities are equivalent to or can exceed those provided by sports.

In our research being presented next week, we found that children in more affluent communities typically reported high peer connectedness and school belonging, regardless of participation in activities. But children in disadvantaged communities who take part in extracurricular activities reported significantly higher outcomes compared to non-participants. They almost closed the gap with children in high-income communities. This effect emerged regardless of whether the activity was sporting or non-sporting.

Read more:
Refugee students struggle with displacement and trauma. Here are 3 ways schools can help them belong

Despite non-sporting activities having comparable benefits, most vouchers are limited to “sport and active recreation”. This generally includes dance but excludes other creative activities.

Only two jurisdictions (NT and NSW) explicitly offer vouchers that cover arts, music and cultural activities. The NT urban sport voucher scheme includes cultural and arts activities. NSW offers a universal $100 per year Creative Kids voucher (in addition to its Active Kids sports voucher). It’s specifically aimed at arts and cultural activities.

Not all children’s interests involve kicking a ball or doing laps in a pool. Arbitrarily excluding non-sporting activities from government subsidies may prevent disadvantaged children taking part in the activities they enjoy most. In contrast, more affluent families are better able to support these activities without government support.

Extracurricular activities occur outside the classroom and are not mandated by a set curriculum. Participation is therefore voluntary and the decision is driven by interests and a desire to be around friends.

In deciding what activities to subsidise, governments are taking this decision away from children and their parents. Governments need to ensure the needs and wants of children are taken into account when providing subsidies.

Subsidies alone are not enough

Expanding subsidies to cover more expenses and activity types will increase participation. But subsidies can’t solve all the issues.

For a start, most activities cannot happen without suitable sports grounds or indoor spaces. For example, a lack of change rooms sometimes hinders efforts to increase female sport participation. Similarly, children in poorer suburbs may not feel welcome in other suburbs where activities are taking place.

Local councils and schools have traditionally provided the infrastructure for extracurricular activities. However, some councils have gone a step further in co-ordinating access to these activities. For example, the City of Playford in the northern suburbs of Adelaide partnered with government, philanthropic and community organisations to encourage all ten-year-olds to take part.

Some non-government organisations and community leaders have also developed promising local initiatives. Evaluation of these initiatives can hopefully inform future efforts around the country. We need a broader and more generous approach to help local organisations build thriving communities.

Experts and advocacy groups agree that all children should have opportunities for extracurricular activity. Australia needs more schemes that enable children to take part in activities of their choice.

Gerry Redmond receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Grant no. DP190100247) and the Australian Government Department of Health.

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

– ref. The kids who’d get the most out of extracurricular activities are missing out – here’s how to improve access – https://theconversation.com/the-kids-whod-get-the-most-out-of-extracurricular-activities-are-missing-out-heres-how-to-improve-access-169447

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Speck, Professorial Fellow (Honorary), The University of Melbourne

Review: Tarnanthi, Art Gallery of South Australia

The word “Tarnanthi”, from Kaurna language of the Adelaide Plains, means “to rise up, spring forth or appear”, and it informs the philosophy and curatorship of this contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Festival under artistic director Nici Cumpston. The word itself signifies new ways of thinking: it is this quality which makes Tarnanthi 2021, and its preceding iterations from 2015, so special.

Cumpston’s approach to exhibition-making is based on dialogue and collaboration with the artists and it delivers, challenging perceptions on many levels.

Walking down the stairs into the main gallery space, Walmajarri artist John Prince Siddon’s psychedelic desert pop imagery sets the scene. He is a former stockman from the Kimberley region who paints on the inner side of kangaroo pelts, on bullock skulls, boab nuts and on canvas imagery that is a mix of the desert, the everyday, and pressing social and political issues.

He calls it art “all mixed up”, but his imagery of people, animals and vehicles inhabiting the map of Australia – with boat people waving on – touches a very raw nerve of where our nation is at.

This is Australian art at its best.

Senior women artists

Katjarra Butler of the Ngaanyatjarra/Pintupi people in the Western Desert of Western Australia is one of the many senior women exhibiting.

Her work, Ara Katjarraku, fills a gallery space with 16 stunning canvases, as Butler shares her deep knowledge of the Tjukurrpa (or dreaming) that guided her traditional lifestyle. Viewers enter a world of knowledge transfer in which her large, multi-coloured circular forms represent ancient and sacred sites of Country and its ancestral beings.

Another senior woman is Aṉangu artist Nyunmiti Burton, director of the APY (Aṉangu Pitjantatjara Yankunytatjara) Council. Her energetic and bold painting Seven Sisters (2020), portrays an ancient tale in which the eldest sister protects the other sisters from the dangers of the world. Here, Burton’s story of sisterhood is gesturing towards the leadership women offer.

Yaritji Young is a senior lawwoman and traditional owner of the Country around Amata, which she depicts in her large and energetic Tjala Tjukurpa – Honey any story (2021). This ancient story, passed down from her father, is of the women waiting for the men to come with tjuratji, the honey ants, to nourish them before setting off on a long walk south. Young’s energetic and brilliantly colourful painting shows these twisting tunnels and the changing colours of the desert.

Art stars

A standout of the exhibition is Trawlwoolway artist Julie Gough. Her Psychoscape is an exhibition within an exhibition. Gough’s subject is the genocide committed against Lutruwita (Tasmania’s) First Nations people in the Black Wars of the late 1820s and early 1830s.

Set against selected items of colonial furniture – symbols of home for the settlers – she focuses on the shocking plight of the dispossessed Palawa people. In one piece, an upturned chair becomes a frame for a grim shadow puppet scene mirroring the actions of reprisal in Governor Arthur’s Proclamation Boards.

In another, she places Eugene Von Guerard’s picturesque Waterfall on the Clyde River (1877) by video footage of the actual waterfall that was the site of a massacre. Its waters turn red briefly before the blood is washed away, cleansed.

Idyllic 19th century colonial artworks, sanitised by Joseph Lycett’s
lack of reference to Aboriginal people, or romanticised by John Glover’s
inclusion of Aboriginal people after their removal, are juxtaposed with the reality of frontier violence.

A musket sits centrally on one wall, two spears stand forlorn in a corner. They could not save their people. The video projected on the floor evokes feelings of the chase and destabilises the exhibition space as if viewers are entering a crime scene.

Read more:
Julie Gough’s ‘Tense Past’ reminds us how the brutalities of colonial settlement are still felt today

Another star is Pitjantjatjara artist Timo Hogan from Tjuntjuntjara in the southeast of Western Australia in the Great Victoria Desert. He paints his Country, Lake Baker, the home of the ancestral story of Wanampi, the Watersnake man, and Wati Kutjara, the Two Men. His massive painting in whites and creamy ochres set against a black landscape conveys the vast shifting terrain and dangers of the salt lake he has permission to portray.

