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

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

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

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

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

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

New Zealand’s largest cluster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding closed, crowded spaces

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likelihood of regional spread

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

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

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

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

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

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

What next

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The importance of physical activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

What our study found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBDs and city suburbs

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

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

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

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

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

Go the ‘first mile’

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

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

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

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

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

Access derailed

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

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

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

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

Turning Japanese

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Australia can learn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exit versus voice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which strategy is better?

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

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

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

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

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

Selfishness and social responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

Getting to vote

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

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

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

Corporate reforms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On mercy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meaning-making

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being ‘prayerful’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘The connective tissue of suffering’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Morrison legislation warranted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less severe, but more prevalent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The indirect effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are young people responding?

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

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

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

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

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

Engaging with young people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A short trip around the world

Cyprus

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

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

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

Canada

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

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

Taiwan

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

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

Taiwan has 18 active COVID-19 cases.

Singapore

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

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

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

Poland

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

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

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

UK

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

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

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

The UK has since tightened its quarantine arrangements.

These ideas are worth adopting in Australia…

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

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

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

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

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

…but we need to be careful about electronic tags

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

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

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

They go against the presumption that all persons will be law-abiding and perform their civic duty, with no evidence to the contrary.

There are also potential privacy concerns. There is no guarantee data collected through electronic monitoring — especially when using smartphone apps — will not be used for purposes other than monitoring pandemics.

No system is perfect

Even if we implement a world best quarantine system for returned travellers, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, can still slip in.

That’s because people can still be infectious before feeling sick, before being diagnosed, or before being directed to quarantine. This becomes more likely the more people are kept under quarantine.

– ref. Another day, another hotel quarantine fail. So what can Australia learn from other countries? – https://theconversation.com/another-day-another-hotel-quarantine-fail-so-what-can-australia-learn-from-other-countries-144804

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dylan McConnell, Research Fellow at the Australian German Climate and Energy College, University of Melbourne

A new official report shows blackouts in eastern Australia’s grid this summer are unlikely. While that’s welcome news, it casts doubt on the wisdom of a recent government decision to tighten electricity reliability standards – a decision that will cost consumers.

The report from the Australian Energy Market Operator, published this morning, is known as the Electricity Statement of Opportunities. It says no “unserved energy” is expected this summer and tight reliability standards will be met for the foreseeable future. This is largely due to increased installations of renewable generation, the return to service of a few coal plants after maintenance and lower electricity demand due to COVID-19.

For the first time, reliability was assessed against new standards substantially tighter than the last. State and federal energy ministers quietly agreed to tighten the standard earlier this year, and just last week the change was finalised.

While electricity supply is expected to be fine this summer, beyond that reliability will deteriorate, particularly for New South Wales, as old power plants close. That’s when the new standard will bite: a grid without power cuts is impossible and expensive.

What is electricity reliability?

In electricity systems, reliability is a measure of the ability of electricity generation infrastructure to meet consumer demand.

When users require more energy than generators can supply, this can cause outages or blackouts. However, this is a rare cause of blackouts: more than 96% are caused by faults or other incidents on the network, such as trees falling on power lines.

In the National Electricity Market, which covers the eastern states, the term “unserved energy” is used to measure the ability (or not) of the power system to meet consumer demand. Unserved energy occurs through “load shedding”, when electricity to large groups of customers is cut to keep the overall system running.

Read more: Yes, carbon emissions fell during COVID-19. But it’s the shift away from coal that really matters

The former reliability standard required expected unserved energy be no more than 0.002% in a given year. In other words, the system was expected to deliver 99.998% of the electricity consumers demanded.

The new interim reliability standard reduces this to 0.0006%, out to 2023 when it will be reviewed. The tighter standard will cost energy companies money, which will be recouped from customers.

Why has the reliability standard changed?

It’s important to understand the extent to which consumers care about electricity reliability over affordability.

Last December, the Australian Energy Regulator published a review of reliability “values”. It found in general, residential electricity customers valued reliability slightly less in 2019 than in 2014, with the exception of customers in suburban Adelaide (presumably due to the statewide blackouts there in 2016).

So why has the reliability standard been tightened? Blackouts and outages are politically sensitive issues. Politicians, and the market operator for that matter, have strong incentives to ensure reliability, and yet don’t have to pay to achieve it.

For this reason, the reliability standard is supposed to be reviewed and set by an independent reliability panel . The reliability panel has not recommended an increase to the standard.

Read more: In a world first, Australian university builds own solar farm to offset 100% of its electricity use

Tightening of reliability standards is not a theoretical problem. In particular, we’ve seen the repercussions in the network sector – otherwise known as the “poles and wires”. Following network outages in NSW and Queensland in early 2004, both states rushed in tighter standards for network reliability. This contributed to multibillion-dollar network infrastructure upgrades which consumers have been paying off for years.

Tightening of the reliability standard will similarly increase the costs of generation. From next year, retailers may be required to enter contracts with electricity generators to meet their share of expected peak demand. Or the market operator may secure more electricity capacity when needed – such as by asking large energy users to power down, or bringing diesel or gas generators online.

In either case, the costs are passed on to consumers.

Silver lining?

There may be a thin silver lining. The promise of “demand response” measures – when electricity consumers reduce their electricity demand to help supply and demand match during extreme peaks – could lower the cost of meeting the new reliability standard. This is because with less energy being used, fewer more expensive measures may be needed to maintain supply.

The government-appointed Energy Security Board has said tightening the standard may in fact encourage more demand response measures. Supporting demand response is an admirable goal, but tightening the reliability standard is an odd way to go about it.

While the outlook for reliability this summer looks good, the changes in reliability standard ring alarm bells for the future. Consumers are generally happy with their reliability, and the vast majority of outages are not the result of demand outstripping supply. The changes don’t appear well justified or targeted, and they will come at a cost. Things are going to get expensive.

Read more: Australia has failed miserably on energy efficiency – and government figures hide the truth

– ref. Sure, no-one likes a blackout. But keeping the lights on is about to get expensive – https://theconversation.com/sure-no-one-likes-a-blackout-but-keeping-the-lights-on-is-about-to-get-expensive-145168

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

In February, then Greens’ leader Richard Di Natale stepped down from the leadership after five years and announced he’d leave parliament to spend for more time with his family. On Tuesday, he delivered his valedictory speech to the senate – remotely – and on Wednesday, he formally resigned.

Read more: Where are the Greens? As Di Natale leaves, Bandt must find a spotlight for his party in a pandemic

In his speech Di Natale said “We’ve closed off the [parliament] building to the community, but we’re throwing the gates wide open to vested interests with deep pockets.”

Asked if there should be tougher control on lobbying and what could be done to limit the power of “vested interests”, he says: “There’s a few things that need to happen.

“The first thing is political donations. There are cancer on our democracy, and we need to immediately move to a system of public funding of election campaigns with basically the prohibition of all corporate donations.”

“The second thing you have to do is … close that revolving door between lobbyists and MP’s… It’s remarkable that some MPs don’t even leave the parliament before they get on the payroll of some of these interest groups, whether it’s in the defence industry, the gambling industry, the alcohol industry, the mining industry.”

“And finally, we need a national anti-corruption body.”

Many would regard current leader Adam Bandt as more radical than his predecessor. Di Natale sees the difference as more cosmetic.

“I think Adam and I shared a sort of political outlook on most things. We’re obviously different people. We might have different ways of communicating. And that’s to be expected. But the truth is, [in] terms of our policy direction, in terms of all the things we’ve been campaigning on, there’s very little of a difference between us or indeed any of our Greens colleagues.”

Additional audio

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Former Greens leader Richard Di Natale on COVID, climate and his successor – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-former-greens-leader-richard-di-natale-on-covid-climate-and-his-successor-145177

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Val Colic-Peisker, Associate Professor of Sociology, RMIT University

The most recent Islamophobia in Australia report shows Muslims continue to be the targets of hostility and violence.

The September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 propelled them to this unenviable position. More recently, Islamic State has reinforced Western fears of and antipathy towards Islam and Muslims.

Our new study finds non-Muslim Australians living in areas with high numbers of Muslims are less Islamophobic than the general populations of Sydney and Melbourne. This suggests living side-by-side could be an antidote to Islamophobia.

What is Islamophobia?

Islamophobia refers to indiscriminate negative attitudes or emotions directed at Islam or Muslims.

Australians typically know very little about Muslims and their faith. As a result, they tend to lump together this vastly diverse group as backward, gender-oppressive and violent.

Read more: Islamophobic attacks mostly happen in public. Here’s what you can do if you see it or experience it

The “religious visibility” of some Muslims exacerbates this issue. We see Muslim women wearing hijabs or face veils, and quickly – as well as wrongly – conclude all Muslims are traditional and far too serious about their religion for our modern and secular standards.

Just like any other large population group, Muslims come from a variety of ethno-cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. As sociologist Riaz Hassan noted in 2018, 37% of Australian Muslims are born here, and the rest come from 183 different countries.

Islamophobia in Sydney and Melbourne

In the 2016 Census, more than 600,000 people identified as Muslims, with about three-quarters living in Sydney and Melbourne. They tend to be concentrated in specific suburbs, where they are also visible through ethnic businesses, schools and places of worship.

Our study examined Islamophobia in the top ten Muslim suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, in comparison with the rest of the two metropolitan areas. The proportion of Muslim residents in the selected areas ranged from 59% in Lakemba, NSW, to 30% in Dandenong, Victoria, according to census data.

We surveyed 1,020 people – half in the target areas and half in the greater metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne.

Respondents were given a series of statements, such as, “the number of Muslims in Australia is too high,” “I am worried about Muslims forming enclaves in Sydney or Melbourne” and “I dislike seeing Muslim women with their hair covered”.

They were asked to agree or disagree on a five-point scale, which produced their “Islamophobia score” from one (no prejudice) to five (high prejudice).

Living close by is key

Our study found non-Muslims living in Muslim areas were less Islamophobic than the general populations of Sydney and Melbourne, scoring 2.31 compared to 2.80. This adds evidence to the “contact theory”, which states that usually, but not always, contact between people of different backgrounds reduces inter-group prejudice.

Read more: These young Muslim Australians want to meet Islamophobes and change their minds. And it’s working

This is opposed to “threat theory”, which proposes encounters between individuals from different groups may, in certain circumstances, increase the feeling of anxiety and threat.

Our study also found Sydneysiders were less Islamophobic than Melbournians. In Muslim areas of Sydney, non-Muslims’ Islamophobia score was 2.18, compared to 2.32 in comparable areas of Melbourne.

This could be due to the fact Muslims are more geographically concentrated in Western Sydney and more dispersed in Melbourne – again pointing to the theory that more contact with a minority reduces prejudice.

What about age and education?

Other findings include:

• Younger people were less Islamophobic than older Australians. Those aged 18 to 34 scored 2.32 on the Islamophobia scale, while those over 65 scored 2.80. This is line with previous studies that suggest prejudice increases with age. This is due to social attitudes, particularly those in school curricula and university courses, have significantly changed in recent decades.

• Those with more formal education were also less Islamophobic. Those with a university education scored 2.47, compared with 2.90 for those with only ten years of schooling.

• People who identified as Christian were more Islamophobic (2.77) than those with no religion (2.48) and those of other (non-Islamic) religions (2.45). This was true in both the target suburbs and the broader metropolitan areas studied – although in the former case, the differences were smaller.

• Respondents’ satisfaction with income was a stronger predictor of Islamophobia than the level of income itself. Scores dropped from 2.86 for respondents who were “struggling” to 2.49 for those who were “comfortable”.

We can’t be complacent

Compared to many other Western countries, Australia is not the worst place to be a minority Muslim. A 2015 survey found only about 10% of Australian respondents were highly Islamophobic.

However, we should not be complacent, especially after last year’s Christchurch mosques terrorist attacks, perpetrated by an Australian.

Read more: When life means life: why the court had to deliver an unprecedented sentence for the Christchurch terrorist

We know media coverage is critical when it comes to Islamophobia. This can expose people to negative portrayals of Islam and Muslims, intolerant statements by political leaders and other opinion makers.

It is therefore highly concerning when prominent figures like One Nation leader Pauline Hanson makes headlines declaring she believes Australia is in danger of being “swamped by Muslims”. Or wears a burqa in parliament to raise alarm.

