Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Maund, Research Affiliate, School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle

Yesterday, the New South Wales government accepted all 76 recommendations from an independent inquiry into last summer’s devastating bushfire season. Several recommendations called for increased hazard reduction, such as through controlled burning and land clearing.

But clearing and burning vegetation will hurt our native flora and fauna, which is still recovering from the fires. Rather than clearing land to reduce the bushfire risk, we must accept we live on a fire-prone continent and improve our urban planning.

Read more: Summer bushfires: how are the plant and animal survivors 6 months on? We mapped their recovery

Importantly, with fires set to become more frequent and severe under climate change, we must stop choosing to live in bushland and other high-risk areas.

Inquiry recommendations

The bushfire inquiry was conducted over six months, with former Deputy Commissioner of NSW Police Dave Owens and former NSW Chief Scientist and engineering professor Mary O’Kane at the helm.

It found changes are needed to improve the preparedness and resilience of local commmunities, as well as fire-fighting techniques, such as use and availability of equipment. And it noted prescribed burning should target areas such as ridge tops and windy slopes. These are areas that drive fires towards towns.

Other important recommendations involved:

• training fire authorities to fight megafires and councils to manage local emergencies
• strengthening collaboration between agencies
• improving information and warnings, and overall communications
• indoor and outdoor Neighbourhood Safer Places (places of last resort)
• improving mapping of buildings at risk of bushfire
• ensuring personal protective equipment for land owners and fire fighters
• improving assistance for vulnerable people.

But a key finding was that there’s still a lot to learn, particularly about bushfire suppression methods. As a result, future property losses are “inevitable”, given settlement patterns and “legacy development issues”.

What risk are we prepared to accept?

If we as a community accept that property loss will occur, we should choose the level of risk we’re prepared to take on and how that will affect our environment.

Building homes in high bushfire risk areas requires a combination of land clearing to reduce flammable material such as dry vegetation, and ensuring your home has a fire-resilient design.

Read more: Australian building codes don’t expect houses to be fire-proof – and that’s by design

But after the unprecedented megafires of last summer, it’s clear living in these areas still exposes residents and firefighters to high risk while trying to protect buildings and the community.

Bushfire prone areas are often on the periphery of cities and towns, such as Sutherland in the south of Sydney, coastal areas such as the South Coast and Central Coast, or remote communities including Wytaliba in northern NSW. These areas contain a mix of medium to low density housing, and are typically close to heavy vegetation, often combined with steep slopes.

But we should not continue to develop into these high risk areas, as the associated land clearing is too significant to our ecosystems and may still result in houses being lost.

Protecting our wildlife

It’s estimated more than 800 million animals were killed in the NSW bushfires, and more than one billion killed nationally.

The clearing of native vegetation is recognised as a major threat to biological diversity: it destroys habitats, can lead to local wildlife populations becoming fragmented, and increases the exposure to feral predators such as cats and foxes.

Read more: The burn legacy: why the science on hazard reduction is contested

In 2018 around 60,800 hectares of woody vegetation was cleared in NSW for agriculture, infrastructure and forestry. This is an increase of 2,800 hectares from the year before.

If we continue to build in high risk areas and clear trees to create asset protection zones, we will add to the ongoing pressure on wildlife.

Where should we build?

Rather than trying to modify the environment by clearing trees, we must plan better to avoid high risk bushfire areas. This was reinforced in the inquiry report, which called for a more strategic approach to where we locate new developments.

And this focus on planning is reflected in recent policy changes by the NSW Rural Fire Service, Planning Institute of Australia and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience that encourage resilient communities. For example, the state’s rural fire service’s 2019 guidelines, Planning for Bushfire Protection, place more emphasis on considering bushfire at the rezoning stage to reduce risk to future developments.

We should encourage our communities to grow in low-risk areas away from native vegetation. This includes avoiding the development of new low-density housing in rural and remote locations.

Read more: When there’s nowhere to escape, a bushfire-safe room could be your last resort

To further separate our homes from risk, we should also consider instead putting non-residential land — such as for industrial factories and manufacturing plants — closest to vegetation.

Rural houses should be built in more urban settings near existing towns away from dense vegetation, rather than scattered buildings. In larger towns and cities we could focus on brownfield development with little ecological value. “Brownfield” refers to sites that have previously had development on them.

And community buildings such as hospitals, education and emergency services, should be placed in low-risk areas to facilitate response during and after a bushfire event.

While each community should decide how it develops, land rezoning and planning rules should not allow continued expansion into high bushfire risk areas.

– ref. The NSW bushfire inquiry found property loss is ‘inevitable’. We must stop building homes in such fire-prone areas – https://theconversation.com/the-nsw-bushfire-inquiry-found-property-loss-is-inevitable-we-must-stop-building-homes-in-such-fire-prone-areas-145028

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

We tend to assume disseminating public health messages is solely the role of public servants such as Victorian chief medical officer Brett Sutton and his former federal counterpart Brendan Murphy, both of whom have become de facto celebrities during the pandemic.

But to ensure vital health information reaches everyone in our community, we need a range of spokespeople, including religious and community leaders.

However, church leaders have expressed concerns some Christians may face an “ethical dilemma” over Australia’s COVID-19 vaccination plans.

Sydney’s Catholic and Anglican Archbishops and the leader of Australia’s Greek Orthodox church told Prime Minister Scott Morrison that the University of Oxford’s candidate vaccine, set to be given to Australians if it proves successful, is potentially problematic because its production method relies on cell lines from an electively aborted foetus.

There are many examples of religious community leaders helping vaccination programs. I experienced this first-hand in 2013, when I supported a catch-up immunisation clinic at a large Samoan church in Western Sydney, which aimed to reduce the measles risk among the Pacific Islander community. One community member who participated told me:

Most Pacific island people go to church. Maybe this is one of the best channels to go through. Ministers, because their job is spiritual health as well, will give out information for the health of their people.

That was the first time an Australian church had hosted an immunisation clinic. But the idea of religion crossing over with immunisation is not new. The earliest recorded example of “variolation” (or inoculation) was an 11th-century Buddhist nun’s innovative practice:

She ground scabs taken from a person infected with smallpox (variola) into a powder, and then blew it into the nostrils of a non-immune person to induce immunity.

Several centuries on, things are more vexed. While major faith traditions endorse the principles supporting the public health goals of vaccination, hesitancy has been documented at an individual clergy level, and concerns have been raised at an organisation level from time to time.

The church leaders who wrote to Morrison have asked the government not to pressure Australians to use the vaccine if it goes against their religious or moral beliefs. Sydney’s Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher called on the government to pursue arrangements for alternative vaccines that do not involve the foetus-derived cell lines.

What’s a cell line anyway?

A cell line is a population of cells that is grown continuously in the laboratory for extended periods. Once established, cell lines have an unlimited lifespan and so are a renewable and reliable system for growing viruses.

Some cell lines, called human diploid cell lines WI-38 and MRC-5, came from three abortions performed for medical reasons (including psychiatric reasons) in the 1960s.