Challenging perceptions

Angelina Karadada Boona’s changing tones of Wanjina images take on an other-worldly manifestation, while Barkindji artist Kent Morris’s immersive and poetic video plays with geometric designs that rotate, segment and mirror ceremonial markings on bodies and trees.

Artists from Irrunytju use abandoned oil sumps and pram wheels to make a playful series of cars and buses in their Mutaka (motor car) project.

Iltja Ntjarra Many Hands artists respond to the life-changing pipeline built to convey water from Kuprilya Springs to Ntaria (Hermannsburg) – depicted in Albert Namatjira’s pokerwork Boomerang (1935) – in a lively series of contemporary watercolours.

Tiwi artists fill yet another space with a mass hang of 145 prints in Tiwi papers, an undeniable statement of the strength of culture.

Tarnanthi is full of surprises. Kaylene Whiskey’s cheeky take, in video and painting, on the cautionary tale of the Seven Sisters, with a cast from Dolly Parton to Tina Turner, sums up the energy and vitality of all the work on show.

Contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art has morphed from a revolutionary art movement, to the realm of the unexpected. Experimentation rules in the innovation, energy and depth of the work shown.

Tarnanthi, true to its philosophy, enables artists to challenge perceptions.

Tarnanthi: Festival of Contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Art is at the Art Gallery of South Australia until 30 January 2022. 24 participating galleries across Adelaide and South Australia are also showing exhibitions as part of Tarnanthi.

Catherine Speck has received funding in past years from the ARC.

– ref. Experimental, energetic, bold: the Tarnanthi festival of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art surprises and shocks – https://theconversation.com/experimental-energetic-bold-the-tarnanthi-festival-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-art-surprises-and-shocks-168653

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabi Mocatta, Research Fellow in Climate Change Communication, Climate Futures Program, University of Tasmania, and Lecturer in Communication – Journalism, Deakin University

Australia’s Murdoch-owned tabloid newspapers – including The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and Courier Mail – have embarked on a bold new climate change campaign.

This climate rebrand, dubbed “missionzero2050”, is billed by the company as “putting Australia on a path to a net zero future”.

The change has surprised Australian media observers and, no doubt, media consumers given News Corp’s long-held climate denialist stance, which is well documented in public commentary and research.

So why is this happening now? And what does it mean?

What does the new campaign say?

Last Monday, News Corp’s tabloid mastheads began the new campaign with a 16-page wraparound supplement and a splashy online campaign championing the drive to cut climate warming emissions by 2050.

Read more:
What is COP26 and why does the fate of Earth, and Australia’s prosperity, depend on it?

News Corp must have done its climate communication research. It has assembled a collection of stories using best-practice climate communication techniques: telling a global story with a local face, visualising climate impacts and focusing on solutions, not creating fear.

Crucially, the campaign marks a change from News Corp’s long-held position on climate action. It’s moved from calling decarbonisation too expensive and bad for jobs (it tagged the cost at A$600 billion in 2015), to describing it now as a potential $2.1 trillion economic “windfall”, offering opportunities for 672,000 new jobs.

News Corp and climate change

What News Corp does matters, because it has extensive influence in Australia’s media market.

The company’s newspaper, radio, pay TV and online news portfolio gives it significant audience reach and huge political sway. In April, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull labelled the Murdoch media “the most powerful political actor in Australia”.

Most people derive their understanding of climate change from the media. So News Corp’s audience reach (which included about 100 print and digital mastheads as of early 2021) has given it extensive influence over Australians’ knowledge of and opinions about climate change, profoundly shaping public debate.

Murdoch media outlets have denied the science of climate change and ridiculed climate action for more than a decade.

A 2013 study by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism found climate denialist views in a third of Australian media coverage of climate change, and pointed to News Corp outlets as the key reason for this.

Read more:
Climate wars, carbon taxes and toppled leaders: the 30-year history of Australia’s climate response, in brief

News Corp’s commentators have described those arguing for climate action as “alarmists” and “loons”, who are prone to “warming hysteria”. They have also said climate concern is a “cult of the elite” and the “effects of global warming have so far proved largely benign”.

Despite this, in 2019, Murdoch declared there were “no climate change deniers” in his company.

Signs of a mood shift

This pivot on climate change was not entirely unexpected.

The company had been signalling a mood shift since early 2020, in the wake of its controversial reporting on the Black Summer bushfires, which saw it accused of downplaying the fires and fuelling misinformation about the cause.

At that time, Rupert Murdoch’s son James expressed his concerns about the “ongoing denial” of climate change at News Corp in the face of “obvious evidence to the contrary”.

He subsequently resigned his position on the company’s board. Early last month, the Nine newspapers flagged an imminent change of stance on climate at News Corp, noting, “Rupert Murdoch’s global media empire has faced growing international condemnation and pressure from advertisers over its editorial stance on climate change”.

The fine print

Despite the gloss of missionzero2050 (the newspapers say they are only focusing on “positive stories” about creating “a clean future while having fun and feeling good at the same time”), a deeper analysis shows the campaign has some quite specific agendas, signalling its climate epiphany may be limited.

In the stories that make up the campaign, it is still rolling out business-as-usual narratives like:

• defending Australia’s emissions as small compared to other countries, especially China (therefore suggesting we do not need to take drastic action)

• framing renewables as an unreliable source of energy (so not an adequate replacement for fossil fuels)

• promoting Australia’s coal as cleaner than other countries’ (some of it may be, but the International Energy Agency says the world must start quitting coal now to stay within safer global warming limits)

• promoting gas as having half the emissions of coal (burning gas does emit less carbon dioxide, but its extraction also causes fugitive emissions of methane, a gas that’s about 30 times more powerful as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over 100 years)

• advocating carbon capture and storage (which is not yet a proven way to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels)

• criticising a carbon pollution price (economists widely agree this is the single most effective way to encourage polluters to reduce greenhouse gas emissons).

Read more:
Australia’s top economists back carbon price, say benefits of net-zero outweigh cost

Surprisingly, the campaign is making a big effort to spruik nuclear power. It states: “our aversion to nuclear energy defies logic” and advocates strongly for an Australian nuclear industry for “national security” purposes as well as energy.

Overall, the missionzero2050 agenda seems to be set on supporting new and existing extractive industries and Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s “gas-led recovery”.

Strangely, the campaign also emphasises “putting Australia first” – although efforts to deal with climate change must be inherently globally focused.

Loud silences

What’s most perverse, perhaps, about missionzero2050 are the things it does not say or acknowledge. There has been no mention of News Corp’s years of intentionally undermining decarbonisation and helping to topple Australian leaders who advocated for climate action.

Oddly, News Corp has not muzzled its high-profile commentators. Columnist Andrew Bolt was quick to make it known that he thought the campaign was “rubbish”.

Nor has it aligned its advertising with the missionzero2050 message. For example, last Wednesday, the Herald Sun ran a half-page ad placed by the climate “sceptical” Climate Study Group about the “great climate change furphy,” discrediting climate science and advocating for more coal and nuclear power.