Read more: Pauline Hanson built a political career on white victimhood and brought far-right rhetoric to the mainstream

With Muslims making up just 2.6% of the total Australian population, her comments were not only xenophobic but incorrect.

The elegant minarets of Auburn, Meadow Heights and other mosques add character to Australian suburbia. Yet they attract more fear than admiration or curiosity, as shown by anti-mosque protests in Australia and minaret bans in some European countries.

Our study shows when non-Muslims interact with Muslims, they are less likely to be Islamophobic. It suggests an important way to combat Islamophobia is to have more rather than fewer Muslims among us and to learn more about their religion and way of life.

– ref. Non-Muslims who live close to Muslims are less likely to be Islamophobic, study shows – https://theconversation.com/non-muslims-who-live-close-to-muslims-are-less-likely-to-be-islamophobic-study-shows-144680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexie Papanicolaou, Senior Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Western Sydney University

With the federal government making concessions on the Job-ready Graduates Package, we are closer to it becoming law. It’s meant to take effect in 2021. We prepared a submission on behalf of the Australian Academy of Sciences’ EMCR Forum that warns the package is unlikely to achieve its aims, and could drive an exhausted workforce of early and mid-career researchers (EMCRs) from the industry.

The draft legislation lowers student fees for some courses and increases fees for others. The changes also attempt to right wrongs that disadvantaged regional universities, as the sector has evolved since the Dawkins reforms of the late 1980s. In the process, however, the government is reducing its overall funding contribution across all subjects.

Read more: The government would save $1 billion a year with proposed university reforms — but that’s not what it’s telling us

Who does most of the research and teaching?

To understand the long-term consequences for research and development, we need to dissect how research and teaching are intertwined and driven by a voiceless cohort within the R&D sector: early and mid-career researchers. They are typically defined as researchers less than 15 years out of their PhD.

Their research outputs in universities, government and industry are critical for Australia’s economy and research standing globally. Their work has helped make education one of the largest contributors to the economy.

The tertiary education sector is worth A$91 billion a year while costing state and federal governments A$38.4 billion a year. When combined with the A$98 billion added from the “professional, scientific, and technical services” sector (which tertiary education trains for), we are talking about a large slice of our economy.

Read more: Early and mid-career scientists face a bleak future in the wake of the pandemic

How will the proposed changes affect scientific research in practice? Research is a painstaking endeavour achieved via often deliberate, always methodical, experimentation, data collection and interpretation. This work can take many years to complete.

On the ground, research is not mainly the work of an individual professor, as often portrayed in popular fiction, but represents the collective work of younger researchers. The countless hours put in by research assistants and emerging research leaders underpins Australia’s scientific output.

Over the past few decades, however, individuals with fixed-term contracts do much of the research work (“research only” or “post-docs”) while casual contracts drive much of the teaching and tutoring. They are rarely provided with ongoing, permanent contracts.

Read more: More than 70% of academics at some universities are casuals. They’re losing work and are cut out of JobKeeper

Universities often employ early to mid-career researchers on a casual or short-term basis. This leaves them at the mercy of an administrator’s spreadsheet. They are particularly vulnerable as universities look to cut costs due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on revenues.

In the past month alone, the University of Technology Sydney, University of Wollongong, Macquarie University, La Trobe University and Victoria University have announced thousands of expected redundancies into 2021. And these numbers do not include casual or fixed-term positions that have not been renewed, nor redundancies in future years.

Read more: Universities are cutting hundreds of jobs – they, and the government, can do better

While the sector will eventually recover from COVID-19, the EMCR Forum’s work shows even a small disruption to an emerging researcher’s career is likely to lead to their exit from the research and teaching workforce. Their skills and knowledge will be lost with them. One respondent to our survey summed up their plight:

Sessional teaching contracts are cancelled and will not be back. Lots of EMCRs, including me, are facing financial difficulties and uncertainties on top of their increased workload and caring duties. I need to bring [externally funded] projects to uni to employ myself otherwise I can’t pay my mortgage.

These researchers have committed themselves to a sector that in many cases has overworked and underpaid them. They have done so in the hope of building a career, on top of trying to start or support a family after training that usually lasts ten years or more.

Also lost when these researchers leave is the taxpayer investment in their training. We estimated this at A$168,032 to $A332,344 per new researcher for an undergraduate degree, PhD direct costs and PhD stipend. Post-PhD training can add another A$300,000 over three years including salary and associated costs.

Federal funding cuts will be the final straw

The government based its proposed changes on a Deloitte report that failed to substantiate what form higher education reform ought to take.

Our submission challenged the report’s reliance on questionable statistics. It also avoided drilling down into the causes of variation in university costs. For example, the University of Sydney and James Cook University were treated as equals, including their mission and the people they serve.

That the government allowed less than a week for public consultation on the draft legislation only worries us more.

If a projected increase in student numbers, and hence fee revenue, overcomes the shortfall in university budgets, then vice chancellors are more likely to be satisfied. That may look good when viewed in a spreadsheet, but not if viewed through the lens of the 5,000-plus members of the EMCR Forum.

Early and mid-career researchers – as the “junior” (and therefore cheaper) teaching staff – know COVID-19 has overwhelmed them to the point of exhaustion. These reforms will be the final straw for young researchers as universities declare that further “efficiencies” will be needed to teach within their reduced budgets. The chief executive of the Group of Eight universities, Vicki Thomson, stated:

We are being asked to teach more students with less support at a time when, collectively, the Group of Eight is facing a $2 billion revenue downgrade in 2020 and most likely worse to follow in 2021.

Read more: Coronavirus and university reforms put at risk Australia’s research gains of the last 15 years

The Group of Eight is among those seeking a Senate review.

Australia can’t afford to lose these researchers

These policies will have a direct and broad impact on Australian society. A vastly reduced research capacity will cripple our ability to overcome the challenges we face. No generation of scientists has been needed more as bushfires, drought, floods, international tensions, trade protectionism and racism at the highest level of global governance are coming to a head.

As the people who underpin Australia’s research capacity are now preparing for a bleak future, the federal government has chosen once more to sacrifice Australia’s economy and climate change resilience. The consequences could end our reputation as the lucky country.

– ref. Job-ready graduates changes loom as last straw for emerging researchers – https://theconversation.com/job-ready-graduates-changes-loom-as-last-straw-for-emerging-researchers-144853

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Beck, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Monash University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced plans to introduce legislation that would allow the foreign minister to cancel agreements with foreign governments entered into by states, territories, local councils and universities if the agreement is contrary to Australia’s national interests.

Under the bill, the government could scrap the agreement Victoria signed last year to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

But it could also go beyond that. Morrison has indicated there are more than 130 existing deals that could come under review.

So, what powers do both the federal and state governments have when it comes to deals with foreign governments? What does the constitution say?

Who can enter into agreements with foreign countries?

Only the federal government can enter into binding international treaties on Australia’s behalf.

However, under Australian law as it currently stands, states, territories, local councils, universities and even private companies and individuals are free to enter into contracts with foreign governments and their entities.

Read more: NT election: is China’s Belt and Road Initiative the answer to a struggling economy?

These agreements can relate to things like economic cooperation and development, research deals and cultural exchanges.

And there is no general obligation for states, territories, local councils or universities to tell the federal government of their plans to enter into these agreements.

They are also enforceable in the courts as ordinary contracts would be.

What is the federal government proposing?

The full text of the proposed legislation has not yet been released. The plan seems to include three key elements.

First, Foreign Minister Marise Payne will be given power to cancel any existing or future agreements with foreign governments or their entities she judges to be inconsistent with Australia’s national interests.

Secondly, states, territories, local councils and universities will be required to notify the federal government in advance of any plan to enter into an agreement with a foreign government.

Thirdly, a public register of existing and future agreements with foreign governments will be established.

Read more: Why is there so much furore over China’s Belt and Road Initiative?

Does the federal government have power to do this?

Under the Australian constitution, the federal parliament has power to make laws with respect to “external affairs”. This includes making laws with respect to Australia’s relations with other countries.

There appears to be a sufficient connection between what the government is proposing and Australia’s relations with other countries for the proposed legislation to be supported by the “external affairs” power.

Are there limits to the federal government’s controls over the states?

Although Australia has a federal system granting states a certain degree of independence, the states are not completely autonomous from the federal government. There are many federal laws that restrict what the states can do, such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

But there are important limits to the extent to which federal laws and the federal government can interfere with the states.

The drafters of the constitution set up a federal government and a series of separately organised state governments. This fact gives rise to a principle in constitutional law known as the intergovernmental immunities doctrine.

This doctrine prohibits federal laws and governmental actions that operate to destroy or curtail the continued existence of the states or their capacity to function as governments. Because territories are not states, the doctrine doesn’t protect them.

For example, the High Court has held that federal laws seeking to dictate which bank the states keep their money in or control who can be appointed to senior positions in state governments are invalid for breaching this doctrine.

Does the federal government’s proposal breach the doctrine?

The High Court has emphasised, however, the doctrine does not protect every activity or function a state might choose to undertake.

For example, the High Court has held it is not a breach of the doctrine for federal laws to dictate minimum wages and working conditions for non-senior state employees.

Perhaps most relevantly, in a 2013 case, the High Court also ruled that federal laws impacting the ability of states to set up favourable mining royalties schemes to attract local and foreign investment do not breach the intergovernmental immunities doctrine.

Depending on the precise details of the proposed foreign relations legislation, the federal government looks like it is on safe constitutional ground.

While it might negatively affect a state’s economic policies and plans, the proposed legislation does not appear to curtail the ability of any state to function as a government.

What’s the backstory here?

There has been recent controversy over agreements entered into by some states and universities with foreign government entities, especially those in China.

The most notable example is Victoria’s decision to sign up to the Belt and Road Initiative.

This has been controversial because it is seen by some analysts as a strategic geopolitical move by China to deepen other countries’ economic reliance on it, thus increasing its influence.

The decision to lease the port of Darwin to a company with Chinese government links has also sparked concern.

In addition, some states and universities have entered into agreements with Chinese government-linked entities to set up Confucius Institutes or other language and cultural programs.

These agreements are controversial because of claims they facilitate Chinese Communist Party propaganda or allow the Chinese government to influence Australian education and teaching.

Read more: Explainer: what are Confucius Institutes and do they teach Chinese propaganda?

Is the legislation likely to pass?

Penny Wong, the shadow foreign minister, has indicated Labor supports the general idea underlying the proposed legislation.

So, subject to some scrutiny and negotiation over the precise wording, it looks like the legislation could pass federal parliament easily.

– ref. Explainer: can the federal government control the ability of states to sign deals with foreign governments? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-can-the-federal-government-control-the-ability-of-states-to-sign-deals-with-foreign-governments-145164

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alice Gorman, Associate Professor in Archaeology and Space Studies, Flinders University

Everyone is planning to return to the Moon. At least 10 missions by half a dozen nations are scheduled before the end of 2021, and that’s only the beginning.

Even though there are international treaties governing outer space, ambiguity remains about how individuals, nations and corporations can use lunar resources.

In all of this, the Moon is seen as an inert object with no value in its own right.

But should we treat this celestial object, which has been part of the culture of every hominin for millions of years, as just another resource?

Why we should think about legal personhood

In April 2020, US president Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on the use of “off-Earth resources” which made clear his government’s stance towards mining on the Moon and other celestial bodies:

Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space.

Lunar resources include helium-3 (a possible clean energy source), rare earth elements (used in electronics) and water ice. Located in shadowed craters at the poles, water ice could be used to make fuel for lunar industries and to take the next step on to Mars.

As a thought experiment in how we might regulate lunar exploitation, some have asked whether the Moon should be granted legal personhood, which would give it the right to enter into contracts, own property, and sue other persons.

Read more: Five ethical questions for how we choose to use the Moon

Legal personhood is already extended to many non-human entities: certain rivers, deities in some parts of India, and corporations worldwide. Environmental features can’t speak for themselves, so trustees are appointed to act on their behalf, as is the case for the Whanganui River in New Zealand. One proposal is to apply the New Zealand model to the Moon.

Heritage and memory

As a space archaeologist, I study artefacts and places associated with space exploration in the 20th and 21st centuries. Previously, I worked with Indigenous communities to mitigate damage to heritage sites caused by mining. So I have a keen interest in what mining means for human heritage on the Moon.

Places like Tranquility Base, where humans first landed on the Moon in 1969, could be considered heritage for the entire species. There are more than 100 artefacts left at Tranquility Base, including a television camera, experiment packages, and Buzz Aldrin’s space boots.