These abortions were not done for the purpose of harvesting the cells. Cells taken from these cell lines are used to grow the virus, but are then discarded and not included in the vaccine formulation.

In Australia, several licensed vaccines have been manufactured using cell lines that originally came from this foetal tissue from the 1960s. This includes the vaccines against rubella, hepatitis A, varicella (chickenpox), and rabies.

The Catholic church has previously grappled with this issue. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, ethicists at the National Catholic Bioethics Center and the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life declared the abortions from which the cell lines were derived were events that occurred in the past. Most importantly, they acknowledged the intent of the abortions was not to produce the cell lines, and therefore being immunised is a morally separate event from the abortions themselves.

In 2017, the Pontifical Academy for Life reiterated this stance, stating:

…we believe that all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience and that the use of such vaccines does not signify some sort of cooperation with voluntary abortion.

Moreover, it concluded there is a “moral responsibility to vaccinate […] to avoid serious health risks for children and the general population”.

Read more: Why freedom of religion will likely not trump public health interests with a future COVID-19 vaccine

Health comes first

Supporting public health goals is the key principle previously applied by major faith institutions in situations where ethical issues around vaccination have been raised. One previous example is the use of gelatin – which is made from pig skin or bones and is forbidden as a food by some religions – in vaccine and medicine capsules.

After reflecting on the issue, the Kuwait-based Islamic Organization for Medical Sciences declared in 1995:

…the gelatin formed as a result of the transformation of the bones, skin and tendons of a judicially impure animal is pure, and it is judicially permissible to eat it.

The Grand Mufti of Australia released a letter in 2013 supporting this judgement, ruling it is acceptable for Australian Muslims to take vaccines containing pork-derived gelatin.

In the case of both gelatin and human cell lines, religious organisations have called on vaccine manufacturers to use alternative methods where possible. Yet given the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may not be feasible or ethical to delay or seek alternative vaccines.

This sentiment was outlined by Reverend Kevin McGovern, a Catholic priest and adjunct lecturer at the Australian Catholic University and the Catholic Theological College, in a recent piece for the ABC:

Developing ethically uncompromised cell lines and vaccines is important. In the crisis of this pandemic, developing and using an effective vaccine so as to save lives is even more important.

While this article is reflecting on religious organisations and vaccination, at an individual level it’s important to note that people who profess to decline vaccines for religious reasons may in fact be motivated not by theological concerns but by their own personal views about vaccine safety, perhaps influenced and echoed by others in their clustered social networks.

For example, US based studies have suggested some parents circumvent vaccine requirements by claiming religious exemptions, in the absence of a personal belief alternative.

Read more: 5 ways we can prepare the public to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (saying it will be ‘mandatory’ isn’t one)

To move forward, it’s important public health officials work with religious leaders to ensure they are equipped with accurate information about the potential COVID-19 vaccine, its development process and the rationale for its use. Engaging these leaders and building trust are crucial steps into the intersection of religion and vaccination.

– ref. Religious concerns over vaccine production methods needn’t be an obstacle to immunisation – https://theconversation.com/religious-concerns-over-vaccine-production-methods-neednt-be-an-obstacle-to-immunisation-145046

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vasso Apostolopoulos, Professor of Immunology and Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research Partnerships, Victoria University

A Hong Kong man who recovered from COVID-19 more than four months ago has reportedly been reinfected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. This time he didn’t have any symptoms.

This is not necessarily unexpected, because very few natural infections generate an immune response that completely prevents reinfection. Instead, what generally happens after an infection is that the body’s immune response gradually declines over months after the infection is cleared.

Specialised immune cells in the body are tasked with remembering each particular infection, so if you get infected again your body quickly starts producing the relevant antibodies and other immune cells (called T cells) in large numbers. This helps clear the new infection more rapidly and effectively. So you can still get reinfected, but you’re more likely to have fewer symptoms or be asymptomatic.

This is what seems to have happened to the 33-year-old Hong Kong man at the centre of the latest reports. The first infection caused symptoms, which he reportedly suffered from for some time. But the second time around he was asymptomatic, presumably because his body effectively repelled the disease.

The same phenomenon has previously been shown in monkeys, with one experimental study showing reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is possible, but that reinfection did not result in the development of disease.

However, we have to be careful about over-interpreting what we know about this case. This is just one person. Is he the exception or the rule? We don’t know yet for sure, and we have to wait for further research. Also, his case was announced via a press release, so we have to wait for the paper to be officially published to be able to properly scrutinise the data.

A different strain

There have been anecdotal reports of people being reinfected before, but many of these seem to be cases in which the initial infection simply persisted for a long time, or in which the person’s lungs were expelling dead virus.

But in this case, the virus isolated from the man’s two separate positive COVID-19 tests had slightly different genetic sequences. This suggests they had a different origin and are therefore different strains.

So far, there have been many SARS-CoV-2 mutations detected around the world. One particular mutant strain, known as the G-variant, seems to be more infectious than the original virus.

We must remember, however, it’s common for viruses to mutate. So it’s also possible we’ll need several different vaccines to account for multiple strains of the virus, like is often done with the flu vaccine.

Read more: The Oxford deal is welcome, but remember the vaccine hasn’t been proven to work yet

What does this mean for our immune system?

The good news is this particular person’s immune system seems to have recognised the second infection, as shown by the fact his blood boosted antibodies against it. Despite the mutation, the man could still mount a good defence against the new strain.

Antibodies usually last in the blood for roughly 120 days following a stimulus such as natural infection with a virus or injection with a vaccine, though it varies depending on the disease. Both the B cells that produce antibodies, and the T cells that kill infected cells, also wane over time after the stimulus.

Vaccines can induce longer-lasting responses. But the key point is both natural infections and vaccines do generate memory B and T cells. So when the body comes in contact with the infection the second time, the memory cells respond rapidly and in high numbers. This can be so quick and strong that in some cases it can even result in “sterile protection”, effectively preventing the virus from infecting our cells. More commonly, there may be a small lag time for the immune system to respond fully, but in the end the virus is still unlikely to infect many cells.

He didn’t develop symptoms, but could he still pass it on?

At the moment it’s unclear if asymptomatic carriers can transmit infection. Indeed, there may be different types of asymptomatic carriers. Some asymptomatic people might transmit the virus, while others don’t. We don’t know why this is the case.

But based on our experience with other diseases, the higher the number of viral particles being spread from person to person, the higher the chance of infection. Therefore, asymptomatic carriers, who do not shed lots of virus through coughing or sneezing, should in theory have a lower risk of infecting others.

Read more: Exposure to common colds might give some people a head start in fighting COVID-19

Does reinfection mean herd immunity is impossible?

Herd immunity is still possible if we get a successful vaccine, because vaccines can be more powerful and protective than the immunity conferred by being naturally infected with the virus. Some epidemiologists suggest at least 70% of a population needs to be immunised to achieve herd immunity.

What’s more, becoming reinfected does not mean the virus will necessarily be transmitted — it depends on the viral dose and the susceptibility of people around the infected person. If they are all immunised with a vaccine, we generate a ring of fire that can contain spread of the virus.