What might it mean?

The timing of the campaign, just as Morrison negotiates with the Nationals ahead of the COP26 climate conference, is likely to be no coincidence. It seems designed to provide cover for a potential shift on the part of the Coalition towards a mid-century net zero declaration.

Read more:
Barnaby Joyce has refused to support doubling Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction targets – but we could get there so cheaply and easily

Morrison is also under intense pressure from other world leaders to lift his ambitions on climate. He’ll be expected to bring new plans for emissions cuts to the table in Glasgow.

Some commentators have labelled the Murdoch pivot “greenwashing”. Others have called it a “desperate ploy to rehabilitate the public image of a leading climate villain”.

However perplexing the Murdoch papers’ climate U-turn may seem, at least Morrison will know Australia’s “most powerful political actor” is not likely to campaign against any 2050 net zero declaration.

Given News Corp’s power to subvert the national narrative on climate, that’s important if we want to see the action that’s so long overdue.

Gabi Mocatta is co-lead of Deakin University’s Climate Change Communication and Narratives Network. She is also vice-president of the Board of the International Environmental Communication Association.

– ref. What’s behind News Corp’s new spin on climate change? – https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-news-corps-new-spin-on-climate-change-169733

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Walker, Vice-chancellor’s fellow, La Trobe University

In 1934, Mao Zedong’s embattled guerrilla forces began what was to prove an epic military withdrawal from southern China to a stronghold in the north of the country.

This became known as the Long March. It enabled the Communists to break out of so-called “encirclement campaigns” to fight another day against Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists.

In Chinese Communist Party history, there is hardly a more indelible moment. It is certain to have been imprinted on the consciousness of Xi Jinping by his father Xi Zhongxun, a Mao-era military commissar and later a vice premier.

Fast forward to 2021, and there have been signs in recent weeks of China seeking to reduce the risk of geopolitical isolation in its own diplomatic “long march” – to become the pre-eminent power in the Asia-Pacific and global rival to the US.

Sometimes forgotten in the ideological debate in the West about Beijing’s motivations under Xi is that Chinese leaders are pragmatists conditioned by ruthless internal Communist Party politics.

So a reasonable question now is whether Xi and his advisers have understood that the risks of overreach in China’s interactions with the outside world outweigh the benefits.

In other words, where lies the zero-sum game?

Read more:
New drives to counter China come with a major risk: throwing fuel on the Indo-Pacific arms race

One aspect of Chinese statecraft to keep in mind is that Beijing will seek to get away with whatever it can.

Viewed from behind the vermilion walls of Zhongnanhai, Beijing’s leadership compound, American-led efforts to “contain” China will have taken on some of the characteristics of an encirclement campaign.

Beijing’s reaction has been relatively muted, by its standards, to the recent announcement of the AUKUS alignment between Australia, the UK and the US as a China containment front. But Chinese leaders will nonetheless view this as part of a latter-day encirclement campaign.

Likewise, the elevation of the Quad grouping of the US, Japan, India and Australia would be seen in Beijing as a further example of US-led China containment architecture.

Apart from the usual bluster in Chinese Communist Party mouthpieces like the Global Times, what has been Beijing’s response to all this?

The short answer is that it has been engaging in some creative diplomacy to lessen risks of geopolitical isolation.

This has involved:

• the engagement at presidential level between Xi and Joe Biden with promise of a virtual summit by the end of the year

• the makings of a charm offensive in Beijing’s dealings with the European Union

• an application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) on top of joining the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)

• a “hostage exchange” enabling the release from detention of the daughter of one of China’s most powerful businessmen

• an announcement that China would stop funding coal-fired power stations abroad. This comes ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), where it is expected to play a leading role.

In Canberra policymaking circles, dominated by a national security establishment wedded to seeing China as a threat, the above developments might be weighed.

Read more:
View from The Hill: For Morrison AUKUS is all about the deal, never mind the niceties

In the case of Xi and Biden, the issue is not so much whether there is a thaw in Sino-US relations after the wrenching Donald Trump era. It is more about whether the world’s dominant powers can establish a relationship that enables reasonable dialogue and even co-operation.

In the Xi-Biden phone call on September 9, the two agreed there was too little communication between Beijing and Washington. It was followed this month by a six-hour in-person meeting in Zurich between National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi.

The upshot is that Xi and Biden will meet “virtually” within weeks.

Significantly, Biden in his conversation with Xi reiterated America’s commitment to the spirit of the Shanghai communique that enabled the issue of Taiwan to be set aside.

This should be regarded as a positive development.

In Beijing’s dealings with the European Union, the several sessions with top European officials conducted in late September by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi are notable.

Wang’s strategic dialogue with Josep Borell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, followed discussions with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

These were aimed at clearing the air after strong criticism and censure in Europe of China’s mistreatment of its Uighur minority, and arguments over Taiwan.

In another important development, Xi was due last Friday to speak with European Council President Charles Michel.

On Wednesday of last week, the Chinese leader held a “friendly” phone call with outgoing German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The two discussed preparations for the G20 summit in Rome, climate change issues ahead of COP26 and the European Union’s stalled investment agreement with China.

The latter has been interrupted because of tensions between Beijing and Brussels on the Uighur issue and other stresses.

This flurry of diplomatic activity could not contrast more sharply with the deep freeze in relations between Beijing and Canberra, with high-level contacts at ministerial level suspended.

Perhaps most significant of recent China’s diplomatic manoeuvres has been its request to join the CPTPP, which groups 11 Asia-Pacific countries in a trade bloc.

Read more:
Australia has a great chance to engage in trade diplomacy with China, and it must take it

The Obama administration originally conceived of the CPTPP as a means of pressuring China on trade and security issues. Trump’s abandonment of the trade bloc has enabled China to make a bid for membership.

The Australian government has said China could not be considered for membership until it relaxes its punitive trade campaign against Australian exports. Individual members have veto power over new entrants.

In any case, Beijing would have difficulty meeting the trade-liberalisation requirements of the CPTPP.

On the other hand, China’s request for membership simultaneously with that of Taiwan renews focus on regional trade agreements in which Beijing is active.

China joined the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) last year and is a principal sponsor of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

On the diplomatic front, the deal enabling Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou’s return to China from Vancouver in a hostage swap removed a significant irritation in US-China ties.

Finally, China’s announcement it was ending its funding of coal-fired power stations abroad was clearly aimed at window-dressing its patchy performance on climate issues ahead of the G20 summit in Rome and COP26 in Glasgow.

These diplomatic shifts do not necessarily amount to a breakout moment for China in its troubled relationship with the international community. But it would be a mistake for countries like Australia to assume China will continue to alienate a wider international community if it believes its actions are proving inimical to its own interests.