Objects like this are full of meaning and memory. But these objects not just made by humans – they also shape human behaviour in their own right. It’s in this context that I want to consider two aspects of lunar personhood: memory and agency.

Can we support the legal concept of personhood for the Moon with actual features of personhood?

Does the Moon remember?

The 17th-century philosopher John Locke argued that memory was a key feature of personhood. It’s now acceptable to attribute memory to environmental features on Earth, like the oceans.

There are many different types of memory, of course – think of memory foam, a space-age spin-off with terrestrial applications.

One reason scientists want to study the Moon is to retrieve the memory of how it formed after separating from Earth billions of years ago.

This memory is encoded in geological features like craters and lava fields, and the regions at the lunar poles where shadows two billion years old preserve precious water ice.

These are like archives storing information about past events. The most recent layer of memory records 60 years of human interventions, sitting lightly on the surface. This belongs to human heritage and memory, but it is now lunar memory too.

Read more: Friday essay: shadows on the Moon – a tale of ephemeral beauty, humans and hubris

Does the Moon have agency?

The international Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) maintains the Planetary Protection Policy. This policy aims to prevent harm to potential life on other planets and moons. The Moon requires little protection because it is considered a dead world.

Recently, social media went wild with a story that self-described TikTok witches had hexed the Moon. More experienced WitchTokkers reacted with fury at their hubris in meddling with powers they didn’t understand.

Despite its apparent irrationality, there was something delightful about this story. It showed how the Moon is thought to interact with human life on its own terms. The “witches” took the Moon seriously as an agent in human affairs.

When humans return to the Moon, they will not find it a dead world. It is a very active landscape shaped by dust, shadows and light.

The Moon reacts to human disturbance by mobilising dust that irritates lungs, breaks down seals and prevents equipment from working. This is neither passive nor hostile – just the Moon being itself.

The Moon as an equal partner

Australian philosopher Val Plumwood would see the Moon as a co-participant in human affairs, rather than formless, dead matter:

When the other’s agency is treated as background or denied, we give the other less credit than it is due. We can easily come to take for granted what they provide for us, and to starve them of the resources they need to survive.

So this leaves me with a question: if the Moon is a legal person, what does it need from us to sustain its memory and agency? How can we achieve what Plumwood calls a “mutual flourishing”?

The answers might lie in our attitudes.

We could abandon the idea that our moral obligations only cover living ecologies. We should consider the Moon as an entity beyond the resources it might hold for humans to use.

In practice, this might mean trustees would determine how much of the water ice deposits or other geological features can be used, or set conditions on activities which alter the qualities of the Moon irreversibly.

The record of human activities we leave on the Moon should reflect respect, as we are contributing to what it remembers. In this sense, the TikTok witches had the right idea.

This article is based on a presentation at a Moon Village Association public forum organised by the Office of Other Spaces, Catapult UK and the Space Junk Podcast, and supported by Inspiring NSW and the Hunter Innovation and Science Hub.

– ref. Can the Moon be a person? As lunar mining looms, a change of perspective could protect Earth’s ancient companion – https://theconversation.com/can-the-moon-be-a-person-as-lunar-mining-looms-a-change-of-perspective-could-protect-earths-ancient-companion-144848

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Zecher, Research fellow, Australian Catholic University

With some communities in rebooted lockdown conditions and movement restricted everywhere else, no one is posting pictures of their sourdough. Zoom cocktail parties have lost their novelty, Netflix can only release so many new series. The news seems worse every day, yet we compulsively scroll through it.

We get distracted by social media, yet have a pile of books unread. We keep meaning to go outside but somehow never find the time. We’re bored, listless, afraid and uncertain.

What is this feeling?

John Cassian, a monk and theologian wrote in the early 5th century about an ancient Greek emotion called acedia. A mind “seized” by this emotion is “horrified at where he is, disgusted with his room … It does not allow him to stay still in his cell or to devote any effort to reading”. He feels:

such bodily listlessness and yawning hunger as though he were worn by a long journey or a prolonged fast … Next he glances about and sighs that no one is coming to see him. Constantly in and out of his cell, he looks at the sun as if it were too slow in setting.

This sounds eerily familiar. Yet, the name that so aptly describes our current state was lost to time and translation.

Read more: What would Seneca say? Six Stoic tips for surviving lockdown

Noonday demon

Etymologically, acedia joins the negative prefix a- to the Greek noun kēdos, which means “care, concern, or grief”. It sounds like apathy, but Cassian’s description shows that acedia is much more daunting and complex than that.

Cassian and other early Christians called acedia “the noonday demon”, and sometimes described it as a “train of thought”. But they did not think it affected city-dwellers or even monks in communities.

Rather, acedia arose directly out the spatial and social constrictions that a solitary monastic life necessitates. These conditions generate a strange combination of listlessness, undirected anxiety, and inability to concentrate. Together these make up the paradoxical emotion of acedia.

Evagrius of Pontus included acedia among the eight trains of thought that needed to be overcome by devout Christians. Among these, acedia was considered the most insidious. It attacked only after monks had conquered the sins of gluttony, fornication, avarice, sadness, anger, vainglory, and pride.

Cassian, a student of Evagrius, translated the list of sins into Latin. A later 6th century Latin edit gave us the Seven Deadly Sins. In this list, acedia was subsumed into “sloth”, a word we now associate with laziness.

Acedia appears throughout monastic and other literature of the Middle Ages. It was a key part of the emotional vocabulary of the Byzantine Empire, and can be found in all sorts of lists of “passions” (or, emotions) in medical literature and lexicons, as well as theological treatises and sermons.

It first appeared in English in print in 1607 to describe a state of spiritual listlessness. But it’s barely used today.

Read more: Personalities that thrive in isolation and what we can all learn from time alone

Making like monks

As clinical psychology has reclassified emotions and mental states, terms like “melancholy” can sound archaic and moralising.

Emotional expressions, norms, and scripts change over time and vary between cultures. They mark out constellations of bodily sensations, patterns of thought and perceived social causes or effects.

Since these constellations are culturally or socially specific, as societies change, so do the emotions in their repertoire. With the decline of theological moralising, not to mention monastic influence, acedia has largely disappeared from secular vocabularies.

Now, the pandemic and governmental responses to it create social conditions that approximate those of desert monks. No demons, perhaps, but social media offers a barrage of bad (or misleading) news.

Social distancing limits physical contact. Lockdown constricts physical space and movement. Working from home or having lost work entirely both upend routines and habits. In these conditions, perhaps it’s time to bring back the term.

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

More than a label

Reviving the language of acedia is important to our experience in two ways.

First, it distinguishes the complex of emotions brought on by enforced isolation, constant uncertainty and the barrage of bad news from clinical terms like “depression” or “anxiety”.

Saying, “I’m feeling acedia” could legitimise feelings of listlessness and anxiety as valid emotions in our current context without inducing guilt that others have things worse.

Second, and more importantly, the feelings associated with physical isolation are exacerbated by emotional isolation – that terrible sense that this thing I feel is mine alone. When an experience can be named, it can be communicated and even shared.

Read more: How setting aside some ‘worry time’ can help reduce anxiety over COVID-19 lockdowns

Learning to express new or previously unrecognised constellations of feelings, sensations, and thoughts, builds an emotional repertoire, which assists in emotional regulation. Naming and expressing experiences allows us to claim some agency in dealing with them.

As we, like Cassian’s desert monks, struggle through our own “long, dark teatime of the soul”, we can name this experience, which is now part of our emotional repertoire.

– ref. Acedia: the lost name for the emotion we’re all feeling right now – https://theconversation.com/acedia-the-lost-name-for-the-emotion-were-all-feeling-right-now-144058

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith University

The Royal Commission into the summer fires is an opportunity to start seriously reconsidering our built environment. We need to prepare for accelerating climate change, our changing natural landscape and future natural disasters.

This should include reassessing our building standards and building codes. While the bushfire Royal Commission is working through many of these issues, one that has so far escaped attention is the recently developed standard for wastewater treatment, now being considered by states and territories.

The wastewater systems widely used in rural and regional Australia are vulnerable to natural disasters such as floods and severe bushfires. There is a real risk of outbreaks of water-borne disease, which would compound the misery those catastrophic events cause.

It was simply dumb luck that a disease outbreak did not happen last summer. The current standard and even its proposed replacement is inadequate to protect communities in a future of worsening disasters under climate change.

A major health hazard

Outbreaks of water-borne diseases are a well-known hazard of major flooding disasters, especially in developing countries. This isn’t common in Australia, though in 2011, the Queensland floods led to a handful of cases of the water-borne, bacterial disease leptospirosis.

While there are no recorded major disease outbreaks after bushfires, it’s a preventable accident waiting to happen as bushfires become more frequent and intense in Australia.

In Sydney, 95% of dwellings are connected to sewers, but the figure falls to 93% for the rest of New South Wales.

Those not connected to these “trunk sewers” generally use the septic tank. This applies to communities on the fringes of our cities as well as regional towns, including many in fire-prone areas.

Read more: Bushfires threaten drinking water safety. The consequences could last for decades

A septic tank is essentially a large underground chamber to receive liquid wastes. Solids fall to the bottom and undergo anaerobic digestion, where micro-organisms break down matter in the absence of oxygen. This releases gases that are vented to the atmosphere, while liquids are released into the soil. The sludge at the bottom of the tank needs to be pumped out every few years.

Damage to septic tanks is one of the major health hazards people face when they return to their bushfire-affected homes. The Eurobodalla Shire Council in NSW, for example, even offered free sewerage management system checks for residents with septic tanks to mitigate this risk.

Why septic tanks are so vulnerable

The standard septic tank uses a form of waste treatment known as the aerated wastewater treatment system. These require electricity to work and also have important components such as electronic grid boards above ground.

Without power they are effectively just holding tanks that can overflow and release untreated sewage into the surrounding environment and waterways. And this can lead to bacterial diseases such as salmonella, viral diseases such as hepatitis A or gastroenteritis, or diseases caused by parasites such as giardia. Even COVID-19 can be transmitted through wastewater.

Electricity is especially vulnerable when disasters occur — even more-so when the components are above, not below, ground. In January at the peak of the bushfires, power outages affected about 50,000 homes in southeast NSW alone. On average, the power outages lasted three and a half days.

Most on-site waste treatment systems have a regulated 1,000 litre emergency overflow reservoir. That would only take a few days to fill up. After that, there is a health risk from escaping sewage.

Read more: Australia’s pristine beaches have a poo problem

Wasteful and unsafe

There is increasing concern from safety experts and environmental scientists about the new standard (named AS1546.3.2017) recently devised by Standards Australia. It’s based on old technology, which is both wasteful and unsafe.

It’s wasteful, because it requires wastewater treatment systems with a minimum capacity of between 1,200 and 5,000 litres a day — a size designed to process the waste from eight to 33 people. But the average Australian household consists of only 2.6 people.

Read more: After the firestorm: the health implications of returning to a bushfire zone

While the size does make them safer — as they can last for longer before overflowing — the weak point is the need for above-ground electricity services. Systems above ground are destroyed in the sort of catastrophic fires we saw last summer and can be crippled by flooding or cyclonic winds.

On the other hand, structures underground are protected by the earth from the radiant heat of fires, the rushing water of floods and the extreme wind gusts of cyclones.

We must upgrade the wastewater system

This is why we need to upgrade the septic tank standards to newer, so-called “passive” systems, which are widely used overseas, and can operate safely for fewer people.

These new facilities have many advantages over the old technology, including using less fossil fuels to operate. But the biggest benefits are that they use no electricity and are completely underground, with no above-ground operational components or potentially risky sewage dispersal.

This means they have built-in resilience to the sorts of natural disasters we face in Australia: bushfires, floods and cyclones.

A standard like AS1546.3.2017 does not suit the goal of more resilient and environmentally sound neighbourhoods and communities. Such a standard should not exist in a country that’s aware of its environmental obligations and equipped to face more natural disasters in coming years.

– ref. When bushfires meet old septic tanks, a disease outbreak is only a matter of time – https://theconversation.com/when-bushfires-meet-old-septic-tanks-a-disease-outbreak-is-only-a-matter-of-time-138798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Ananian-Welsh, Senior Lecturer, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

In 2019, Australia dropped five places in the World Press Freedom Index. Australia was once the model for press freedom in the Asia-Pacific, but Reporters Without Borders, which collates the index, said:

Australia […] is now characterised by its threats to the confidentiality of sources and to investigative journalism.