It’s also possible SARS-CoV-2 becomes an endemic virus, like many viruses circulating in the population. But as long as there are diagnostics, vaccines and treatments, we could continue functioning normally just as we do with influenza present in the population. Ultimately it’s about what level of risk society is willing to accept. And we may need to use infection control methods like masks and hand hygiene for some time.

Read more: No, Australia should not follow Sweden’s approach to coronavirus

– ref. A man in Hong Kong caught COVID-19 a second time. Here’s why that’s not surprising (and there’s no need to panic) – https://theconversation.com/a-man-in-hong-kong-caught-covid-19-a-second-time-heres-why-thats-not-surprising-and-theres-no-need-to-panic-145015

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea Carson, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University

Have you used Google lately and been greeted by a yellow warning saying that the way Australians search on Google is under threat?

To understand why these messages are appearing, Media Files interviewed former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Professor Allan Fels, and CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Initiative (PIJI), Anna Draffin (full recording above, recorded from home due to the pandemic).

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

This episode of Media Files is about world-first laws to be introduced later this year that will force Google and Facebook to pay for news on their sites to help fund public interest journalism.

The yellow warning messages by Google (which also appear on its sister site, YouTube) aim to garner public support for a campaign to pressure the federal government to dump revenue-sharing laws planned for later this year.

In a similar vein, Facebook’s Australian and New Zealand director of public policy, Mia Garlick, argued in the Sydney Morning Herald before the draft laws were released, that Facebook already provided top value to media outlets with

billions of opportunities for publishers to monetise their stories, gain new paying subscribers, serve ads, and keep Australians on their websites.

And while Allan Fels said he’s not surprised by the tech giants fighting back against the new law, the public will expect the tech giants to “suck it and see”.

“I think people will ask Google and Facebook to ‘suck it and see’ to see what turns out instead of just going home with a cricket bat or baseball bat,” said Fels.

“It’s normal, it’s par for the course, in ACCC matters, that parties make threats […] with jobs, investment, higher prices, leave the country. Everything!”.

Fels believes the Morrison government may well respond with a new digital tax if Google or Facebook pulls some business out of Australia, like it did in Spain in 2014. Then, the Spanish government charged Google copyright fees for using news snippets, so Google shut down its news service.

“Personally, I think that the government has got this huge stick in the closet if Google walks or partly walks, and that is to put on a digital tax,” Fels said, adding that

A digital tax is being talked about globally, mainly at the OECD. And virtually every member of the OECD wants to put a digital tax on the platforms except the US. Certainly the US under Donald Trump […] But even if the US continue to oppose it, I think a lot of countries are just going to proceed with their own digital tax.

How did we get here?

Following the ACCC digital platforms inquiry report last year, the consumer watchdog recommended the two tech giants pay Australia’s major newsrooms (excluding the SBS and ABC) an annual fee to use news on their sites.

Anna Draffin and the big media companies agree with the ACCC’s findings that media companies cannot fairly compete with the digital platforms to win advertising revenue, and that this revenue shortfall has led to masthead closures and journalism job cuts.

Draffin said its introduction is urgent as COVID-19 has accelerated the demise of many news outlets, particularly in regional Australia.

At first, the ACCC was to oversee a voluntary code with the technology companies negotiating in good faith with the big news outlets.

But, unhappy with the progress of the bargaining talks, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced in April the code would be mandatory. The government released draft laws in July sparking Google’s fear campaign warning its users that Australians “search experience will be hurt by new regulation”.

In an August 24 blog post, Google argues it helps “more than 20 million Australians” and is unlikely to shut down Australian news from its search engines.

Facebook contends news is just a fraction of the information on its platform and the mandatory code is unnecessary.

ACCC chair Rod Sims, on the other hand, argues that

News content brings significant benefits to the digital platforms, far beyond the limited direct revenue generated from advertising shown against a news item […] News media businesses should be paid a fair amount in return for these benefits.“

The mandatory code includes transparency measures to force the digital platforms to share data and insights about how it uses algorithms to rank news content online.

Draffin said while the proposed laws are welcome, at this stage, they do not include the public broadcasters nor do they include smaller newsrooms with annual turnover under A$150,000.

“The code alone isn’t necessarily going to be the solution particularly for that [smaller] end of the market,” said Draffin.

“New market entrants would largely sit outside of any benefit from the code. So there could be room for a loan or venture capital fund for start-ups as a separate policy setting,” she said.

Read more: In a world first, Australia plans to force Facebook and Google to pay for news (but ABC and SBS miss out)

The draft laws force the companies to negotiate for up to three months or face a binding binary dispute resolution where independent arbiters determine the winning bid among the bargaining parties. Breaches of the news laws would attract fines of up to $10 million or 10% of a company’s annual domestic turnover.

Public consultation into the draft mandatory bargaining code closes this Friday, August 28.

Additional credits

Theme music: Susie Wilkins.

Image

Shutterstock

– ref. ‘Suck it and see’ or face a digital tax, former ACCC boss Allan Fels warns Google and Facebook – https://theconversation.com/suck-it-and-see-or-face-a-digital-tax-former-accc-boss-allan-fels-warns-google-and-facebook-145041

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 will likely not trump public health interests with a future COVID-19 vaccine – https://theconversation.com/why-freedom-of-religion-will-likely-not-trump-public-health-interests-with-a-future-covid-19-vaccine-145030

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Lander, Senior Research Fellow, Deakin University

Regular physical activity is linked to improvements in physical and mental health including anxiety and depression. It can also improve cognitive functioning such as attention and memory, and academic achievement in children.

But only 14% of Australian children get the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity per day and they spend 70% of the school day sitting. Primary school students spend over half of the school week in English and maths lessons, and the majority of these lessons are traditionally sedentary — up to 76% of their time is spent sitting during maths.

Australian students’ are scoring lower in international tests than before while sedentary behaviour and mental-health issues are on the rise. One way to improve academic outcomes and health is to add more movement to classes.

Mixing learning with movement

Theories of cognition — the mental processes in acquiring knowledge — hold that we learn through physical actions in our environment, as well as through physical senses and perceptions. So, engaging in physical activity can help students better understand concepts and retain the experience in a meaningful way.

But for this to occur, the students’ actions must directly correspond to the learning concept. For example, in maths, kids can stretch their arms diagonally to represent the function y=x, “crocodile” arms can show acute angles, and crossing forearms can create perpendicular lines.

In groups, they can link arms to form a triangle, and stretch and shrink without changing the angle measurements.

Recent research suggests integrating physical activity in maths lessons enhances student enjoyment, engagement and attitude, and improves maths performance.

In English lessons, research shows physical activity can improve students’ engagement with, and enjoyment of, tasks and lead to better spelling and reading.

Learning and movement doesn’t only have to happen in school. At home, parents can encourage children to move and learn at the same time.

This might involve talking about the numbers on letterboxes while walking to school, as a way to learn about odd and even numbers, or skip counting. When playing soccer in the park, parents can make scoring more challenging with each goal being a fraction (¼) or decimal (1.5) .