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

– ref. China’s global diplomatic approach is shifting, and Australia would do well to pay attention to it – https://theconversation.com/chinas-global-diplomatic-approach-is-shifting-and-australia-would-do-well-to-pay-attention-to-it-169930

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Carlson, Professor, Indigenous Studies and Director of The Centre for Global Indigenous Futures, Macquarie University

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains racist images and advertising slogans.

The internet has provided advertisers with the ability to fly below the radar of public accountability. This is because online ads are visible only to targeted individuals on their personal devices.

However history indicates that public accountability is crucial because advertisers have an established record of using harmful stereotypes and targeting vulnerable populations.

The Australian Ad Observatory in collaboration with the Centre for Global Indigenous Futures will investigate how targeted advertising online is affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with this in mind.

We will work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander users to see what ads they are receiving on Facebook. Research indicates Facebook is one of the most popular platforms used by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Recent criticism of social media platforms has largely overlooked the significant cultural role played by advertising in reflecting and reinforcing social values and attitudes.

This is often done in ways harmful to Indigenous people, women and young people.

Facebook has been criticised for amplifying misleading, polarising and sensational information. But it does this for its primary business model: to sell ads based on the information collected about users and their social networks.

Read more:
97% of Indigenous people report seeing negative social media content weekly. Here’s how platforms can help

Racist advertising and stereotyping

Public scrutiny has an important role to play in challenging advertising practices that are harmful to society. A recent example of a marketing campaign resulting in public outcry and criticism, is the H&M ad that featured the image of a Black child wearing a sweatshirt that read, “coolest monkey in the jungle.”

Another example is the Dove body wash ad that recycled racist associations of dark skin with dirt and uncleanliness. In both cases, public criticism led to the ads being cancelled and apologies from the companies involved.

Critiquing racist images and stereotypes is important because of the role they play in reinforcing racist attitudes and the actions and the policies they support.

For example, an early 20th century ad for Velvet Soap draws on the racist dark-skin-is-unclean trope to make a connection to racist policy. The ad features a caricature of an Aboriginal woman scrubbing the “black” off the back of an Aboriginal child as she refers to the White Australia policy.

Wiradjuri scholar Kathleen Jackson highlights the connection between racist ads and harmful social policy in her discussion of the notorious Nulla-Nulla soap ad from the 1920s. The ad personified “dirt” in the form of an Aboriginal woman being beaten.

As Jackson puts it,

Advertisements, such as Nulla-Nulla soap, provided subliminal support to the colonial campaign to enforce European cultural and economic values […] A single complaint about the cleanliness of an Aboriginal child could result in the exclusion of Aboriginal children from school. This exclusion could establish neglect and allow […] the removal of Indigenous children from their families.

Degrading images and dehumanising stereotypes go hand-in-hand with violent and dehumanising acts. The cultural images a society feeds to itself through its commercials do much more than sell products: they reflect and reinforce social values and associations.

Read more:
Sam Frost knows nothing about segregation: white settlers co-opting terms used to oppress

Predatory advertising

Harmful and degrading stereotyping is not the only sin of advertising – and not the sole reason for supporting ad accountability.

Australia has an ongoing history of predatory marketing to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that could be further facilitated by online ad targeting. In 2018 the Royal Banking Commission revealed that financial institutions were deliberately targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with exploitative lending and insurance deals.

Similarly, in 2020 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found some Telstra representatives had engaged in predatory marketing practices towards Aboriginal people. They did this by misrepresenting the terms of mobile phone contracts and falsely telling customers they were receiving the phones for free.

We do not know the extent to which stereotyping and predatory targeting are taking place online because we cannot see the ads. A lack of accountability favours shady advertisers over public interest and well being. It provides cover for advertisers who might be interested in strategies exploiting stereotypes or targeting vulnerable populations. History shows we cannot trust advertisers to hold themselves accountable.

New research addressing this issue

The Australian Ad Observatory and the Centre for Global Indigenous Futures are inviting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in research that will allow them to see how they are being targeted online.

To assist in this research, participants who use Facebook on a laptop or desktop computer can install a browser extension in a minute or two. The extension does not collect any personally identifiable information – only the sponsored content appearing in their news feeds.

However the tool does collect some voluntarily provided information that allows us to see how Facebook users are being targeted by ethnicity, gender, age, and more.

The browser extension allows participants to see the history of all the ads they have received while it has been installed. Participants can then view the pattern of ads they receive, indicating whether they are being targeted for particular types of products or services.

If you are interested in participating in the project, more information is available in a video of the project launch.

Click here to join the project

We will be making public our findings as they emerge, so watch this space for further updates.

Bronwyn Carlson is the recipient of an Australia Research Council Discovery Indigenous Award for research on: ‘Indigenous peoples’ experiences of cyberbullying: An assemblage approach’. She is also an Investigator on a project which has received funding from Facebook’s Foundational Integrity Research Award. The project is called ‘The impact of racist and violent content and threats towards Indigenous women and LBGTQI+ people on social media: a comparative analysis of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA’

Mark Andrejevic is a volunteer board member for Digital Rights Watch. His research receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. There is a long history of racist and predatory advertising in Australia. This is why targeted ads could be a problem – https://theconversation.com/there-is-a-long-history-of-racist-and-predatory-advertising-in-australia-this-is-why-targeted-ads-could-be-a-problem-169452

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darren Roberts, Conjoint Associate Professor in clinical pharmacology and toxicology, UNSW

Through our work at the New South Wales Poisons Information Centre, we’re used to receiving calls from concerned parents about what to do if their child has accidentally drunk some cleaning product. We also take calls from health professionals for advice on how to manage poisonings.

But over the past 18 months, we’ve seen an increasing number of people calling us about home remedies to prevent or cure COVID-19, particularly during an outbreak. They’re calling for advice before using items such as bleach or disinfectant. Or they’re calling to ask about side-effects after gargling, spraying or bathing in them.

When asked about the reason for using such products, callers say they did not know they could be harmful. Some say they thought it was better to do something, rather than nothing.

We’re concerned about the use of unproven COVID-19 home remedies. Here are some of the more common ones people have called our 24-hour poisons information service about, the types that can need medical care.

1. Inhaling hydrogen peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide is used in household disinfectants, chlorine-free bleaches, stain removers and hair dyes. And people have been calling about inhaling products containing hydrogen peroxide as a fine mist (called nebulising).

Hydrogen peroxide (1-1.5%) mouthwashes have been recommended as an antiseptic before a dental procedure. However, results about whether it kills SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, are conflicting.

Nebulising hydrogen peroxide can cause irritation and swelling to the nose, throat and lungs. People can develop a cough and become short of breath; it can cause persistent damage to the lungs. These symptoms can be misinterpreted as a lung infection. If you have COVID-19, nebulising hydrogen peroxide can make you sicker and prolong your recovery.

People also report nausea and vomiting after nebulising hydrogen peroxide. The risk is increased with solutions of higher concentrations, although we do not believe any concentration is safe.