These criticisms followed two Australian Federal Police raids on journalists in June 2019. Those raids ignited widespread calls for law reform and prompted two parliamentary inquiries into press freedom.

The first of those inquiries has now reported.

The 16 recommendations by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) range from warrant procedures and whistleblower protections to shield laws, journalism-based defences and more.

The recommendations are important, but minimal. They call for greater statistical reporting, further reviews and public sector training.

The four Labor members of the committee – Anthony Byrne, Mark Dreyfus, Jenny McAllister and Kristina Keneally – say the recommendations “do not go far enough” and should be regarded “as a bare minimum – a starting point – for reform”.

Nonetheless, the report recognises key inadequacies in existing laws and points toward areas in critical need of reform.

Read more: Australia needs a Media Freedom Act. Here’s how it could work

Warrants: the public interest advocate solution

With the dust still swirling from the AFP raids, the committee was asked to report on the adequacy of warrant procedures in investigations concerning journalists or media organisations.

Media organisations, advocacy groups and several experts called for such warrants to be issued (as a general rule) in contested proceedings before a superior court judge. The AFP argued that notifying someone of a warrant application would undermine law enforcement efforts.

The committee’s most forceful recommendation seeks a compromise position. It leaves the vast network of Australia’s warrant provisions largely untouched, but would expand the (presently little used) Office of the federal Public Interest Advocate.

This advocate does not stand in the shoes of an absent party. Rather, their role is to independently assist a decision-maker to assess “the public interest”. Press freedom and source confidentiality are in the public interest; so are effective law enforcement and national security.

The committee recommends the advocate be given a mandatory role in warrant applications relating to a journalist or media organisation in investigations that concern a breach of government secrecy. The gravity of the task is reflected in a requirement that they have most senior legal standing (a queen’s counsel, senior counsel or a superior court judge). Crucially, and commendably, the advocate would be subject to a new obligation to represent the interests of public interest journalism.

The expansion of this role would provide a welcome avenue for the public interest in press freedom (and, relatedly, government accountability, source protection, free speech and so on) to be represented in warrant proceedings. It might also provide an additional guard against the kind of poor drafting that led to the warrant against News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst being declared invalid by the High Court.

Read more: Explainer: what did the High Court find in the Annika Smethurst v AFP case?

But the advocate scheme falls short of true representation. The advocate has no opportunity to receive information from a client – a key factor in how lawyers operate. The only information they receive will come from the agency applying for the warrant. The advocate will have considerable legal experience, but not necessarily experience in journalism or the media.

There is little public information available about the experiences of similar officeholders. So, it is difficult to say whether the involvement of a public interest advocate is capable of preserving the vital balance between press freedom and law enforcement.

Source protection

In the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Victoria, and elsewhere, information about a journalist’s confidential sources is subject to a form of privilege: it simply cannot be obtained by police, even under a warrant. A judge applying a public interest test may remove that privilege, usually in a contested proceeding.

A similar protection is sorely needed in federal law. Reform could be modelled on the UK’s comprehensive model, or it could be as simple as extending existing shield laws. These laws provide that a journalist does not have to disclose information in court that could reveal the identity of a confidential source. (The only exception is if the judge rules the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in secrecy.)

The committee recommends the national cabinet be asked to harmonise and update Australian shield laws. However, it stops short of recommending that journalists’ privilege extend to police investigations. This leaves a gap in the law whereby police may access and use information that would be protected in court.

The committee justifies its approach to shield laws by reference to the public interest advocate. It seems the advocate is to bear the brunt of preserving the “balance” between public interest journalism and national security in intelligence or law enforcement investigations of the media.

This approach is a clear improvement on the present situation. But it remains the bare minimum. If adopted, Australia would still lag well behind our overseas partners in protecting press freedom and source confidentiality in the law enforcement context.

The first review of many

The PCJIS had been criticised from the outset for being an inappropriate body to undertake this inquiry. The shadow attorney-general and committee member, Mark Dreyfus, admitted its national security focus meant this committee was “only going to be able to look at part of the problem”.

Similar concerns regarding this government-controlled committee drove the Greens’ successful push for a parallel Senate inquiry into press freedom. Not only is the Senate inquiry yet to report, a number of other inquiries are on foot.

In addition, the committee report recommends fresh inquiries. For instance, the government is urged to consider extending limited defences to criminal prosecution for legitimate journalism, and the ongoing attorney-general’s review of secrecy offences is encouraged to consider impacts on public interest journalism.

Although press freedom is central to free speech, public accountability and the rule of law, in Australia this notion lacks the legal protections found in other liberal democracies. This has allowed legislation and police powers to encroach on press freedom by criminalising journalism and compromising source confidentiality. This is particularly the case in the national security field, where Australia has set itself apart by the sheer quantity and complexity of laws.

Read more: Australia has enacted 82 anti-terror laws since 2001. But tough laws alone can’t eliminate terrorism

Reviewing that vast body of law for its impact on press freedom is a colossal undertaking. But it is critically important for the health of Australian democracy as well as for national security.

The PJCIS report has been the first word on how governmental transparency, accountability and protection for the public interest might be improved by supporting a free press within national security frameworks. It will certainly not be the last.

– ref. Security committee recommends bare minimum of reform to protect press freedom – https://theconversation.com/security-committee-recommends-bare-minimum-of-reform-to-protect-press-freedom-145105

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Bennie, Senior Research Fellow, University of Southern Queensland

We often get bombarded with the message “regular physical activity is the key to good health and well-being”. To most of us, when we hear “physical activity”, we typically think of aerobic exercise such as walking, jogging, and cycling.

But recent evidence suggests muscle-strengthening exercise is very beneficial to our health. In our study, published today, we argue muscle-strengthening exercise deserves to be considered just as important as aerobic exercise.

And the good news is strength training can be done by anyone, anywhere — and you don’t need fancy equipment.

Strength is just as important as cardio

Muscle-strengthening exercise is also known as strength, weight or resistance training, or simply “lifting weights”. It includes the use of weight machines, exercise bands, hand-held weights, or our own body weight (such as push-ups, sit-ups or planking). It’s typically performed at fitness centres and gyms, but can also be done at home.

More than 30 years of clinical research has shown that muscle-strengthening exercise increases muscle mass, strength and bone mineral density. It improves our body’s capacity to clear sugar and fat from the bloodstream, and improves our ability to perform everyday activities such as walking up stairs or getting in and out of a chair. It can also reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety.

In our research, we reviewed the evidence from several large studies and found muscle-strengthening exercise is associated with a reduced risk of early death, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity. Importantly, these health benefits remained evident even after accounting for aerobic exercise and other factors such as age, sex, education, income, body mass index, depression and high blood pressure.

Compared with aerobic exercise like jogging, clinical studies show that muscle-strengthening exercise has greater effects on age-related diseases such as sarcopenia (muscle wasting), cognitive decline and physical function.

This is particularly significant considering we have an ageing population in Australia. Declines in muscle mass and cognitive function are predicted to be among the key 21st-century health challenges.

Most of us don’t even lift — but we should

While the health benefits of muscle-strengthening exercise are clear, the reality is most adults don’t do it, or don’t do it enough. Data from multiple countries show only 10-30% of adults meet the muscle-strengthening exercise guidelines of two or more days per week. Australian adults reported among the lowest levels of strength training in the world.

Our data from more than 1.6 million US adults show nearly twice as many do no muscle-strengthening exercise at all, compared with those who do no aerobic exercise.

The reasons fewer people do strength training than aerobic exercise are complex. In part, it might be because muscle-strengthening exercise has only been included in guidelines for less than a decade, compared with almost 50 years of promoting aerobic exercise. Strength training therefore has been considered by some physical activity and public health scientists as the “forgotten” or “neglected” guideline.

Other factors that may contribute to fewer people doing strength training include the fact it:

• involves a basic understanding of specific terminology (sets and repetitions)

• often needs access to equipment (resistance bands or barbells)

• requires confidence to perform potentially challenging activities (squats, lunges and push-ups)

• and risks the fear of judgement or falling foul of social norms (such as a fear of excessive muscle gain, or of getting injured).

Here’s how to get started

Unlike most aerobic exercise, strength training can be done at home. It can also be done without extensive equipment, using our own body weight. This makes it a great form of exercise during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many people are confined to their homes or otherwise restriced in where they can go.

If you are currently doing no muscle-strengthening exercise, getting started, even a little bit, will likely have immediate health benefits. Guidelines recommend exercising all major muscle groups at least twice a week: legs, hips, back, chest, abdomen, shoulders and arms. This could include bodyweight exercises like push-ups, squats or lunges, or using resistance bands or hand-held weights.

Here are some excellent free online resources that provide practical tips on how to start a muscle-strengthening exercise routine:

Governments need to step up

Many people find aerobic exercise difficult, impossible or simply unpleasant. For these people, strength training provides a different way to exercise.

The evidence supporting the health benefits of muscle-strengthening exercise, coupled with its low participation levels, provides a compelling case to promote this type of exercise. But historically, physical activity promotion has generally focused on aerobic exercise.

If governments expect more people to do muscle-strengthening exercise, they need to provide support. One strategy may be to provide affordable access to community fitness centres, home-based equipment and fitness trainers. And media campaigns endorsing muscle-strengthening exercise could also be important for challenging negative stereotypes such as excessive muscle gain. It’s unlikely any of these strategies will be successful individually, so we’ll have to tackle the problem on a few different fronts.

– ref. Strength training is as important as cardio – and you can do it from home during COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/strength-training-is-as-important-as-cardio-and-you-can-do-it-from-home-during-covid-19-144668

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Bisley, Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor of International Relations at La Trobe University, La Trobe University

The author will be leading on online discussion through La Trobe University today on the threat of a new Cold War between China and the US, with former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and China Matters director Linda Jakobson. Click here for more information.

China-US relations have been sliding toward confrontation throughout the Donald Trump presidency. The “beautiful chocolate cake” shared by Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago in April 2017 seems from another era.

The competition that had started with tensions over trade and technology has moved beyond the economic domain.

Tit-for-tat consulate closures in Houston and Chengdu, the expulsion of journalists, ideological rhetoric from the likes of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and increased military manoeuvres in the East and South China Seas have led many to conclude the world is on the cusp of a second Cold War.

Read more: Explainer: why is the South China Sea such a hotly contested region?

Indeed, Beijing’s recent shredding of its treaty commitments toward Hong Kong has the air of Berlin about it — a free and dynamic city with a complex past suddenly engulfed by an outside authoritarian state.

The great power contest between the US and China has been steadily ratcheting up over many years. Washington’s long-term strategy in Asia — to ensure the region is not dominated by a hostile hegemonic force — is plainly threatened by the growth in Chinese power.

It is tempting to look back to the most recent geopolitical analogue to make sense of current conditions. The Cold War was, after all, a global contest between two superpowers who saw the other as an implacable foe.

But we are in uncharted waters. Sino-American competition, if it continues on its current trajectory, will be no Cold War. It is likely to be more complex, harder to manage and last much longer.

Risks of analogies

Using the Cold War to frame our understanding of the competition between China and the US is a risky endeavour. As Columbia University’s Adam Tooze put it,

For Americans, part of the appeal of allusions to Cold War 2.0 is that they think they know how the first one ended.

An overconfident reading of the past is accelerating the drive to confrontation in dangerous ways.

The point Tooze was hinting at is that the Cold War played out in different ways in both Asia and Europe. And crucially, in Asia, it ended in a much more ambivalent manner for the US and the West than many realise.

Asia’s Cold War

While the Cold War was a global contest, its dynamics were starkly different in Asia and Europe.

Most obviously, the first three decades of the contest were anything but cold in Asia. Indeed, the label seems like a cruel joke for a region that experienced several large-scale wars from the 1950s to the 1970s in Korea and Indochina, killing many millions of people. War and revolution was almost the norm.

Europe’s Cold War, by contrast, was an extended high-tension period, but one that was thankfully free of bloodshed.

As in the second world war, the timing and location of the end of the Cold War in Asia was also very different from Europe.

In Asia, there was no Berlin Wall moment, no “spring” tide of national liberation. Instead, the Cold War dynamics were subtly but significantly transformed in different places over different timeframes.