Read more: Move it, move it: how physical activity at school helps the mind (as well as the body)

At various times during reading, you could ask your child to stand up and act out a scene to represent what they have just read.

What teachers can do to help kids move more

We have developed an evidence-based program called Transform-Us!. This provides primary school teachers with professional learning and resources to help them adopt teaching strategies that get students moving more and sitting less across the school day.

We also conducted a randomised controlled trial to test the program among seven–to–nine-year-old children in 20 Victorian primary schools. Results showed significant increases in physical activity, time spent on tasks and enjoyment of lessons.

All teachers can use some of the below strategies to engage students in moving as they learn, which is particularly important in the online learning environment.

Get kids to move during a lesson to help them learn concepts

This could include using arms or bodies to create shapes, or using arms to learn time on a clock. When learning online, a teacher could ask students to

stand up and move safely away from the computer. Get ready for an active lesson to energise your body and activate your brain.

Get students to take two minute active breaks for every 20 minutes of sitting

During these breaks, students engage in short bouts of activity such as a maths activity called “Friends of 10” where one student stands up and faces a partner and puts up a hand with a certain number of fingers (say seven). The other student responds with the number that would take it to ten (three).

In online learning, a teacher could instruct students to stand up and clap or stomp patterns in time together before returning to their work.

Create a classroom environment that supports movement

This could include having standing desks, roving group work or pushing desks to the side to leave open space in the middle of the class for movement. Teachers could also use the playgrounds, outdoor spaces or ground-line markings as learning spaces.

Read more: Let them play! Kids need freedom from play restrictions to develop

Remotely, this can happen by setting children tasks that require them to work away from the screen. A shape treasure hunt is one example. Here, students walk around their house or backyard looking for specific shapes found on a worksheet, and then draw a map indicating where each shape was.

Engage families through physically active homework

This could include asking children to explore the backyard or home and select ten items, predict their measurement and record predictions, measure the items and record measurements, and record accuracy of predictions.

And of course, encourage students to move at recess and lunchtime.

While most of the research on movement during lessons has been done in primary schools (which is where our resources are for), we have started research to see how such strategies would work in secondary schools.

Ideally, all children in the future will have the opportunity to move while they learn through their school years.

– ref. Kids spend nearly three-quarters of their school day sitting. Here’s how to get them moving — during lessons – https://theconversation.com/kids-spend-nearly-three-quarters-of-their-school-day-sitting-heres-how-to-get-them-moving-during-lessons-131897

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duane W. Hamacher, Associate Professor, University of Melbourne

This year’s Mabo Day, June 3, was a special day for Indigenous astronomy. That was when the International Astronomical Union officially accepted five new asteroid names that honour a selection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, elders and academics whose work has been particularly influential.

The move follows similar commemorations in 2019, the International Year of Indigenous Languages, when a plethora of stars, exoplanets, planetary features and asteroids were given Indigenous names. They included six stars that received names from the Wardaman (NT), Booring (Vic) and Kamilaroi/Euahlayi (NSW) communities, as well as a star and planet named Bubup (“child”) and Yanyan (“boy”) – names derived from the Boon Wurrung language of Melbourne.

Read more: The stories behind Aboriginal star names now recognised by the world’s astronomical body

Asteroids (sometimes also called minor planets are large rocks in the Solar system, ranging from 10 metres to more than 100 kilometres in diameter. Most are found in a region called the asteroid belt, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, and are only visible with a powerful telescope.

Here are the five asteroids that have been newly named in recognition of influential Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

7546 Meriam

Formally known as 1979 MB4, this is a 2km-wide asteroid of the Flora family in the asteroid belt’s inner region. It is 2.3 times farther from the Sun than Earth is, and takes 3.5 years to complete one orbit.

The Meriam are an Indigenous Australian group of people in the islands of the eastern Torres Strait, who are united by a common culture and language: Meriam Mir, Australia’s only Papuan language.

Meriam people developed and maintain complex systems of astronomical knowledge centred around Tagai, a great warrior who is central to their Creation and identity. Meriam star knowledge has featured in academic papers, educational curricula, planetarium displays, a forthcoming commemorative coin, and the upcoming Werner Herzog film Fireball.

Read more: A shark in the stars: astronomy and culture in the Torres Strait

7733 Segarpassi

Formally known as 1979 MH4, this is a 1.9km-wide asteroid in the main asteroid belt. It is 2.4 times farther from the Sun than Earth is, and its orbit takes 3.7 years.

Segar Passi is a Dauareb man and highly respected Senior Elder on Mer (Murray Island) in the eastern Torres Strait. He is an award-winning artist who shares extensive traditional knowledge about Meriam ecology, meteorology and astronomy. Uncle Segar’s paintings reflect careful observations of the local environment, using an extensive colour palette to reflect and embed deep layers of knowledge about ecology, geology, astronomy, and culture.

Uncle Segar has coauthored academic publications featuring Meriam astronomy, including papers on music and astronomy in the Torres Strait, how Meriam people observe the twinkling stars to predict seasonal change, and the link between death and Maier (bright meteors) in Meriam traditions.

7630 Yidumduma

Formally known as 1979 MR2, this 6.4km-wide asteroid of the Koronis family is in the outer region of the asteroid belt. It is thought to have formed 2 billion years ago from a major collision between two larger bodies. It takes 4.8 years to orbit the Sun.

Bill Yidumduma Harney is a Senior Wardaman Elder near Katherine, NT, who grew up in a traditional Aboriginal community. He is a globally renowned artist, storyteller and musician and was fully initiated in Wardaman Law. He has shared the rich and complex astronomical systems of Wardaman astronomy in his books Dark Sparklers and Four Circles, as well as academic papers on navigation.

Uncle Yidumduma was featured in the Message Stick program Before Galileo and the Warwick Thornton film We Don’t Need a Map. Four of the six IAU-approved Aboriginal star names come from Yidumduma’s star knowledge.

Read more: Aboriginal traditions describe the complex motions of planets, the ‘wandering stars’ of the sky

7809 Marcialangton

Formally known as 1979 ML1, this 4.25km-wide asteroid is in the main asteroid belt and has a 3.6-year orbit.

Marcia Langton AO is Redmond Barry Distinguished Professor, Associate Provost, and Foundation Chair of Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne. Born in Brisbane, she is a Yiman and Bidjara woman whose traditional country is central Queensland. She has been involved in the fight for Aboriginal rights, Native Title, and was the first Indigenous graduate in anthropology at ANU before completing a PhD in geography at Macquarie University.

In 2018 she spearheaded the Indigenous Knowledge Resources for Australian School Curricula Project to incorporate Indigenous Knowledge of fire, water, and astronomy into the Australian National Curriculum for all subjects in primary and secondary school.

Read more: Beyond the morning star: the real tale of the Voyagers’ Aboriginal music

7547 Martinnakata

Formally known as 1979 MO4, this is a 3.32km-wide asteroid of the Koronis family in the outer region of the asteroid belt. It is thought to have formed 2 billion years ago from a major collision between two larger bodies and takes 4.8 years to complete an orbit.