Read more:
Thinking of trying ivermectin for COVID? Here’s what can happen with this controversial drug

2. Gargling or swallowing antiseptics

People have also called about gargling or swallowing strong antiseptics. These can cause irritation, swelling and pain to the mouth, as well as vomiting, diarrhoea and stomach pains.

Gargling or swallowing corrosive household cleaning products, such as the type you’d use in your kitchen or bathroom, is particularly unsafe. This can lead to life-threatening injuries, including rupture and bleeding of the upper gut, between the mouth and stomach.

A recently promoted home remedy is gargling antiseptics containing povidone-iodine.

Some low concentration (0.5-1%) of products containing povidone-iodine can be gargled. And povidone-iodine (0.5%) mouthwash has been recommended before a dental procedure to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Small pilot studies have suggested that similar low-strength gargle and nasal sprays may shorten the survival of SARS-CoV-2 in the nose and mouth. But these results should be confirmed in larger studies.

Although some people are allergic to povidone-iodine, low concentration solutions are usually safe when applied in the nose or mouth for a few months.

However, many products contain much higher concentrations of povidone-iodine and other chemicals designed for use on the skin.

So swallowing, gargling or inserting these products in the nose is not recommended.

Read more:
Gargling with iodine won’t stop you getting COVID

3. Bathing in bleach or disinfectant

Bathing in household cleaning products (such as bleach or disinfectant), or applying them directly to the skin, can cause mild-to-moderate irritation and rashes.

Burns can occur with stronger products.

Read more:
Bleach, bonfires and bad breath: the long history of dodgy plague remedies

4. Spraying face masks

Routinely spraying disinfectants into face masks, and then breathing in the fumes and residue for a prolonged period, can also harm.

This can result in irritation to the throat and lungs, dizziness, headache and nausea.

5. Taking high-dose vitamins

Taking over-the-counter supplements, including vitamins, for a prolonged period is also a concern as high doses can have side-effects:

• vitamin C can cause kidney stones

• zinc can cause loss of taste or smell

• vitamin D can cause high concentrations of calcium in the blood, with effects including headache, thirst and, uncommonly, seizures.

Read more:
Vitamins and minerals aren’t risk-free. Here are 6 ways they can cause harm

It’s a confusing time

COVID-19 is arguably the most confusing time in recent history for making decisions about our health care. While people debate if any of these proposed home remedies work, it is essential to also consider their potential harms.

Deaths and other complications are reported in people overseas due to well-meaning use of proposed treatments and home remedies. We hope to avoid this in Australia.

If this article raises concerns for you or for someone you know about a COVID-19 home remedy, call the Poisons Information Hotline from anywhere in Australia on 131 126. This evidence-base advice is available 24 hours a day. For life-threatening symptoms, call 000.

Darren Roberts is the medical director of the NSW Poisons Information Centre, and a clinical toxicologist/pharmacologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and St Vincent’s Hospital (Sydney).

Nicole Wright is the Acting Department Head, NSW Poisons Information Centre

– ref. People want to use bleach and antiseptic for COVID and are calling us for advice – https://theconversation.com/people-want-to-use-bleach-and-antiseptic-for-covid-and-are-calling-us-for-advice-168660

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth J Edwards, Senior Lecturer in Education, The University of Queensland

Many kids across Australia are heading back into classrooms after months of lockdowns and remote learning. Understandably, students may be anxious about what the uncertainty of the return may mean for them academically and socially.

Some may have existing worries at home, such as financial strain in the family, that can impact on their mental health.

Research has shown anxiety and depression grew among young people during the pandemic. While social and emotional effects of anxiety are often explored, many people may not realise anxiety can have a significant impact on children’s academic work too.

A panicky feeling

One in seven Australians are currently experiencing anxiety. The prevalence of anxiety among children is a cause for concern: 6.1% of girls and 7.6% of boys. And research shows the median age onset for anxiety is 11 years.

Importantly, these were statistics before the pandemic. In August this year, the Journal for the American Medical Association (JAMA) published research showing 25% of young people globally were experiencing clinical anxiety. The study showed the prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms during COVID-19 had doubled compared with prepandemic estimates.

Read more:
5 ways parents can help children adjust to being at school after months in lockdown

Anxiety is when you feel uncomfortable nervousness, worry, light-headedness, an increased heart rate, a churning stomach, restlessness, and/or a panicky feeling.

We are supposed to feel anxious or a little worried before stressful situations, such as taking an exam, as it motivates us to perform better. But while anxiety serves an important function, it is a problem if it starts to become unbearable and interfere with our daily function.

How it can affect kids’ academic abilities

Attentional control theory provides a well-supported explanation for how anxiety might play out in the classroom. The theory holds that heightened anxiety impairs the efficiency of mental processes (executive functions) but does not always hinder the accuracy of performance.

Research demonstrates the negative impact of anxiety on executive functions in adults. It can affect our inhibition (the ability to control an impulse), shifting (where we switch or shift between tasks or demands), and updating (monitoring and updating information in the cognitive system where information is stored and manipulated for us to complete a task — known as working memory).

Some studies have examined the consequences of anxiety-linked problems with executive function when it comes to academic achievement in children. But research is still limited.

Read more:
Delayed graduations, no formals — the class of 2021 has had a hell of a year. They need mental health support, and quickly

One study found the ability to inhibit and shift attention, and update information in working memory, were associated with issues with literacy and numeracy. For example, poorer updating (or working memory) was related to poorer maths, whereas poorer inhibition was associated with poorer overall grades.

Our laboratory is currently testing precisely how anxiety implicates children’s cognitive processes and in turn, classroom achievement. But here is what we speculate so far.

How the theory can help explain classroom difficulties

Based on attentional control theory, it is likely the attention of a child experiencing heightened anxiety might be drawn towards worrisome thoughts rather than their classroom task.

A child might be unable to control their thoughts. For instance, they may think this work is too hard or they might fail. This can lead to trouble shifting their focus to concentrate on academic work.

When new information is presented, a child’s working memory requires updating and their attention needs to stay focused on the task to absorb new material.

But, if attention is being drawn towards task-irrelevant information like the negative thoughts, then performance is less efficient (takes longer) and sometimes less accurate (of poorer quality).

So, what can teachers and parents do to help?

Tips for parents and teachers

There is a lot teachers and parents can do to help, but here are ten tips:

1. Provide reassurance and normalise mistakes with statements like: “Mistakes or minor set backs are a normal part of learning something new”.

2. build confidence. This means praising a child’s effort and reminding them of a time they did well

3. be proactive. Have difficult discussions about the divorce of their friend’s parents or their fears related to the global pandemic, using age-appropriate language. When talking to a five year old, you might say: “It sounds like you might be worried because Joey’s parents have split up, yours might too? One thing is for sure, Joey’s parents both love him very much just like we do as your parents”. Or when talking to a 16 year old, a teacher might say: “I can hear you are unsure whether to get a vaccine or not? Getting information from reliable sources, like doctors, will allow you to weigh up the pros and cons of your decision and feel more at ease.” Reducing the unknowns makes us less inclined to worry

4. be ready to listen and empathise

5. make adjustments. Allow extra time. Provide larger tasks in smaller chunks

6. provide structure and routine

7. remove distractions and set a time to worry later. A parent might say: “OK let’s get your homework done, have dinner, take Scooby for a walk around the block and then you and I will sit down and talk about what’s bothering you. If you like we can schedule a regular ‘worry time’.”