At one level, the Cold War ended in Asia in 1979 with the formal normalisation of relations between the US and China. This transformed the geopolitics of the region, at once marginalising the USSR, and establishing a four-decade period of great power amity between China and the US.

This, in turn, resulted in the greatest period of economic development in human history.

Elsewhere, however, the Cold War festered on long after the maps of Europe had changed. Korea remains divided and its border is among the most militarised parts of the planet. Taiwan’s uncertain standing — a state in all but name — is likewise a legacy of the Cold War’s early years.

But the most important difference between the two is that in Europe, communism was defeated.

In Asia, however, it lives on. The Chinese Communist Party has not gone the way of the Soviet Union; quite the contrary, it now oversees the world’s second-largest economy, retains a high level of internal legitimacy and runs a country that is tightly connected with the rest of the world.

During the 1990s, Western scholars and politicians argued that history had ended and their liberal democratic model had vanquished all comers for all times.

The lesson for the world seemed to be that there was no option but to open their markets, liberalise their politics and free the animal spirits of their economies — or be left behind.

Could the West really win a Cold War redux?

Even then, such claims seemed self-indulgent. But the risk we face today is that policy-makers in Washington and elsewhere still believe in this premise: that a Cold War redux can be won by the same strategy and virtues that knocked the Soviet parrot off its perch.

The language of many in Washington and its allied capitals reflects this belief. The West is inherently superior in the organisation of its politics, economy and society, while China is a bundle of malign contradictions.

Read more: Why is ‘values’ the new buzzword in Australian foreign policy? (Hint: it has something to do with China)

Squaring up to China in a full-spectrum competition should therefore be relatively easy. These Western leaders have the confidence of the sports fan watching a match they already know their team has won.

Beyond the fact that anyone who thinks the US model of politics and economics is particularly well-suited to the current moment is delusional, this outlook badly misunderstands the nature of the foe they have put in their geopolitical sights.

Perhaps the biggest failing of the Soviet Union was the communist party’s ignorance about the nature of the economy it ran and the people it led. The PRC is perhaps the most internally fixated great power yet seen. Party elites are acutely aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the system they have built.

Without doubt, China has a long list of significant challenges, from environmental degradation to widespread corruption, but the party has proven extremely effective at overcoming its internal difficulties. Moreover, it has shown economic and geopolitical success does not require conformity to a liberal model.

A serious challenge still unrealised

The biggest problem of seeing the China challenge as a repeat of the Cold War is this: Western leaders appear not to be taking seriously enough the scale of the confrontation they are heading toward.

The Cold War was won in Europe — but only after 50 years. And that included the US having a significant economic head start in 1945.

There is no sign Washington and its fellow travellers have begun to think through, let alone prepare for, a similar multi-decade fight across all domains against the world’s most populous country.

Given China’s scale, its importance to the global economy and its technological sophistication, an escalation of the rivalry between Beijing and Washington could bring costs of monumental proportions. Rather than carelessly invoking the past, we should be doing everything we can to stop the competition between the two sides from spiralling out of control.

Read more: Payne and Reynolds leave Washington with key ‘wins’ — and room to disagree with US on China

– ref. The China-US rivalry is not a new Cold War. It is way more complex and could last much longer – https://theconversation.com/the-china-us-rivalry-is-not-a-new-cold-war-it-is-way-more-complex-and-could-last-much-longer-144912

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Barbara Allen, Senior Lecturer in Public Management, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has shown a remarkable grasp of fine detail and an ability to communicate it under pressure. But short of monitoring every flight, border interaction and hotel perimeter herself, she must rely on various forms of authority to ensure her government’s directions are carried out.

In recent weeks that authority has been challenged to its core by revelations border security staff were not being routinely tested, despite assumptions they were.

As well, the coming election has inevitably polarised the debate about the causes and source of New Zealand’s most recent COVID-19 outbreak.

While some interpret it as a serious government “botch-up”, a lack of transparency or even an attempt to intentionally mislead the public, others frame the issue as a natural manifestation of how governments actually work.

The government press release of June 23 was clear enough: “Under our enhanced strategy, priority for testing will be given to those who are most likely to have been exposed to COVID-19, which is our border and airline staff and those arriving back in New Zealand.”

The government’s official advice about its “testing strategy to keep New Zealand safe” supported this. It described the “regular health check and asymptomatic testing of all border facing workers”.

In terms of how, when and by whom this gets done, however, it becomes a matter of policy implementation.

Centralised control carries risk

The actual health order only came into existence on August 14 and the air border order on June 22. The maritime border order was communicated on June 30. But these orders did not in fact direct testing.

Given the intention seems clear, why did it not happen? Our answer is that the very reasons that previously made New Zealand one of the most successful cases of COVID-19 control and elimination might also have contributed to its resurgence.

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

The high centralisation of governance structures brings many benefits, but the risks are also significant. A centralised decision-making structure makes it easy for top-down decisions to be made and implemented quickly (such as a national lockdown or the design of the national alert levels system). But it may also make it harder to effectively monitor and enforce localised actions.

By default, leaders at the top are not fully capable of controlling their street-level staff. As political scientist Michael Lipsky reminded us more than 50 years ago, “policy implementation in the end comes down to the people who actually implement it”.

In this case, the good intentions of the government were unlikely to be successfully implemented for two main reasons. First, people at the top can’t be completely aware of the reality on the ground. Second, people on the ground might not have sufficient authority to do what they perceive as necessary.

Specifically, people may have been refusing to be tested because of “the invasive nature of the test”. Being aware of the nuances and difficulties facing quarantine staff would have made for a stronger leadership recommendation – for instance, by emphasising the compulsory nature of the testing.

Miscommunication: symptom, not cause

One might argue, as did the director-general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, that miscommunication was to blame. Either people were not being tested because those managing the quarantine locations didn’t emphasise its importance, or the Ministry of Health simply missed the warnings.

Read more: How setting aside some ‘worry time’ can help reduce anxiety over COVID-19 lockdowns

The reality of daily governmental operations, however, is that pressured local managers don’t have time to constantly manage information upwards. Nor can politicians digest and act on every piece of information coming from the ground.

To avoid this type of failure, those assumptions should not have been made in the first instance.

The fact that people on the ground were aware of the shortcomings in testing procedures but could not swiftly enforce changes is a perverse consequence of managing crises through highly centralised decision-making systems.

As the Fukushima nuclear disaster showed, depriving local authorities of full autonomy and authority in a crisis can slow down responses precisely when speedy responses are most needed. The Hurricane Katrina tragedy in 2005 also demonstrated how a lack of clear mandates resulting from several layers of authority is a recipe for failure.

Blame won’t solve the problem

Although the COVID-19 crisis can’t be directly compared to those fast-evolving technological or natural disasters, there are parallels. New Zealand’s centralised structure and top-down decision-making culture might have contributed to an assumption that responsibility and accountability would fall only on the highest levels of government.

Read more: Why New Zealand needs to focus on genome sequencing to trace the source of its new COVID-19 outbreak

Empowering local authorities by allowing and even urging them to make crucial decisions could have helped avoid this failure.

In a nutshell, although blame games are inevitable at this stage, more urgent is a closer look at the assumptions and responsibilities embedded in our institutional structures.

If we assume that leaders at the top cannot possibly be aware of everything, and that local authorities do not have enough power to change the problematic reality, reconsidering the decision-making system is much more pressing than finding someone to blame.

Perhaps it is time for a greater focus on systems of local decision-making and for having some faith in the “triumph of community”.

– ref. When good intentions aren’t enough: where New Zealand’s border quarantine system really went wrong – https://theconversation.com/when-good-intentions-arent-enough-where-new-zealands-border-quarantine-system-really-went-wrong-145007

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Van Dijk, Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

When the clocked ticked over to 2020, Australia was in the grip of a brutal drought and unprecedented bushfires. But in the months since, while many of us were indoors avoiding the pandemic, nature has started its slow recovery. That is the message of our new analysis released today.

Every year, my colleagues and I collate a vast number of measurements made by satellites, field sensors and people. We process the data and combine them into a consistent picture of the state of our environment.

Our 2019 report documented a disaster year of record heat, drought, and bushfires. We repeated the analysis after the first half of 2020, keen to see how our environment was recovering.

It’s not all good news. But encouragingly, our results show most of the country has started to bounce back from drought and fire. Here are four ways that’s happening.

1. Rain

Whether a region is in drought depends on the measure used: rainfall, river flows, reservoir storage, soil water availability or cropping conditions. On top of that, Australia is a vast country with large differences between regions.

By most measures, and for most of the country, wetter weather in 2020 helped ease drought conditions – although with caveats and notable exceptions.

Halfway through January, rain-blocking conditions in the Indian Ocean finally relented. This allowed the long-awaited monsoon to reach northern Australia, and encouraged more rainfall across the rest of the continent. February and March brought much needed rains in southeast Australia.

2. Water availability

Across the continent, the volume of water flowing into rivers in the first half of 2020 was almost four times greater than the previous year – although still below average. Good rains fell in the northern Murray-Darling Basin. Some made it into the town and irrigation water supplies that ran empty during the drought, and storage levels showed a modest improvement by the end of June to 17% of capacity.

The flows were also enough to fill wetlands such as Narran Lakes and the Paroo and Bulloo River wetlands, west of Bourke. There were enough flood waters left to send a modest flood pulse down the Darling River in March for the first time since 2016.

Reservoir water storage across the entire the Murray-Darling Basin improved from 36% of capacity at the end of June 2019 to 44% a year later. Even so, by June 2020 dry conditions still persisted in the tributaries and wetlands of the middle and southern Murray-Darling Basin.

Storage in urban water supply systems increased for Sydney (52% to 81%) and Melbourne (50% to 64%) while remaining stable for Brisbane (66%), Canberra (55%) and Perth (41%).

Meanwhile, lake and wetland extent across much of Western Australia remained at record or near-record low levels. Due to the poor northern monsoon, Lake Argyle – the massive dam lake supplying the Ord irrigation scheme in northern Australia – shrank to 38% of capacity, a level not seen for several decades.

Read more: Global report gives Australia an A for coronavirus response but a D on climate

3. Soil moisture

Soil moisture acts like a bank account: rainfall makes deposits and plant roots make withdrawals. This makes soil moisture a useful measure of drought condition.

Average soil water availability across the country was far below average at the start of 2020, but returned closer to average conditions from March 2020 onwards. Very to extremely low soil water availability across most of northwest and southeast Australia had eased by June 2020.

By the end of June, rains had also improved growing conditions in southeast Queensland, western New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. However, recovery in these regions is, literally, shallow. Soil water remains low in the deeper soil layers and groundwater from which trees and other drought-tolerant vegetation draw their water. Drought conditions also persist in the dry inland of Australia.

4. Vegetation growth

Vegetation condition is measured by estimating leaf area from satellite observations. National leaf area reached its lowest value in December 2019 due to drought and bushfires, but improved once the rains returned from February onwards. It’s remained very close to average since.

Autumn rains also brought the best growth conditions in many years across much of the eastern wheat and sheep belt. But in the Western Australian wheat belt, which did not see much rain, cropping conditions are average or below average.

We separately measured vegetation recovery across areas in southeast Australia burnt at different times during the 2019-20 fire season.

In the central and northern NSW regions which burnt earlier in the fire season and received plentiful rains, recovery was relatively swift – more than 63% of lost leaf area had returned by June 2020.

But in the areas burnt in early 2020, recovery has been slow. The burnt forests in the far south of NSW and East Gippsland did not receive good rains until very recently. Also, much of areas burnt in early 2020 are found in the mountains of the NSW-Victoria border region, where cool autumn and winter temperatures have paused plant growth until spring.

Leaf area recovery is not a good measure of biodiversity. Much of the increase will have been due to rapid leaf flush from fire tolerant trees and undergrowth, including weeds. Some damage to ecosystems and sensitive species will take many years to recover, while some species may well be lost forever.

Climate change: the biggest threat

Rainfall after June has been average to good across much of Australia, and La Niña conditions are predicted to bring further rain. So there is reason to hope our environment will get a chance to recover further from a horrendous 2019.

In the long term, climate change remains the greatest risk to our agriculture and ecosystems. Ever-increasing summer temperatures kill people, livestock and wildlife, dry out soil and vegetation, and increase fire risk. In 2020, high temperatures also caused the third mass coral bleaching event in the Great Barrier Reef in five years.