Martin Nakata AM is a Professor and Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education & Strategy) at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. He is an Indigenous Torres Strait Islander whose traditional country is the island of Naghir (Nagi). He is the first Torres Strait Islander to earn a PhD in Australia and his work focuses on the development of the Cultural Interface, which he describes in his book Disciplining the Savages, Savaging the Disciplines.

Professor Nakata leads research and the development of tech programs at the interface of Indigenous astronomy and Western astrophysics and worked to develop collaborations between tech companies, libraries and universities to enable Indigenous communities to share their astronomical knowledge on their terms.

– ref. From 7809 Marcialangton to 7630 Yidumduma: 5 asteroids named after Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people – https://theconversation.com/from-7809-marcialangton-to-7630-yidumduma-5-asteroids-named-after-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people-144596

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marija Taflaga, Lecturer, School of Political Science and International Relations, Australian National University

In recent months, twoinvestigations by The Age and the Nine Network have revealed allegations of branch stacking in the Victorian divisions of the Labor and Liberal parties. The scandals saw ministers and powerbrokers resign and investigations launched.

But what is branch stacking? At its most basic level, it involves recruiting members to a political party who have no genuine interest in supporting the principles or participating in the activities of that party. It can involve paying new recruits membership fees, falsely reporting addresses and recruiting people who don’t know they are even joining a political party.

By increasing the number of members in a given branch, the “stacker” can manipulate party decisions about candidate pre-selection and its internal governance bodies. These organs control the rules about how the party selects candidates, resolves disputes and governs its internal affairs.

As political scientist Anika Gauja explained, one way to reduce branch stacking might be to adopt the Queensland model of electoral commission oversight. By shifting responsibility and compliance to a third party, this could reduce the incentive structure for party operatives.

But branch stacking raises two broader questions about the health of our political parties and the way our political system operates.

Our parties aren’t as healthy or representative as they could be

The first is philosophical. It relates to why branch stacking is a problem for political parties in the first place — and it’s not just that it violates the parties’ own rules.

Australian parties claim to be democratic institutions that represent popular opinion, albeit shaped by specific political values and principles. In this way, they claim to be a vital democratic link between citizens and the elected elites who govern us, rather than a narrow group of power-seeking individuals. This is key to their claims of legitimacy.

Branch stacking undermines this claim, because it shows the selection of candidates is not always based on democratic principles, merit or representation.

Are the candidates who win the right to represent parties in government a true reflection of the values of the voters? It becomes harder to argue this point if the only way representatives got into power is because they ingratiated themselves with the right power-broker.

Read more: Explainer: what is branch stacking, and why has neither major party been able to stamp it out?

The second question goes to the health of political parties. Australian parties have very low rates of membership (less than 2% of the population). Moreover, they are not required to publish membership numbers, despite receiving public funding.

As the recent branch stacking scandals demonstrate, manipulating party membership numbers and votes is far easier in institutions that have scant members in the first place. In small branches that are poorly attended, it only takes a few new recruits to shift outcomes.

Better ways to bring citizens into government

While parties can take steps to try to boost membership and internal party democracy by giving members a greater say in selecting candidates, leaders and policies, it may also be time to consider system-wide institutional reforms.

With interest in joining political parties so low, placing the entire burden on parties to ensure robust democratic representation may be too much to ask.

There are multiple options that could help fix the current system. Some include increasing the overall size of parliament, creating more opportunities for people to run for office, or modifying the voting system to be more favourable to minority candidates.

Expanding the size of parliament can bring new opportunities for different types of representation, such as deliberative forums. This style of forum involves the recruitment of ordinary citizens to consider a specific problem facing society with the assistance of balanced, expert advice.

Citizens are given the opportunity to discuss and deliberate issues, potentially changing their minds. It was precisely this process that saw the historic removal of abortion laws in Ireland.

Read more: Democracy is due for an overhaul – could lawmaking-by-jury be the answer?

Another option is to select a portion of our representatives by democratic sortition.

Sortition involves the selection of representatives by lottery, similar to jury duty. The advantage of sortition is that it is random and more likely to recruit from across the community.

Given this, careful consideration would need to be given to the exact number of members drawn by lot and how long we might expect citizens’ recruited this way to serve in parliament, given the disruption this may cause to their lives. Such a system could be combined with the methods of party-based selection that we use today.

No magic bullet, but clear alternatives

To be clear, political parties remain important institutions in our democracy and are likely to persist for some time to come. Further, none of these measures outlined above would be a magic bullet.

In fact, any of these suggested alternatives involve trade-offs, but they would all change our current structure which encourages recruitment of professionalised politicians from narrowing groups.

Ultimately, what the alternatives do offer is a chance to reconsider how we bring ordinary Australians into the political system again and to encourage a debate about what we want representation to look like in the 21st century in order to best renew our democracy.

Read more: Labor’s branch stacking scandal is a problem for the whole party. Not just Victoria.

– ref. Branch stacking isn’t just about corruption — it’s a symptom of an outdated, withering party system – https://theconversation.com/branch-stacking-isnt-just-about-corruption-its-a-symptom-of-an-outdated-withering-party-system-144948

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Sinclair, Research Fellow, UNSW

Older adults and those with chronic health conditions share an increased risk of experiencing severe symptoms if they contract COVID-19.

But they’re not a homogeneous group. In the event they become very sick, one person may want all available treatment, even if this includes intensive care and an extended period of rehabilitation. Another may prefer to avoid life-sustaining but highly invasive medical interventions.

If either of these people became suddenly unwell, how likely is it health professionals would know their wishes? Understanding a person’s wishes in advance makes it easier for the health-care system to provide care that matches the person’s preferences.

Yet research shows only 25% of older Australian adults accessing health and aged-care facilities have documented their wishes for future care through advance care planning.

What is advance care planning?

Advance care planning is about discussing your goals for future care, in case of a time when you’re unable to communicate or make your own decisions. It works best when it includes health professionals, family members and other significant people (for example, a spiritual advisor).

A competent adult can specify their preferences for future health care in an advance care directive, or nominate a substitute decision-maker to make health-care decisions on their behalf.

The goal is even if a person is too unwell to make decisions, health-care professionals can still respect their preferences.

Read more: Should all aged-care residents with COVID-19 be moved to hospital? Probably, but there are drawbacks too

Why is advance care planning important during COVID-19?

In a recent paper, my colleagues and I make the case for incorporating advance care planning into the COVID-19 response.

First, it allows us to better prepare for any unexpected surges and reduce the need for rationing of medical resources in this event.

The recent outbreak of COVID-19 in Victoria has severely impacted aged-care settings and the broader community, and reignited concerns about the health-care system’s capacity to cope with local outbreaks.

Much debate about ethical decision-making has focused on the “rationing” scenario, in which outbreaks overwhelm health-care resources and some people are refused treatment.

However, we shouldn’t put our ethics hat on only when the truck gets close to the cliff. Ethics and evidence should inform all decision-making in the COVID-19 response, including taking all sensible steps to avoid a rationing scenario.