8. practice mindfulness. Breathe, exercise, rest and eat well. Take regular breaks

9. remember anxiety is contagious. If the adults at school or home are anxious or worried, it has a flow on effect to the child

10. seek professional help if needed.

Keep in mind that providing a calm environment allows the child to improve their executive functioning and maximise their potential to achieve at school.

Importantly, taking this approach provides a feedback loop of improvement, that is, the more the child feels successful, the less they worry.

Read more:
More children are self-harming since the start of the pandemic. Here’s what parents and teachers can do to help

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

– ref. Anxiety can affect academic performance. Here are 10 things parents and teachers can do to relieve the pressure – https://theconversation.com/anxiety-can-affect-academic-performance-here-are-10-things-parents-and-teachers-can-do-to-relieve-the-pressure-168837

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

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce killed the prospect of the Nationals agreeing to a more ambitious 2030 emissions reduction firm target, before his party room met to consider the government’s proposed new climate policy.

Later, the Nationals on Sunday night broke after four hours of briefing, questions and discussion, without a final position on the government’s climate policy, the core of which is a 2050 net zero target.

Nationals deputy leader David Littleproud said after the meeting that there were still more questions to be answered, and the party would take its time to get things right.

Sources said there had been some concern about the policy’s guarantees for job protection and creation.

Littleproud said: “How do we protect regional Australia is the real question we want answered. […] We want to be confident if we do sign up to [the net zero by 2050 target], it protects regional Australia.”

The Nationals will discuss the policy further at their regular party meeting on Monday.

Asked ahead of the meeting whether there was any chance of it agreement to a new hard target for 2030, Joyce said: “On this issue, I would say no.

“I’ve got to be honest and say, well, what’s the views of the room on that issue? I don’t think that’s going to happen,” he told a news conference.

This confirms earlier indications the government is likely to present projections only, rather than targets, for the medium term in its policy for next month’s Glasgow climate conference.

These would be more ambitious than Australia’s present 2030 target of cutting emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels. But the failure to have a firm improved medium-term commitment would disappoint allies such as the US and UK. It could potentially also leave the government exposed on climate policy in those Liberal electorates where it is a major issue.

Littleproud said the only question the Nationals party room had been asked to look at was the 2050 target.

The Liberal party meets on Monday to consider the government’s policy. Debate there will gauge whether moderate Liberals will be satisfied so long as the policy has an unequivocal 2050 net zero target, regardless of the line on the medium term.

Asked what message he would have for the Nationals about the concerns to consider in making a decision on the climate policy, Joyce said:
“I’d say, you’ve been listening to your phones, you’ve been talking to your people in your electorates. This is your opportunity to convey those concerns and issues and sentiments of those electorates into this room and then in a collegial way with others we will try and land a position as best we can”.

Read more:
Yes, Australia can beat its 2030 emissions target. But the Morrison government barely lifted a finger

Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who confirmed on Friday he will attend the Glasgow conference, needs as a minimum to be able to declare Australia embraces a firm 2050 net zero target, rather than just having a plan to reach net zero without being absolutely locked into the date.

While the Nationals are being given guarantees the regions will be protected, as well as offered largesse, as part of a climate policy deal, they are suspicious because they feel they were dudded in the past.

Joyce referred back to what had happened under the Howard government and then environment minister Robert Hill, in relation to the Kyoto climate agreement.

“He [Hill] did us over on vegetation laws, and worked out a swindle through state governments to dispossess us of an asset, which to this day no one’s ever offered to pay us back for. So this time, we’re going to be super cautious.”

Read more:
Morrison set for Glasgow but has to finish packing his bag

Energy minister Angus Taylor briefed the Nationals meeting.

Taylor said in a statement afterwards there had been a “constructive and collegiate discussion” about the future of the regions, traditional industries and jobs.

“There was a strong joint commitment to policies that strengthen our regions – not weaken them.

“It was also clear that there was absolutely no appetite for policies that impact jobs or add to cost of living though an explicit carbon tax or a sneaky carbon tax. Which we won’t be doing,” Taylor said.

Read more:
Climate wars, carbon taxes and toppled leaders: the 30-year history of Australia’s climate response, in brief

The meeting saw Victorian Nationals Darren Chester back in the party room. Chester, with differences with colleagues on various matters, had been taking a break from party meetings. But he wanted to add his weight at the meeting to support the 2050 target.

Writing in the Guardian on Friday Innes Willox, chief of the Australian Industry Group, said the government’s policy should have three major elements.

The first was a commitment to net zero by 2050.

“The second pillar of a climate strategy should be a commitment to deeper emissions reductions this decade.

“Australia’s advanced economy peers and our own largest states have been setting 2030 goals ranging from cuts of 40% (Korea), 40-45% (Canada), 46% (Japan), 50-52% (US), 55% (EU) and 68% (UK) below their emissions peaks. There is no magic number, but roughly halving Australia’s emissions from our own peak would put us in the mainstream on 2030 goals.”

The third pillar was policy directions to accompany the goals, Willox wrote.

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

– ref. Joyce says Nationals don’t want bigger 2030 climate target as party room frets about regional protections – https://theconversation.com/joyce-says-nationals-dont-want-bigger-2030-climate-target-as-party-room-frets-about-regional-protections-170085

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

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce apparently killed the prospect of the Nationals agreeing to a more ambitious 2030 emissions reduction firm target, even before his party room met to consider the government’s proposed new climate policy.

Asked ahead of Sunday’s party meeting whether there was any chance of it agreement to a new hard target for 2030, Joyce said: “On this issue, I would say no.

“I’ve got to be honest and say, well, what’s the views of the room on that issue? I don’t think that’s going to happen,” he told a news conference.

Pressed on whether there was no chance, Joyce said, “My view at this stage is no. […] I might get knocked over, but I’m trying to be honest with you and give you an appraisal of where I see other people and that’s my appraisal.”

This confirms earlier indications the government appears likely to present projections only for the medium term in its policy for next month’s Glasgow climate conference.

These would be more ambitious than Australia’s present 2030 target of cutting emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels. But the failure to have a firm improved medium term commitment would disappoint allies such as the US and UK. It could potentially also leave the government exposed on climate policy in those Liberal electorates where it is a major issue.

The Liberal party meets on Monday to consider the government’s policy. Debate there will gauge whether moderate Liberals will be satisfied so long as the policy has an unequivocal 2050 net zero target, regardless of the line on the medium term.