Decisive climate action is needed, in Australia and worldwide, if we’re to protect ourselves and our ecosystems from long-term decline.

Read more: Yes, it’s been raining a lot – but that doesn’t mean Australia’s drought has broken

– ref. Need a mood lift? We’ve tracked 4 ways Australia’s environment has repaired itself in 2020 – https://theconversation.com/need-a-mood-lift-weve-tracked-4-ways-australias-environment-has-repaired-itself-in-2020-144949

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lesley Irvine, Lecturer in Strategic Speech Communication, Queensland University of Technology

Many parents and students are engaged in a daily routine of speaking to people via a camera on a computer, tablet or phone during COVID-19 restrictions. This often means finding a quiet place in order to ask a question, provide an answer or share an opinion with a virtual audience.

Initial concerns about using video apps focused on privacy and equity issues.

Soon, new terms emerged such as Zoom fatigue. But an issue that has been less discussed is the role that nerves might play in these mediated sessions.

What is speaking anxiety?

For centuries, people have questioned their ability to speak in front of others. It’s said the Roman orator Cicero (106-43BCE) turned pale and quaked before any speech he gave.

But it was in the 20th century that communication anxiety was studied in depth. It has been described by a number of different terms, including stage fright, unwillingness to communicate and communication apprehension.

Read more: Universities need to train lecturers in online delivery, or they risk students dropping out

Research suggests about one in five speakers experience high communication apprehension. This can make all speaking opportunities difficult.

Examples include speaking to a boss or teacher, contributing to a group discussion, or delivering a presentation. Public speaking anxiety is part of communication apprehension.

The prevalence of public speaking anxiety is well documented. It is complex (varying causes, indicators and treatment options), individual (affecting speakers differently) and unstable (changing levels of anxiety within and between presentations).

A focus on individual differences acknowledges that internal thoughts and feelings might not match external behaviour. For example, a speaker who appears disengaged may actually feel a lack of control.

It is a tricky phenomenon. Some people can feel nervous the moment a speaking task is announced and, on the day of presentation, may rate themselves as more nervous than what an audience observes.

Nervous about the audience

It is the audience, and the potential for negative evaluation from that audience, that can make us feel anxious. And those listening can be physically or virtually present.

This brings us to the rather awkward situation of speaking to rows of little boxes on a screen in a video hook-up. Not only does this set-up limit broader non-verbal cues, but it also restricts general banter between participants.

On the plus side, this can make sessions more time-efficient, but it does tend to make conversations more stilted.

A perceived need to be visible is a contested area in online delivery. In educational settings, those who support “cameras on for everyone” suggest it helps to replicate usual classroom conditions, encourages discussion and ensures students are actually in attendance (not just logged on).

But it is important to consider the rationale behind making any feature mandatory. Participating via a video app is not the same as a live setting.

For a start, speakers rarely see themselves when talking to others. As a lecturer, seeing myself onscreen while speaking with a class can be distracting, especially when trying to look directly at the camera lens to maximise eye contact.

7 tips to make things easier

Whether running a business meeting or teaching a class, the following tips may help you to feel more comfortable speaking online:

1. provide an agenda ahead of time, which could include sending out some prepared questions for discussion

2. reduce uncertainty about participation by letting people know from the outset if there is any need or expectation to talk in a hook-up

3. use linking statements and signposts to keep everyone on track as other cues and clues may be absent (walking across a room to a computer), so it’s important to let all participants know what you are doing and why (for example: “I’m going to check the chat box at the end of this point so feel free to add any questions as I go along.”)

4. model good speaking practices, draw on simple structures to make your point and use language that is suitable for oral delivery

5. rethink the value of calling on someone randomly to contribute to a discussion, because if people are worried they may be asked to respond without notice, they may be less likely to engage overall

6. make decisions about the need for interaction (including break-out rooms) based on the type of session and number of participants, because needless interaction is not better than no interaction

7. plan for each online event rather than stick to a set of general rules. For example, is it always necessary for speakers to see each other onscreen? As most educators will tell you, just because a student is physically present that doesn’t mean they are actively engaged.

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

Online tutorials, workshops and meetings are here to stay for the moment. To create safe, supportive and productive sessions, we need to build competent and confident speaking practices.

Acknowledging that speaking anxiety is common, and affects people in live and virtual settings, is a good place to start.

– ref. Anxious about speaking in online classes and meetings? Here are 7 tips to make it easier – https://theconversation.com/anxious-about-speaking-in-online-classes-and-meetings-here-are-7-tips-to-make-it-easier-144121

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Stokes, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Deakin University

I’m writing this in the inner north of Melbourne, near two major roads that normally provide a constant hum of traffic noise. Yet if I stick my head out the front door after 8pm there’s near-total silence. A citywide curfew, unimaginable a month ago, is in full effect.

COVID-19 is pushing us all in ways we’ve never been pushed, and making us do thing we’ve never done. It’s also stressing us in very peculiar ways. Perhaps one of the most tiring things is the all encompassing lack of certainty.

In Melbourne, we’re hoping the curfew will lift after six weeks of this — but we simply don’t know. Neither do the people making these decisions, through no fault of their own. No-one can say with much confidence what will happen or when.

Read more: What would Seneca say? Six Stoic tips for surviving lockdown

Certain-uncertainty

It’s astonishing how much daily life has changed in such a short time. Yet what is instructive about COVID-19 is not so much what it has changed as what it has exposed — and not just about weaknesses in institutions and economic structures. It’s not that COVID-19 has suddenly made the world uncertain; it’s that it has shown how uncertain it was all along.

Everything in our lives is subject to sudden and arbitrary reversals. We can lose our jobs, our health, or our relationships at any time, not just during a pandemic. Intellectually, we all know this. But mostly, like background noise, we don’t really notice this constant note of insecurity.

The most obvious example of this pervasive uncertainty, of course, is death itself. In his 1845 discourse At a Graveside, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard — who lost his parents and five of his seven siblings before he was 30 — dwells on what he calls the “uncertain-certainty” of death.

We know we will die, but also have no idea when we will die. Death could come for us at any moment, decades hence or “this very day.”

It’s understandable that we spend so much time and energy trying to escape this knowledge. One way of doing so is through a flight to statistics. We try to defang the spectre of death by appealing to actuarial tables, or simply by acting as if we are never going to die.

Read more: Friday essay: on reckoning with the fact of one’s death

Playing the odds

Many critics take precisely this route to argue against the sort of restrictions now in place. Few of us, statistically speaking, are likely to contract COVID-19; even fewer are likely to die from it. This possibility is then weighed against the things we have always taken to be bankable certainties: work, sport, family, friends and the knowledge that every year looks comfortingly similar to the one before.

A common refrain from those opposed to lockdowns is that “we have to live our lives!” But COVID-19 reveals that we don’t, in fact, have to live our lives at all: most of what we take to be given is alarmingly fragile. The virus also exposes that the lives of others really do represent a moral limit on our will. Most of the time, I don’t need to think about the fact that your staying alive matters more than my ability to go the pub.

It seems incomprehensible that all these things can just, well, stop. But as Kierkegaard puts it, every prediction or appeal to probability we try to make in order to declare how things will be “runs aground” on this statement: “It is possible.”

Read more: Art for trying times: how a philosopher found solace playing Red Dead Redemption 2

Lessons in Earnest

For Kierkegaard, this is in fact good news. Uncertain-certainty is the “schoolmaster” that teaches us what he calls alvor. English translators usually translate this as “earnestness,” though “seriousness” fits the Danish too.

Kierkegaard thought it was this seriousness that his own age, caught up in newspaper gossip in the streets and abstract theorising in the pulpits, was missing. In his short life (he died, probably of spinal TB, at just 42) he wrote a series of strange, frequently pseudonymous, philosophical works seeking to call people back to an awareness of their individual mortality and moral responsibility.

What does “seriousness” amount to in the face of uncertainty? For one thing, it means fronting up to the facts rather than trying to cut deals with reality. Right now, those facts are that for many of us, much of our lives are indeed on hold, and our responsibilities to each other require us to do painful things. We can’t say when this will stop or what life will look like on the other side.

There’s a common if rather trite bit of folk wisdom that tells us to live each day as if it’s our last. Yet that ignores the other side of possibility: it might not be your last day at all. For Kierkegaard, earnestness amounts instead to “the living of each day as if it were the last and also the first in a long life”.

The challenge is not to cling to certainty, nor to give in to nihilism, but the more challenging one of living as if anything is possible. Because, as we’re rapidly learning, it really is.

For more on Kierkegaard, see Gordon Marino’s overview from the Hong Kierkegaard Library, St Olaf College.

– ref. Struggling with the uncertainty of life under coronavirus? How Kierkegaard’s philosophy can help – https://theconversation.com/struggling-with-the-uncertainty-of-life-under-coronavirus-how-kierkegaards-philosophy-can-help-144671

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

Scott Morrison finds himself besieged on two fronts in the political war over aged care.

The royal commissioners inquiring into the sector have made their second sortie within days into the debate, while Labor, struggling for cut-through, has resorted to an assault with shades of that successful “Mediscare” campaign.

Releasing research undertaken by the University of Queensland, commissioners Tony Pagone and Lynelle Briggs said it suggested higher funding was needed for residential care to meet basic standards, and even more would be required to achieve high-quality care.

The commissioners said: “Australians expect that all are entitled to the best quality level of care in aged care homes. Additional funding will be needed to enable providers to meet those expectations consistently”.

The research divided facilities into three quality categories, using various criteria: 11% were in the best group, 78% in the middle, and 11% in the worst group.

Those most likely to be in the best quality group were small-sized or government-owned facilities. The top group contained 41% of homes with up to 15 beds, but only 17% of those with 31-60 beds and 5% of those with more beds. The highest quality group contained 24% of government-owned facilities, 13% of not-for-profits, and only 4% of for-profit homes.

The problem with aged care being “for profit” is increasingly coming to the fore as the elephant in the room in the aged care debate.

Liberal backbencher Russell Broadbent told The Guardian this week, “Successive governments over 30 years have handed the care of people into the private sector, and that has been a mistake. Profit became more important than care. This [situation in Victoria] was a disaster waiting to happen.”

Peter Baume, a facilitator in medicine at the University of New South Wales and a former federal Liberal minister (including very briefly health minister), also says it was a mistake to privatise aged care.

“Private providers who operate for profit too often have scarce regard for the welfare and needs of old people, ” Baume told The Conversation.

“We now have a hierarchy of care. ‘For profit’ homes are sometimes awful. Food is poor, personal care is poor, provision of support is minimal, recent television footage has shown how some old people are abused, infections spread like wildfire.

”‘Not for profit’ homes are better. More money is available for food and for wages”.

As Scott Morrison contemplates how much extra he is going to have to spend on aged care in the coming couple of budgets, Labor’s attack has homed in on how much he allegedly cut in the past.

In the 2016 election Labor had great success with its Mediscare campaign – endlessly claiming what the Coalition would do to Medicare. Government denials were in vain. In Wednesday’s question time, the opposition applied a version of the same tactic, with the twist that it focused on the past rather than the future.

The opposition’s questions repeatedly insisted the government had cut $1.7 billion from aged care.

This number was based on two sources.

The 2015-16 mid-year budget update said the government “will achieve savings of $472.4 million over four years by refining the Aged Care Funding Instrument”. The 2016-17 budget said the government “will achieve efficiencies of $1.2 billion over four years through changes to the scoring matrix”.

Morrison rejected the Labor claim, and pointed to a RMIT ABC Fact Check (he couldn’t resist a snide reference to it being from the ABC). This examined the claim from then opposition leader Bill Shorten that Morrison had cut $1.2 billion from aged care in his first budget as treasurer.

The Fact Check concluded Shorten’s claim was “misleading”.

It said in 2016-17, Commonwealth funding for aged care was $17.4 billion – an increase of more than $1 billion over the previous year.

“The increase came despite a decision to pare $1.2 billion of ‘efficiencies’ over four years, largely by reducing the subsidies paid to aged care providers to tackle potential over-claiming and an unexpected cost blowout,” it said.

“Fact Check deems that an adjustment to future spending does not represent a ‘cut’ when the overall level of spending continues to rise.”

Though Morrison denied the “cut” every time it was raised, he knows this game as well as Labor does. It’s all about getting an impression across.