If future surges in demand push health-care systems beyond capacity, it will be too late to have advance care planning discussions with people at the time of their admission to hospital.

The public health response to prevent and control outbreaks is of course crucial. Beyond this, advance care planning can ensure those who wish to refuse certain treatments have communicated this, and are not inadvertently “competing” with others for scarce health-care resources.

This is not about abandoning people or an excuse to provide less care. Advance care planning must always be a voluntary process, aimed at respecting a person’s informed preferences.

Read more: Does anyone know what your wishes are if you’re sick and dying from coronavirus?

Importantly, routine care delivery is more complicated in the COVID-19 context, and respecting a person’s preferences can require preparation. For example, a person’s wish to receive care at home may depend on supplies of consumables and personal protective equipment, visiting rosters and backups in case family members or care staff need to quarantine.

Finally, it’s a matter of respecting human rights. Advance care planning enables a person to exercise some level of control over their care, even while highly dependent.

How can we boost the uptake of advance care planning?

In terms of policy, the Australian health sector’s emergency response plan for COVID-19 does indicate aged-care providers should encourage advance care planning among residents.

But the plan should be updated to incorporate a more strategic approach to increasing advance care planning across primary care, hospital and community settings — not just aged care.

Health professionals, including primary care, allied health and aged-care workers, can all help patients and family members understand their condition and options for future treatment, and encourage further discussion about advance care planning.

Lawyers, trained community volunteers, health promotion units and mass media strategies can also play a role in encouraging the broader community to discuss their wishes with family members and health professionals, in non-acute community settings.

Read more: In Victoria, whether you get an ICU bed could depend on the hospital

The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated changes in attitudes and accepted practices across the board. We should leverage this to promote increased uptake of advance care planning.

Notably, telehealth technology enables advance care planning discussions from a distance, and new legislation in some states allows remote witnessing of legal documents.

While these discussions may be most pressing for older people and those with chronic conditions, we can all access relevant resources and start talking with family members and health professionals about our wishes.

– ref. Only 25% of older Australians have an advance care plan. Coronavirus makes it even more important – https://theconversation.com/only-25-of-older-australians-have-an-advance-care-plan-coronavirus-makes-it-even-more-important-144354

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt McDonald, Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

US Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is campaigning on a platform that puts climate action front and centre. At the Democratic National Convention last week, he outlined a US$2 trillion clean energy and infrastructure plan, a commitment to rejoin the Paris climate agreement and a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

This contrasts starkly with the agenda of President Donald Trump, which has involved rolling back climate regulations and plans for a US withdrawal from the Paris deal.

Clearly, a Biden election win would bring a climate policy sea change in the US – the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas polluter and a key player in any international agreement.

The Trump presidency has been a godsend for an Australian government apparently uninterested in significant climate action. But with Trump behind in the polls, a Biden presidency would further expose the Morrison government’s lack of climate ambition – a position that was already fast becoming indefensible.

Climate policy: Australia in the world

In international terms, Australia’s emissions reduction commitments are clearly at the lower level of ambition.

It’s pledged a 26% reduction from 2005 levels by 2030, and plans to “carry over” carbon credits earned during the Kyoto protocol period to substantially reduce the emissions reduction task under Paris. Even given this modest goal, and the emissions slowdown during the pandemic, it’s still not certain Australia will meet its target.

But unlike the US, at least Australia can point to its continued commitment to the Paris Agreement itself. And the Morrison government’s claim that Australia’s emission reduction will have little global impact is easier to make when a major emitter is refusing to take substantive climate action.

Read more: Carbon dioxide levels over Australia rose even after COVID-19 forced global emissions down. Here’s why

But that state of play will change under a Biden presidency. Importantly, the new administration will likely use its re-entry to the global climate action “tent” to push other countries to increase their ambition.

This would put pressure on Australia ahead of COP26 – the next round of United Nations climate talks in Glasgow, in November 2021. The central focus of these talks – postponed from 2020 – will be new national commitments on emissions reduction.

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, countries have to ratchet up their commitments every five years. So far, there is no indication Australia will comply but ahead of the next COP, host nation the UK will be among a group of nations pushing the Morrison government to go harder. Under Biden, the US would likely join the chorus.

Pressure from all directions

Even without a Biden presidency, other forces are making Australia’s climate position less tenable.

Pressure from Australia’s near neighbours has been significant. At the 2019 Pacific Islands Forum, the Morrison government was roundly chastised for its climate inaction – an issue central to the concerns of Pacific island states. Indeed, it seems clear Australia’s climate policy is undermining the Morrison government’s so-called Pacific step up, making effective engagement with the region much more challenging.

Read more: Australia’s farmers want more climate action – and they’re starting in their own (huge) backyards

At home, the devastating effects of the last bushfire season brought Australian climate action into sharp focus. Under climate change, natural disasters such as bushfires will become more frequent and severe.

In 2019, Australians identified climate change as the biggest threat to our vital national interests. The 2020 Lowy Poll saw a slight decline in concern for climate change as the effects of the coronavirus took hold, but support for strong action was still well above 50%.

The National Farmers Federation, historically a relatively conservative voice on climate policy, last week called for Australia to commit to the same target as Biden – net-zero emissions by 2050.

This target is also a feature of the federal opposition’s position on climate policy, together with a 40% emissions reduction by 2030. Current Labor infighting over the policy after its 2019 election loss casts some doubt on that commitment. But the party’s climate change spokesman Mark Butler, and others in Labor pushing Australia to do more, will surely be empowered by the dynamics noted above.

If the case for emissions reduction needed strengthening further, a Greenpeace report released on Monday, reviewed by scientists, found pollution from Australia’s 22 coal-fired power stations is responsible for 800 premature deaths each year.

Added to this, research has found more coal power generation closed than opened around the world this year. And the International Energy Agency says renewable electricity may be the only energy source to withstand the COVID-19 demand shock.

Combined with the falling cost of renewables technology, the Morrison government’s dogged support for the fossil fuel industry is increasingly unjustifiable.

No silver bullet

A Biden presidency won’t be a silver bullet for Australian climate policy. The Morrison government has shown itself willing to shrug off international condemnation and view climate action primarily through the lens of mining exports and electricity prices. And for that, they’ve arguably been rewarded at the ballot box.

But domestic and international pressure for Australia to do more is increasing. A Biden election victory would certainly make it that bit harder for Australia to keep its head stuck in the sand.

Read more: Australia’s farmers want more climate action – and they’re starting in their own (huge) backyards

– ref. Under Biden, the US would no longer be a climate pariah – and that leaves Scott Morrison exposed – https://theconversation.com/under-biden-the-us-would-no-longer-be-a-climate-pariah-and-that-leaves-scott-morrison-exposed-144870

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Forsyth, Senior Lecturer in History, Australian Catholic University

Forceful suppression of political and scholarly views in universities has a long and shameful history. University of Cambridge Chancellor John Fisher was hanged, drawn and quartered for failing to support Henry VIII’s “great matter”. A few years later, John Hullier was burned at the stake on Cambridge’s Jesus Green for refusing to renounce Protestantism.