Read more:
Yes, Australia can beat its 2030 emissions target. But the Morrison government barely lifted a finger

Asked what message he would have for the Nationals about the concerns to consider in making a decision on the climate policy, Joyce said, “I’d say, you’ve been listening to your phones, you’ve been talking to your people in your electorates. This is your opportunity to convey those concerns and issues and sentiments of those electorates into this room and then in a collegial way with others we will try and land a position as best we can”.

Scott Morrison, who confirmed on Friday he will attend the Glasgow conference, needs as a minimum to be able to declare Australia embraces a firm 2050 net zero target, rather than just having a plan to reach net zero without being absolutely locked into the date.

While the Nationals are set to receive guarantees the regions will be protected, as well as largesse, as part of a climate policy deal, they are suspicious because they feel they were dudded in the past.

Joyce referred back to what had happened under the Howard government and then environment minister Robert Hill, in relation to the Kyoto climate agreement.

“He [Hill] did us over on vegetation laws, and worked out a swindle through state governments to dispossess us of an asset, which to this day no one’s ever offered to pay us back for. So this time, we’re going to be super cautious.”

Read more:
Morrison set for Glasgow but has to finish packing his bag

Energy minister Angus Taylor briefed the Nationals meeting.

Taylor said in a statement afterwards there had been a “constructive and collegiate discussion” about the future of the regions, traditional industries and jobs.

“There was a strong joint commitment to policies that strengthen our regions – not weaken them.

“It was also clear that there was absolutely no appetite for policies that impact jobs or add to cost of living though an explicit carbon tax or a sneaky carbon tax. Which we won’t be doing,” Taylor said.

Read more:
Climate wars, carbon taxes and toppled leaders: the 30-year history of Australia’s climate response, in brief

The meeting saw Victorian Nationals Darren Chester back in the party room. Chester, with differences with colleagues on various matters, had been taking a break from party meetings. But he wanted to add his weight at the meeting to support for the 2050 target.

Writing in the Guardian on Friday Innes Willox, chief of the Australian Industry Group, said the government’s policy should have three major elements.

The first was a commitment to net zero by 2050.

“The second pillar of a climate strategy should be a commitment to deeper emissions reductions this decade.

“Australia’s advanced economy peers and our own largest states have been setting 2030 goals ranging from cuts of 40% (Korea), 40-45% (Canada), 46% (Japan), 50-52% (US), 55% (EU) and 68% (UK) below their emissions peaks. There is no magic number, but roughly halving Australia’s emissions from our own peak would put us in the mainstream on 2030 goals.”

The third pillar was policy directions to accompany the goals, Willox wrote.

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

– ref. Barnaby Joyce says Nationals don’t want bigger 2030 emissions reduction target – https://theconversation.com/barnaby-joyce-says-nationals-dont-want-bigger-2030-emissions-reduction-target-170085

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

Eight in ten of Australia’s leading economists back action to cut Australia’s carbon emissions to net-zero.

Almost nine in ten want it done by a carbon tax or a carbon price – mechanisms that were explicitly rejected at the 2013 election.

The panel of 58 top Australian economists selected by the Economic Society of Australia wants the carbon price restored to the public agenda even though it was rejected seven years ago, some saying Australia’s goods and services tax was rebuffed in 1993 and then restored to the public agenda seven years later.

Among those surveyed are former heads of government departments and agencies, former International Monetary Fund and OECD officials and a former and current member of the Reserve Bank board.

Asked ahead of next week’s Glasgow climate talks whether Australia would likely benefit overall from the national economy transitioning to net-zero emissions by 2050, 46 of the 58 said yes.

The response is at odds with the previous positions of groups such as the Business Council of Australia which in the leadup to the 2019 election labelled Labor’s proposed steps towards net-zero “economy wrecking”.

This month the Business Council backed net-zero by 2050, and produced modelling suggesting it would make Australians A$5,000 better off per year.

Only one net-zero doubter

Only five of the 58 economists surveyed disagreed with the proposition that cutting Australia’s emissions to net-zero would leave Australians better off.

Of those five, only one doubted that cutting global move emissions to net-zero would leave Australia better off. The others believed that even if a global move to net-zero did leave Australians better off, it was likely to happen anyway, meaning Australia wouldn’t need to act, a stance derided by others as “free-riding”.

“The argument that we are only a small percentage of global emissions holds no water either ethically or in terms of establishing and implementing a global agreement,” said Grattan Institute’s Danielle Wood. “If rich countries like Australia won’t do their fair share, this undermines the likelihood that others will.”

Read more:
Why Australia could halve emissions by 2030 with minimal cost and inconvenience

Others including Reserve Bank board member Ian Harper pointed out that Australian exporters faced punitive tariffs and lending and insurance embargoes unless Australia pulled its weight in reducing emissions.

His comments echo those of Reserve Bank Deputy Governor Guy Debelle and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg who have said that unless Australia takes action it will face reduced access to capital markets “impacting everything from interest rates on home loans and small business loans to the financial viability of large‑scale infrastructure projects”.

Read more:
Frydenberg prepares ground for Morrison to commit to 2050 target

University of Melbourne economist Leslie Martin made the broader point that Australia had a lot to lose from rising temperatures if free-riding didn’t pay off.

“Although Australia could possibly free-ride on the efforts of other larger economies, it would suffer disproportionately if other countries chose to do the same” he said.

Only one overwhelmingly preferred option

Offered a choice of four options for rapidly reducing emissions, and asked to endorse only one, the economists surveyed overwhelmingly backed an economy-wide carbon price in the form of a carbon tax or market for emissions permits.

Of the 58 surveyed, 49 backed a carbon price, seven backed government support to develop and roll out emissions-reducing technologies, and one backed support for technologies that drew down carbon from the atmosphere.

None backed so-called “direct action” – the program of competitive grants for firms that cut emissions the government took to the last two elections.

“The less federal governments choose to involve themselves with the technical aspects of the alternatives at a micro scale the better,” said Lin Crase, a specialist in environmental management at the University of South Australia.

Read more:
Climate wars, carbon taxes and toppled leaders: the 30-year history of Australia’s climate response, in brief

Crase said governments had shown themselves to be very bad at picking winners, but very good at putting in place broad settings that allowed the people and businesses closest to the action to pick winners.

Several of the economists surveyed said the government’s slogan of “technology, not taxes” set up a false distinction. Taxes could drive the switch to better technologies – ones chosen by the market rather than by government edict.

Australia’s carbon price was introduced in 2012 and abolished in 2014. Had it still been in place Australia would have at hand the tools it needed to get to net-zero.

Some of those surveyed said it was “too late” for a carbon price, partly because of politics and partly because of lost time.

Time for everything plus the kitchen sink?

Saul Eslake said Australia was no more likely to adopt an economy-wide carbon price than he was “to step in thylacine droppings on my front lawn of a morning”, the views of the OECD and the International Monetary Fund notwithstanding.