Unsurprisingly, aged care will be a major theme of Anthony Albanese’s Thursday National Press Club speech.

He will put forward “eight points the government could consider” to improve aged care. They are:

• minimum staffing levels in residential aged care

• reduce the home care package waiting list so more people can stay in their homes for longer

• ensure transparency and accountability of funding to support higher quality care

• independent measurement and public reporting as recommended by the Royal Commission this week

• ensure every residential aged care facility has adequate personal protective equipment

• better training for staff, including infection control

• a better surge workforce strategy

• provide additional resources so the Aged Care Royal Commission can inquire specifically into COVID-19 across the sector.

The $1.7 billion “cut” will likely get another run in the speech, not least because it is judged to have cut-through.

– ref. View from The Hill: The role of ‘profit’ is the elephant in the aged care room – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-the-role-of-profit-is-the-elephant-in-the-aged-care-room-145118

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

The Morrison government will introduce legislation to enable it to review and cancel agreements state, territory and local governments and public universities have entered with foreign governments.

The move can be expected to lead to the Victorian government’s “belt and road” agreement with China being quashed, and will put up in the air many university arrangements.

Scott Morrison has been highly critical of the Victorian deal, saying Belt and Road is not a program the federal government has signed up to and states should not be acting in ways inconsistent with Australian government policy.

The dramatic move reflects increasing concern about Chinese influence and interference, although the legislation would apply to agreements with any foreign government.

Under the legislation, the foreign minister will be given the power to stop proposed arrangements and cancel existing ones with foreign governments when they were considered against Australia’s national interest.

There will also be a public register to make agreements transparent.

Current arrangements are prolific. They include agreements for co-operation on cultural matters, education, health, the public sector, science, tourism, environmental management, and trade and economics. There are also sister city and state relationships.

The move will further deepen the tension between Australia and China. It comes as the deputy head of mission at China’s embassy in Australia, Wang Xining, accused Australia of hurting the feelings of the Chinese people in pressing for an inquiry into the origin of the coronavirus.

“All of a sudden, they heard this shocking news of a proposal coming from Australia, which is supposed to be a good friend of China,” he told the National Press Club on Wednesday.

“We believe this proposal was targeted against China alone, because during that time Australian ministers claimed that the virus originated from Wuhan, from China, and they did not pinpoint any other places as a possible source,” he said. “We don’t think it was fair.”

Morrison and Foreign Minister Marise Payne said in a statement: “The Commonwealth government has exclusive responsibility for conducting Australia’s foreign affairs. However, state and territory governments and their entities currently also enter into arrangements with foreign governments in a range of areas – from trade and economic cooperation to cultural collaboration and university research partnerships – without having to inform the Commonwealth.

“This legislation will support state and territory governments to ensure they are acting in a way that serves Australia’s national interests, is consistent with our values and aligned with our foreign policy objectives.”

The legislation will be introduced next week and the government wants it passed this year.

Morrison said he had recently arranged for all premiers and chief ministers to receive a comprehensive briefing on national security.

“It is vital that when it comes to Australia’s dealings with the rest of the world we speak with one voice and work to one plan,” he said.

“Australians rightly expect the federal government they elect to set foreign policy. These changes and new laws will ensure that every arrangement done by any Australian government at any level now lines up with how we are working to protect and promote Australia’s national interest.

“While many agreements and partnerships are of a routine nature, it is important that the federal government is notified of all and any agreements, be they state and local governments, or our universities.

“Where any of these agreements undermine how the federal government is protecting and promoting our national interests they can [be] cancelled.”

The legislation will cover written foreign arrangements that are legally binding under Australian law, legally binding under foreign law, or non-legally binding (such as a memorandum of understanding).

It will not apply to commercial corporations and state-owned enterprises. Nor will it apply to foreign universities, unless they are arms of a foreign government, such as government military universities.

The test the foreign minister will apply will ask:

• Does the arrangement adversely affect Australia’s foreign relations?

• Is the arrangement inconsistent with Australian foreign policy?

Within six months of the legislation coming into force states, territories, councils and universities will have to notify the government of their arrangements with foreign governments.

The foreign affairs department will review existing and proposed arrangements, and advise the minister of their implications for foreign policy and foreign relations.

If the arrangement fails the national interest test, the foreign minister will be able to stop the entity from negotiating, entering, remaining in, or giving effect to the agreement.

The minister will be able to terminate private contracts related to the main arrangement – for example an infrastructure construction contact resulting from the Victorian Belt and Road agreement.

If necessary the government could obtain an injunction in the Federal Court or High Court to enforce the foreign minister’s decision.

Payne said: “It is vital for Australia’s prosperity, security and sovereignty that our foreign policy is driven by our national interest.

“There is currently no legislative requirement, nor clear understanding, that states and territories consult properly with the Commonwealth on arrangements with foreign governments.

“These changes will provide governments, institutions and the Australian people with confidence that due diligence is given to international arrangements to ensure they are consistent with our national interest and our values.”

– ref. Morrison government set to target Victorian ‘belt and road’ agreement under sweeping new legislation – https://theconversation.com/morrison-government-set-to-target-victorian-belt-and-road-agreement-under-sweeping-new-legislation-145124

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renae Barker, Senior Lecturer, University of Western Australia

Religious objections to vaccinations have been around almost as long as vaccinations themselves.

This week, three leading Australian religious figures have written to Prime Minister Scott Morrison outlining ethical concerns they have with the potential COVID-19 vaccine being developed at Oxford University.

The three Sydney archbishops are concerned the vaccine utilises a cell line derived from an aborted foetus. In their letter, they say the use of this cell line

will raise serious issues of conscience for a proportion of the population.

Today, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils also signalled its “profound concern” over the use of foetal tissue in vaccine development. President Rateb Jneid urged Morrison

to reconsider accessing such vaccines but instead to invest into Australian research into ethical alternatives.

With Morrison saying last week he wants 95% of Australians to take a future COVID-19 vaccine, this will raise significant issues of freedom of religion.

Why some faith groups oppose vaccines

Faith groups object to vaccinations for a range of reasons. For example, Christian Scientists object to all vaccinations, relying instead on prayer to prevent and cure disease. They do so on the basis that

disease, in this construct, is not fundamentally real, but rather something that can be dispelled, to reveal the perfection of God’s creation.

Other faith groups only object to specific vaccines. In some cases, these objections are based on inactive ingredients in the vaccine.

For example, some Jews and Muslims object to vaccines that contain pork products. In 2018, Indonesia’s top Islamic body issued a fatwa declaring that the rubella-measles vaccine was religiously prohibited (haram) because it contained “traces of pork and human cells.”

Other faith groups object to vaccines because of the method by which they are developed. This is the basis for the archbishops’ objection to the potential Oxford COVID-19 vaccine.

In their letter to Morrison, the three archbishops, who represent he Anglican, Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox communities in Sydney, said

Please be assured that our churches are not opposed to vaccination: as we have said we pray that one may be found. But we also pray that it be one that is not ethically tainted.

A number of existing vaccines use cells originally taken from aborted foetuses. While the use of these cells is considered ethical by most standards, this does not alleviate religious concerns about the practice.

In their letter, the archbishops say some Australians may

be concerned not to benefit in any way from the death of the little girl whose cells were taken and cultivated, not to be trivialising that death, and not to be encouraging the foetal tissue industry.

How does freedom of religion factor in?

Religious objections like these pose a dilemma for law and policy-makers, particularly now, in the middle of a pandemic.

On the one hand, there are strong public health reasons to create incentives to encourage widespread vaccination. On the other hand, such policies have the potential to inhibit freedom of religion.

Read more: Can the government, or my employer, force me to get a COVID-19 vaccine under the law?

Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, provided for under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

However, this freedom is not unlimited. Under article 18 of the UN covenant, these rights may be limited in the interests of public health. It reads:

Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

COVID-19 is not the first time the government has had to decide whether or not to limit freedom of religion in favour of public health outcomes.

In 1998, the federal government implemented a policy requiring proof of childhood vaccines in order for families to receive certain welfare benefits. Certain exemptions were permitted for religious and conscientious objectors.

In 2015, the government announced it was revising its “no-jab, no-pay” policy to remove these exemptions. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill noted

objection to vaccination can limit the rights of others to physical and mental health.

And in the context of COVID-19, we have already seen significant restrictions on freedom of religion, including the size of religious gatherings and the closure of places of public worship.

Read more: How religions and religious leaders can help to combat the COVID-19 pandemic: Indonesia’s experience

Freedom of religion in Australia is narrowly interpreted

In Australia, freedom of religion is primarily protected via section 116 of the Australian Constitution, which says

the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

While this section appears to provide strong protection for freedom of religion, it has been interpreted narrowly by the High Court.

In 1943, for instance, the High Court unanimously ruled a ban on the Jehovah’s Witnesses was not prohibited by section 116. The court found that in the context of war time, a ban was acceptable to protect the interests of a free society, even though it had the effect of limiting freedom of religion.

Further, section 116 only applies to federal laws. Any state-based laws creating incentives to encourage widespread uptake of a future COVID-19 vaccine would not allow for objections under the section.

While the potential Oxford University COVID-19 vaccine may “raise serious issues of conscience” for some religious groups, the interests of public health are likely to outweigh any freedom of religion concerns.

Despite this, the government cannot force people to be vaccinated, only compel them to do so. And there are likely to be some people, like Anglican Archbishop Glenn Davies, who would rather wait for a vaccine they find to be less “ethically tainted.”

Read more: Religious groups are embracing technology during the lockdown, but can it replace human connection?

– ref. Why freedom of religion won’t likely trump public health interests with a future COVID-19 vaccine – https://theconversation.com/why-freedom-of-religion-wont-likely-trump-public-health-interests-with-a-future-covid-19-vaccine-145030

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alicia Dennis, Associate Professor MBBS, PhD, MPH, PGDipEcho, FANZCA, University of Melbourne

Yesterday, the Victorian government released much-anticipated figures showing the proportion of the state’s health-care workers who caught COVID-19 at work.

Victoria’s chief medical officer Andrew Wilson said yesterday that 70-80% of health workers testing positive to COVID-19 were infected at work. That’s compared with 22% in the first wave.

That figure, which equates to at least 1,600 people infected in the workplace, is shocking and tragic. This is because occupational exposure of health-care workers to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, represents a failing of hazard control in many workplaces — across multiple locations, in hospital and in aged care.

We also need to acknowledge this problem is fundamentally an occupational health and safety issue rather than simply an infectious disease problem. This means experts in occupational health and safety need to be intrinsically involved in recommendations and guidance to government and employers.

What else did the report find?

The report found infection of health-care workers was greatest in areas where there were many patients with COVID-19 being cared for together (known as “cohorting”), and where health-care workers congregated, such as tea rooms.

Other contributing factors were the increased risk associated with putting on and taking off (donning and doffing) personal protective equipment (PPE), staff moving between health-care facilities, and poor ventilation systems with inadequate air flow.

The report tells us health-care workers in aged care accounted for around two in five infections, and hospital workers around one-third.

However, further details were not provided. These include the actual number of health-care workers infected at work, and a detailed breakdown of the category of health-care worker infected, as well as their age ranges and gender.

We also don’t know the severity of health-care worker infections (number of people who are or have been hospitalised, in ICU, or died).

How big a problem is this?

The number of health-care workers infected with COVID-19 in Victoria has reached 2,799. That makes a seven-day average of 43 new cases each day.

This means that while the state’s total number of new cases continues to decline, health-care worker infections make up around 30% of new cases each day.

Controlling the number of new health-care worker infections is essential, not only for health-care workers but for the sustainability of our health-care system, and to reduce the overall number of cases.

Read more: Rising coronavirus cases among Victorian health workers could threaten our pandemic response

As the total number of health-care worker infections has risen, key groups representing doctors and nurses have called on the government to produce data on the number of health-care workers infected at work and a breakdown of the data by health-care worker type, age, location and severity.

Yesterday the government released its keenly awaited analysis.

What should we do about it?

In light of the report, the Victorian government has established a new health-care worker infection prevention and well-being taskforce.

This is an important step forward and hopefully includes representation from all expert groups, especially occupation health and safety exerts.

Data from earlier in the year, and indeed prior experiences with SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), have already given us a blueprint for how to protect health-care workers today.

The blueprint includes implementing a system of hazard control measures (called a hierarchy of control model) in all health-care settings using experts in the field of occupational health and safety, including occupation hygienists.