We imagine our modern universities to be more civil. Certainly, in the 1950s, when Russel Ward’s appointment to the New South Wales University of Technology (now UNSW) was blocked for political reasons, this was frustrating, but not deadly. In Soviet Russia, by contrast, scientists who disagreed with Stalin’s approved theory of genetics went to prison. Some were executed.

These events show why academic freedom matters. Academic freedom is related to free speech in universities, the subject of a public debate that prompted the federal government to commission a review of the issue in 2018. This month the government appointed Professor Sally Walker to monitor universities’ adoption of a code of free speech arising from the review.

Read more: Dan Tehan wants a ‘model code’ on free speech at universities – what is it and do unis need it?

This sounds like a good thing, which we would expect to reinforce academic freedom. However, in this case, the category of “free speech” actually conceals particular political interests that could threaten academic freedom.

Free speech and academic freedom

Academic freedom has been very hard won. Such freedoms are important because they are how we know we can trust scholars to tell the truth about the discoveries they make, even when that means society, politics or the economy may need to change as a result. If Stalin had allowed his geneticists academic freedom, for example, they might well have prevented widespread famine.

Read more: The tragic story of Soviet genetics shows the folly of political meddling in science

So, when the Institute of Public Affairs and the Centre for Independent Studies used a system of policy “audits” imported from overseas to declare a “free speech crisis” in Australian universities, this was taken seriously. Although academic freedom is different from free speech, the suppression of free speech can sometimes inhibit academic freedom.

One of our most meticulous retired High Court judges, Robert French, wrote a 300-page report on the subject. He concluded:

Reported events […] do not establish a systemic pattern of action […] adverse to freedom of speech or intellectual inquiry in the higher education sector.

French was not the only one who took the time to consider the question. Philosophers, legal scholars and vice-chancellors authentically explored free speech and academic freedom from every angle.

Read more: Special pleading: free speech and Australian universities

It became evident there was no “crisis” at all. Nevertheless, conservative commentators kept saying there was. No review could mollify them.

The rather more alarming news that the government has appointed another legal authority to monitor university compliance with French’s model code of free speech is unlikely to satisfy them either. The “crisis” cannot be resolved by assuring free speech, because that is not what it was about.

A ‘crisis’ born of an anti-PC campaign

The so-called “free speech crisis” is actually an anti-political correctness campaign waged by particular groups of conservative intellectuals. French’s review shows some Australian conservatives looked to the success of such campaigns in the United States and the United Kingdom in increasing the political right’s power. They manufactured a similar “crisis” in Australian universities to achieve the same ends here.

Anti-political correctness is a philosophy that is not the same as free speech. Anti-political correctness claims that conservative students, lecturers and visitors to university campuses are unfairly limited in what they can say. Often this relates to so-called “politically correct” subjects such as race, gender or sexuality.

The difference from free speech is obvious. Anti-PC advocates want to be able to say what they like, but they do not want to be called “racist”, “sexist” or “homophobic” in response. Anti-political correctness is always earned at the expense of someone else’s free speech.

Anti-political correctness is connected to libertarian philosophies, which value individual freedom over collective well-being. However, anti-political correctness typically does not grant everyone the same freedom.

This is because anti-political correctness is linked to a conspiracy theory known as “Cultural Marxism”. Cultural Marxism is an imaginary left-wing movement that some conservatives believe deliberately coordinated a take-over of cultural institutions, including universities. Political sociologist Rachel Busbridge and her colleagues describe the transfer of this conspiracy theory from the US to Australia, where what was a far-right fringe theory has taken root in more mainstream conservative movements.

So, when the Institute of Public Affairs points to a “free speech crisis” in universities, it’s in fact seeking to take universities back from Marxists who some conservatives (falsely) believe control higher education. This is clearly not about free speech at all.

Does anti-PC have a place in universities?

Intellectuals earnestly exploring the supposed free speech crisis have suggested progressive (though probably not radical leftist) scholarship is more thoroughly developed in universities than conservative thinking. This may be placing some limits on conservative students to explore their politics in a rigorous and critical way.

If the university system was at its best, the right kind of response would see scholars making a new bargain: I’ll read Ayn Rand with you if you read Karl Marx with me (I’m game). But those who manufactured a free speech crisis did not intend to produce this kind of critical engagement nor even an authentic scholarly conversation between thinkers with diverse politics.

This is a pity. Universities have many flaws – they always have – but also many uses. It would be useful if they provided the intellectual underpinnings to democracy, especially as the world changes. This means producing better conservative work than they currently achieve, while also continuing to nurture the universities’ quite well-developed progressive thinking.

This is a critical job. It’s not one that can be achieved by the loudest, most insulting yelling – though students are free to do that, too. But the job of the university, at its best, is to find a critical place for anti-political correctness on campus, just as for all kinds of ideas.

Students could fruitfully explore the history and philosophy of libertarianism and anti-political correctness in political science, cultural studies, history, political economy and many other disciplines. Of course, they should similarly engage with feminism, critical race studies and postmodernism.

Imposed ‘solution’ threatens academic freedom

Imposing anti-political correctness on all members of the university as a compulsory philosophy undermines, rather than promotes, academic freedom. To do so under the cover of “free speech” is not only disingenuous, it further jeopardises our universities, which are already facing risks to academic freedom. These are increasingly due to the commercial pressures universities face.

Read more: The great irony in punishing universities for ‘failing’ to uphold freedom of speech

Financial pressure was not always the source of threats to academic freedom. It used to be government. The predecessor to the National Tertiary Education Union was formed during the Cold War in part to defend academic freedom in Australia from the kind of McCarthyism going on in the United States.

In the 1950s, the union was active in the Ward case, which was about academic freedom. The union was also very influential in the Orr case, which it believed to be about academic freedom. (It was wrong about this one, it turned out.)

Things have changed, but the union has continued to support academic freedom. More recently, the union spoke in support of Peter Ridd, whose comments on Sky News opposing his colleagues’ claims that climate change has affected the Great Barrier Reef got him sacked from James Cook University.

Read more: Egging the question: can your employer sack you for what you say or do in your own time?

This last case is rather different to the earlier ones, since many more commercial interests are at stake. Ridd’s GoFundMe page seeking support for a High Court appeal shows hundreds of thousands donated by the likes of Bryant Macfie, whose commercial interests align with their denial of the majority of climate science.

Commercial interests are a threat

Universities are vulnerable to commercial pressure. Over the past 40 years, universities have become explicitly commercial enterprises. A vice-chancellor’s job now pressures them to protect their institution’s “brand” first, perhaps more than academic freedom.

Although the specifics of the Ridd case suggest this is actually about the university’s code of conduct, university managers have tended to be quicker to protect income streams than scholarly independence.

In 2016, La Trobe University management suspended Roz Ward over a private post on Facebook supporting the “red flag forever”. Management reportedly responded to pressure that threatened the withdrawal of funding for their Centre for Health, Sex and Society.