What was needed was everything possible, including the second-best option of direct action. John Quiggin said Australia needed direct action in the literal sense of government investment in renewable electricity and infrastructure.

Rana Roy said nothing should be ruled out, including the resurrection of a carbon tax or a carbon price, perhaps by a different name. An option rejected once was not rejected “for the rest of time”.

Read more:
We can’t stabilise the climate without carbon offsets – so how do we make them work?

Others pointed to Australia’s natural advantages in solar, wind, geothermal energy and carbon removal via means such as reforestation and storing carbon in soil.

With the right settings in place, Australia could become a major producer of zero-emissions hydrogen, and an industrial powerhouse that used its own iron ore and green energy to export green steel to the world.

With one of the most important settings missing, Australia would find it harder.

Detailed responses:

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

– ref. Australia’s top economists back carbon price, say benefits of net-zero outweigh cost – https://theconversation.com/australias-top-economists-back-carbon-price-say-benefits-of-net-zero-outweigh-cost-169939

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bill Hare, Director, Climate Analytics, Adjunct Professor, Murdoch University (Perth), Visiting scientist, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

With just over a fortnight until world leaders gather in Glasgow at a make-or-break United Nations climate conference, all eyes are on the biggest climate laggards, including Australia.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison continues to claim Australia will “meet and beat” its current 2030 target of reducing emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels. But unlike many of his international counterparts, he has so far resisted increasing the 2030 target.

In a report released today, commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation, our team at Climate Analytics conclude Australia will indeed beat its current 2030 target. We project Australia’s emissions are likely to be around 30-38% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Our analysis shows almost all the emissions reductions will be the result of state government policies, and will have virtually nothing to do with the federal government. It also suggests that, given the almost total absence of substantial federal climate policies to date, Australia can do a lot more.

Crunching the numbers

So how did we reach these figures?

First, before or by 2030, coal-fired power plants will close early. Victoria’s Yallourn plant in the LaTrobe Valley will close in 2028 and one unit at the Eraring coal plant in New South Wales will close in 2030.

These closures could bring 2030 emissions down by 1.2- 1.5% if they are replaced by renewables and storage, as appears to be the case.

The federal government, in its 2020 projections, said renewable energy will provide just over 50% of power supply nationally by 2030. Our projections show that figure to be more like 58-65%. This is due to state government action to encourage the continued record rollout of rooftop solar on homes and increase the amount of large-scale renewables entering the market.

At the state level, NSW, Victoria, the ACT and South Australia all have strong electric vehicle policies. Our analysis shows that by 2030, electric vehicles will make up 13-18.5% of light vehicles on the road.

To date, the Morrison government has no policy to promote electric vehicles, and Australia is one of only a few countries in the OECD with no emissions standards for cars.

Trends in Australia’s land use and forestry emissions are also pointing in the right direction. But the federal government projects a reduction in the carbon stored in our vegetation and forests, known as the carbon sink, compared with 2020 levels.

The federal government also assumes a continuing high level of land clearing through to 2030, which will lead to less natural carbon storage. But our work indicates land clearing rates are unlikely to be as high as the government expects. We project by 2030 the overall sink increases above 2020 levels – again, as a result of state policies, not federal.

Read more:
Climate wars, carbon taxes and toppled leaders: the 30-year history of Australia’s climate response, in brief

It doesn’t need to be this way

All these reductions show state-based climate action is likely to reduce national emissions by around 28-33% by 2030, without a single move from the federal government. That’s most of the 30-38% emissions reduction we predict will occur by 2030.

The rest will come as our major trading partners tackle their domestic emissions by reducing coal and gas imports. We estimate that will lead to a reduction in Australian coal and LNG production, driving overall emissions down a further 2.6-3.4% by 2030.

The federal government’s claim it is “meeting and beating” its targets is a falsehood. It is doing little, but claiming credit from the hard work of Australia’s states and territories.

Federal policies remain firmly fixed on keeping fossil fuels in the energy mix and expanding coal and gas production. It recently approved several new coal mines and announced subsidised and expanded gas production. Gas is a fossil fuel that also needs to be phased out if we’re to have any chance of keeping warming to 1.5℃.

The Morrison government is also increasing funding for carbon capture and storage, a policy aimed at continuing the use of fossil fuels. This is despite the country’s largest such project, the Gorgon venture off Western Australia, failing to reduce and store carbon emissions at the rate originally promised.

The annual Climate Transparency analysis, released on Wednesday, shows Australia has some of the G20’s highest per capita emissions. It is the only developed country in the G20 with no price on carbon, yet ranks the fourth highest for risk of economic losses from climate impacts.

Read more:
Asia’s energy pivot is a warning to Australia: clinging to coal is bad for the economy

It doesn’t need to be this way. Our analysis shows that if the federal government weighed in, Australia could easily halve emissions by 2030, if not reduce them to 60%.

Our report outlines three ways the government could achieve this:

1. Emissions reach around 50% below 2005 levels by 2030. Decarbonisation efforts are made in the electricity, buildings and transport sectors. Under this scenario, renewables would generate 95% of the country’s electricity by 2030.

2. Emissions reach the same levels as the scenario above. This scenario would also involve some decarbonisation of the energy sector, but mitigation must also ramp up in agriculture, waste and industry.

3. Emissions reach around 60% below 2005 levels by 2030. Mitigation efforts are ramped up in Australia’s most emissions-intensive sectors – energy and industry.

Measures in these scenarios all include:

• phasing out coal in the energy sector by 2030
• ensuring that by 2030, electric vehicles comprise 85% of all new cars sold and at least half of new trucks sold
• measure to avoid 85% of emissions in the LNG industry

These scenarios still do not represent an emissions pathway in line with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5℃ warming limit. We also offer a 1.5℃-compatible pathway, involving domestic emissions reduction to at least 65-75% below 2005 levels by 2030, and substantial increases in international climate finance.

Our analysis from 2020 shows the large employment benefits such measures would bring just in the energy sector – many of them delivered well before before 2030. Other research into export opportunities also very large employment benefits.

Australia is perfectly placed to capitalise on the clean, green global transition, but time is running away from us as other countries chase these opportunities. To drive this critical transformation and position the country to take advantage of the opportunities the federal government must set deep emissions targets for 2030, consistent with the Paris Agreement, and introduce the national policies to ensure we get there. A fifty per cent reduction by 2030 is the bare minimum needed.

Read more:
What is COP26 and why does the fate of Earth, and Australia’s prosperity, depend on it?

Bill Hare receives funding from the European Climate Foundation, Bloomberg philanthropy and the Climate Works Foundation. Climate Analytics received support from The Australian Conservation Foundation to produce the report upon which this article is based.

– ref. Yes, Australia can beat its 2030 emissions target. But the Morrison government barely lifted a finger – https://theconversation.com/yes-australia-can-beat-its-2030-emissions-target-but-the-morrison-government-barely-lifted-a-finger-169835