The government report also outlines plans to develop ventilated and heated marquee-type tents for workers to have their tea breaks in, which is also good news. This recognises the contribution poor air flow makes to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

The planned introduction of PPE “spotters” in workplaces is also positive but further details are needed to understand exactly what they will do.

This will hopefully reduce staffing pressure in the workplace and ensure correct donning and doffing of PPE.

What about ‘fit testing’ respirators?

The report also included the surprising announcement that the government was going to undertake a fit-testing trial of respirators.

Testing that respirators, such as N95 face masks, fit and that staff are trained to use them are essential parts of workplace safety, in any industry. It is required as part of Australian standard AS 1715.

Read more: PPE unmasked: why health-care workers in Australia are inadequately protected against coronavirus

So, there is no need to trial fit testing. This is clear from experience in other industries where workers are exposed to hazards such as asbestos or dangerous laboratory fumes.

What is needed is immediate implementation of fit testing and training so health-care workers can be assured their masks fit correctly and do not allow the virus in. This is especially important for females, with many reporting the standard respirator size does not fit properly.

The government needs to do more

The government’s report acknowledged the likelihood of aerosol spread as a mechanism for the transmission of SARS-COV-2. So it has engaged the Victorian Health and Human Services Building Authority to conduct a study aimed at investigating aerosols and their spread on surfaces.

We do not have to wait for the results of this research. The government can act now and take the next step and immediately change its guidelines for PPE for health-care workers.

Read more: Is the airborne route a major source of coronavirus transmission?

The Victorian PPE guideline for health-care workers still does not recommend universal PPE designed to protect health workers from aerosols when caring for COVID-19 suspected or positive patients.

The guidelines instead recommend PPE to protect against droplet transmission (such as surgical masks), even in the situation where a person with COVID-19 is severely coughing.

Disappointingly, national guidance still remain unchanged regarding its advice for health-care workers caring for COVID-19 suspected or positive patients. It too does not recommend universal aerosol precaution PPE (including respirators) when health-care workers care for patients with COVID-19.

These guidelines need to be urgently updated to protect health-care workers.

There is also an urgent need for a comprehensive, publicly accessible state and national registry of health-care worker infections that provides regularly updated disaggregated data about health-care worker infections.

This is essential so the magnitude of the problem can continue to be addressed and immediate preventative strategies put in place.

Finally, now the problem of occupational exposure of health-care workers to SARS-CoV-2 has been acknowledged, we must make all these changes immediately.

Read more: Goodbye, brain scrapers. COVID-19 tests now use gentler nose swabs

– ref. Here’s the proof we need. Many more health workers than we ever thought are catching COVID-19 on the job – https://theconversation.com/heres-the-proof-we-need-many-more-health-workers-than-we-ever-thought-are-catching-covid-19-on-the-job-145092

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Bailey, Lecturer, Retail History, Macquarie University

“This is not a bluff,” Scott Evans, the chief executive of Mosaic Brands, has said of his threat to permanently close 300 to 500 stores in Australia unless landlords reduce rents.

Mosiac’s network of about 1,300 apparel stores includes Katies, Noni B, Rivers, Rockmans, Millers and Crossroads. With stores shuttered temporarily due to COVID-19 restrictions, it posted a A$170.5 million loss in the year to June.

It and other retailers such as Premier Investments (owner of Just Jeans, Portmans and Jacqui E brands) have reportedly been paying lower or no rent to landlords, on the basis their rents should reflect revenue and landlords should share the pain.

Last week Mosiac’s stalled rent negotiations with Australia’s biggest shopping centre landlord, Scentre Group, led to a lockout of 129 Mosaic stores. Scentre also locked the doors to 38 stores owned by luggage retailer Strandbags.

According to Evans:

The retail rental market in Australia is not paused because of the pandemic. It is fundamentally changed for the future.

A history of growth, conflict and negotiation

Though the coronavirus crisis has brought things to a boil, tensions between shopping centre tenants and landlords have simmered for more than 40 years.

Behind Mosaic’s standoff with Scentre are the underlying power dynamics between tenants and landlords. Mutually dependent on one another, they have always fought over the spoils of shopping centre profits. With the COVID-19 crisis, strained relationships are starting to break down.

Australia’s first American-style shopping centre opened in 1957, in the Brisbane suburb of Chermside. It had space for one department store, one supermarket, 24 specialty stores and parking for 650 cars.

As the rise of the private motor car reshaped cities and suburbs, shoppers embraced the convenience and comforts and comforts of the mall.

By the late 1970s they were the dominant shopping experience, outstripping many established “high streets”. They became social as well as commercial hubs.

Read more: Westfield’s history tracks the rise of the Australian shopping centre and shows what’s to come

They were also protected by planning legislation intended to constrain sprawling development, but which also created geographic monopolies by blocking competition nearby.

This all produced highly sought after and valuable retail space.

Naturally owners were keen to increase their profits by expanding these spaces to attract even more shoppers.

Calls for government intervention

But as centres got bigger and more and more specialty retailers signed leases, complaints began to emerge about exploitation and steep rent hikes. By the early 1980s tenants’ complaints had become an issue for both sides of politics.

Intense lobbying led to government inquiries around the country, which found sufficient evidence to recommend industry self-regulation and then retail tenancy legislation.

But the fundamental power dynamics remain. Landlords still have the most convenient and attractive locations for stores. They have control over entire retail environments, and even collect the sales data of their tenants. Their bargaining position in leasing negotiations is invariably very strong.

Sharing profits and costs

In 2008 a Productivity Commission inquiry noted:

Well-managed shopping centres can unify a large and divergent group of tenants and help centre trade. In return, tenants in centres generally pay higher rents and outgoing expenses than similar tenants in a shopping strip and forego some independence in operating their business.

It has often been a mutually advantageous relationship, but there has always been a contest between tenants and landlords over how they share both benefits and costs.

The retailers’ argument is rent should be based on the value of the customer traffic the shopping centre delivers to their stores, and those customers have evaporated with COVID-19. As analyst Bill Mooney put it:

With a lease agreement there’s an expectation of a certain amount of customers coming through into the shopping mall and if that nexus is broken, then yes, the landlord can insist on his rights, but which retailer is going to continue to pay rent and go broke?

Mosaic’s projection of store closures emphasises this point.

No one will come out of this a winner. The fight to minimise losses will be bitter. The first casualties will be the most vulnerable: the smallest tenants, with the least bargaining power, in the most precarious financial situations. This echoes the broader pattern of the pandemic’s impact.

For landlords there are longer-term questions. Will the current standoff push retailers towards a permanently smaller physical footprint and greater investment in online shopfronts? Has it created even more uncertainty about retail’s future? How deeply has trust been eroded?

Read more: COVID-19 has changed the future of retail: there’s plenty more automation in store

Whatever happens, when there is any sort of return to normal, both sides will enter fresh leasing negotiations with an acrid taste from what is rapidly becoming their most vitriolic fight to date.

This article has been co-published with The Lighthouse, Macquarie University’s multimedia news platform.

– ref. Trouble at the mall as landlords and tenants ponder mutually assured destruction – https://theconversation.com/trouble-at-the-mall-as-landlords-and-tenants-ponder-mutually-assured-destruction-145094

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

Today marks six months since New Zealand’s first COVID-19 case was identified on February 26.

So far New Zealand has been largely in reactive mode, initially during the first elimination stage which finished in early June and now in response to the ongoing Auckland outbreak.

Given the vigorous response to controlling this current cluster, we have a good chance of eliminating community transmission again.

But to maximise our protection against future border control failures and outbreaks, we argue it is time to take a far more strategic approach to this pandemic — and we suggest five key steps New Zealand should take.

Strengths and weaknesses of New Zealand’s response

An effective ongoing response to COVID-19 is an all-of-government challenge. It requires seamless coordination of scientific input, policy design and implementation.

An early shift from a mitigation to an elimination strategy was a major strength of New Zealand’s response.

Read more: Eradication, elimination, suppression: let’s understand what they mean before debating Australia’s course

The combination of border controls with a stringent lockdown, supported by considerable science input, including from the government’s chief scientists, was effective in eliminating community transmission after the first outbreak.

As a result, New Zealand now has the lowest COVID-19 death rate in the OECD and relatively low economic damage compared with other high-income countries.

But there are serious weaknesses, including multiple failures at our managed isolation and quarantine facilities and slow adoption of digital technologies for contact tracing and mass masking.

Read more: Masking the outbreak: despite New Zealand’s growing COVID-19 cases, there are more ways to get back to elimination faster

Challenges ahead

The most pressing challenge is to bring the current outbreak (New Zealand’s largest cluster, with 108 cases) under control. We also need to learn from this new more targeted resurgence response so we can improve our ability to detect and control any future outbreaks.

Genome sequencing and COVID-19 testing of wastewater are promising new surveillance approaches. But we will also need to upgrade the alert level system to integrate the use of face masks and address high-risk transmission venues such as bars and nightclubs and incorporate new knowledge about controlling transmission.

Contact tracing should also be improved through digital technologies, including the CovidCard.

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

A second key challenge is to improve the management of our external borders to minimise the risk of introducing the virus. The border is New Zealand’s greatest vulnerability and we need an urgent review of the entire process from pre-travel to post-quarantine.

Last week, the government and the main opposition party both announced new border control policies that include the adoption of digital contact tracing technologies.

Modelling by ourselves and colleagues has been useful for assessing various border control interventions. Options include the use of digital technologies for tracking arriving passengers and staff and monitoring contact patterns.

There are also important questions about how to improve quarantine, the benefits of purpose-built facilities (with proper ventilation and no shared spaces), and shifting isolation and quarantine facilities out of major cities (for example, to an air force base).

A further challenge is planning for the introduction of a vaccine. There is a long list of uncertainties to work through with any COVID-19 immunisation strategy, including the extent and duration of immunity and who should be targeted for immunisation (assuming limited initial supplies). New Zealand should begin planning now to improve the national immunisation register to support vaccine delivery.

Countries pursuing elimination have different science challenges compared with those where transmission is more widespread. They need to shift their focus to include ‘low-probability high-consequence scenarios’, such as the potential role of imported chilled food as a vehicle for the reintroduction of COVID-19 in the recent outbreak (albeit still much less likely than a border control failure).

Five key ways to be more strategic

We propose five key ways New Zealand could be more strategic in maintaining its elimination goal:

1. Establish a high-level COVID-19 science council. This council would provide evidence-based strategic advice across the entire response sector, help develop a COVID-19 research and development strategy, and assist with coordinating the efforts of research groups across New Zealand. In this role it might represent a logical development from the current Technical Advisory Group that advises the Ministry of Health.

2. Develop a well-resourced research and development strategy. This strategy would identify high-priority evidence needed to protect New Zealand from the pandemic while also achieving equitable outcomes and improving the efficiency of the response. A single day at the current alert level (level 3 for Auckland and level 2 for the rest of the country) is estimated to cost the economy NZ$63 million. It would make economic sense to invest at least this amount into research and development to identify ways of minimising the need for such lockdowns as well as addressing other major COVID-19 science questions.

3. Enhance the quality and transparency of science information. High-quality surveillance data are essential to guide and evaluate the COVID-19 pandemic response. These data and response documents need to be readily available for scrutiny by scientists, journalists and the public to help guide systematic improvements. Much of the critical data have never been available in this way, notably data on the pandemic itself and key components of the response, such as testing data and updates on the performance of the contact tracing system.

4. Evaluate the response through an official inquiry immediately after the October election. This inquiry would be useful to identify weak areas of the response that require urgent system improvements and help shape the proposed national public health agency.

5. Establish a national public health agency to deliver the COVID-19 response. Recent public health disasters such as the Havelock North waterborne disease outbreak and last year’s measles epidemic have already highlighted the need for such an agency. Taiwan is the country that has responded most effectively to the COVID-19 pandemic and its dedicated agencies have been a major part of its success.

Taking a highly strategic, science based approach to COVID-19 gives New Zealand the best possible opportunity to sustain its elimination approach. Focusing on principles of equity, transparency and innovation could help develop the organisations, infrastructure and workforce that provide lasting public health benefits beyond the current crisis.

– ref. 6 months after New Zealand’s first COVID-19 case, it’s time for a more strategic approach – https://theconversation.com/6-months-after-new-zealands-first-covid-19-case-its-time-for-a-more-strategic-approach-144936