Academic capitalism has grown in universities worldwide since the 1980s. Its critics have regularly pointed out the academic freedom risks associated with commercialising scholarly endeavour. These have only increased as the logic of profit dominated higher education.

Read more: ‘Universities are not corporations’: 600 Australian academics call for change to uni governance structures

Recently, the University of New South Wales appeared to allow its commercial interests – the importance of international fees paid by students from China – to trump its commitment to academic freedom when it deleted a tweet by Elaine Pearson about human rights in Hong Kong.

University of Queensland student Drew Pavlou recently lost an appeal against his suspension. He claimed his suspension was punishment for speaking out about Chinese funders influencing course content.

Aligning commercial interests to academic work was always fraught, but government funding too came with risks. In fact, mid-20th-century vice-chancellors were at first reluctant to accept Commonwealth funding for fear government interference would jeopardise academic freedom. Between the Murray review of the 1950s and the Dawkins reforms of the 1980s, a “buffer body”, the Australian Universities Commission (later the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, when colleges of advanced education were included), sought to keep the government’s political interests at arm’s length from university funding.

The buffer has long gone. As the university commercialised, academic freedom has become more precarious.

From this point of view, the Walker appointment to monitor university compliance with free speech seems perilous. Since there was no free speech crisis, the government’s attentiveness to free speech on Australian campuses is little more than a dog-whistle to particular political interests.

Depending on how Walker approaches her task, rather than protecting free speech in Australian universities, the government’s policing of free speech, ironically enough, may threaten academic freedom.

– ref. How a fake ‘free speech crisis’ could imperil academic freedom – https://theconversation.com/how-a-fake-free-speech-crisis-could-imperil-academic-freedom-144272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Camilla Nelson, Associate Professor in Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Review: I am Woman, streaming on Stan from August 28.

There’s a scene in Unjoo Moon’s debut feature I Am Woman, out this week on Stan, where Helen Reddy (Tilda Cobham-Hervey) confronts an all-male row of record executives intent on dropping her signature song from her debut album.

Some are balding and sweaty-faced, others have big hair and handlebar moustaches. Some are dressed in brown suits with polo neck sweaters, others in flamboyant shirts with flyaway collars – and they snigger.

“It’s kind of angry,” says one. “It’s man-hating,” says another. “Wait until all this campaigning leads to unisex toilets. See how she feels then.”

It’s a shock to hear Reddy’s jazz-tinged, pop melody about female empowerment and self-belief described in such terms. But this is what makes Moon’s film resonate.

We’ve come so far, and yet we haven’t.

A song for 1972

Reddy’s I Am Woman was released at the zenith of the counterculture era. It reached number one on Billboard’s Hot 100 in 1972 and went on to sell an estimated 25 million copies.

It climbed the charts the year Gloria Steinem founded Ms magazine and Ita Buttrose founded Cleo, the year Shirley Chisholm made her bid for the US Presidential ticket, backed by the Black Women’s Caucus, the year Martha Griffiths put the Equal Rights Amendment back on the political agenda – seeking legal equality between US men and women in divorce, employment, financial and property matters.

Read more: Before Kamala Harris became Biden’s running mate, Shirley Chisholm and other Black women aimed for the White House

The feeling of history erupting over the threshold of the present makes Moon’s film compelling viewing.

The opening credits show Reddy arriving in New York City from Melbourne with her three-year-old daughter, Traci, having won an audition with Capitol Records in an Australian Bandstand competition. She walks by a billboard declaring “Even I can open it” – a nod to Alcoa Aluminium’s ads for twist top bottles marketed to 1960s housewives.

In a crushing counterpoint, the executives at Capitol tell her “I can’t do anything with a female singer”, and Reddy ends up singing in small bars in Syracuse for cash.

All in the details

Moon has a fantastic eye for period detail. The halter neck pants suits, vintage Lurex knits, the bold diagonals. The pale pink Hoover in the living room of a Los Angeles bungalow is an amazing touch, as is the Hockney-esque swimming pool, and a 1970s Hollywood Regency mansion with a Spanish theme.

Moon intercuts archival footage to map the extraordinary history of the Women’s Movement: The New York women’s marches, the 1989 march on Washington, even conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly.

As Moon tells it, Australian music critic Lillian Roxon (Danielle MacDonald) draws Reddy into the nascent world of feminism.

Roxon had moved to New York in 1959, and her personal and controversial report about the 1970 women’s rights march in New York was published in the Sydney Morning Herald under the title “There is a tide in the affairs of women”.

There’s a scene in which Reddy and Roxon riff on Sandy Posey’s 1966 hit Born a Woman, with lyrics saying “you’re born to be stepped on, lied to, cheated on and treated like dirt” and, alarmingly, “I’m glad it happened that way”.

In response, Reddy pens I Am Woman using her daughter’s textas.

I am Woman is one of the few songs Reddy co-wrote. She is best known for her covers, dark pop songs about marginalised women like Delta Dawn or the eerie and heartbreaking Angie Baby.

These darker songs acknowledge the flipside of the self-belief in I am Woman: not every woman can be strong and invincible in every situation.

Not your burning diva

There are moments in the film where the dialog and the action feel forced, as Moon and writer Emma Jensen try to find their feet in all this amazing material.

But there are so many great moments, notably Reddy’s 1973 Grammy win when she thanked God, “because she makes everything possible”. The deft use of Roxon’s liner notes from Reddy’s debut album I Don’t Know How to Love Him will make you tear up.

Too often, diva films feel like a spectacle about women being punished for living their dreams: they crash and burn like Bette Midler in The Rose, or they struggle under Pygmalion “man makes star” themes like Judy Garland, Barbara Streisand and Lady Gaga in A Star is Born.

The strength of I Am Woman is in the way Reddy comes through. There’s no crash and burn. There’s no selling out.

The film ends with the 1989 women’s march on Washington, and the placards and posters cut to the heart of now. It’s hard not to think about the political zealotry of our own times and the passage of regressive anti-women legislation throughout America.

Alice Cooper once called Reddy the “Queen of housewife pop”. Reddy took this as an accolade, and maybe this was her secret. She took rock songs full of gritty vocals and emotion and gave it a gleaming pop sound, bringing women’s equality into the mainstream.

I Am Woman is available to stream on Stan Friday.

– ref. I Am Woman: new Helen Reddy biopic captures the power and excitement of women’s liberation – https://theconversation.com/i-am-woman-new-helen-reddy-biopic-captures-the-power-and-excitement-of-womens-liberation-143344

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

The Morrison government is accelerating and repurposing defence spending in a A$1 billion boost to support about 4,000 jobs and assist small and medium-sized businesses in the defence industry supply chain.

In several workforce initiatives worth about $80 million, up to 210,000 more days will be available to give supplementary employment to Australian Defence Force reservists, some of whom have lost civilian income. There are 27,000 ADF active reservists.

Five hundred more reservists will be recruited, which could help people with part time employment who have lost their primary employment due to businesses closing and the restrictions.

The ADF will slow or delay the transition of personnel out of the force for medical reasons, subject to medical advice. There will also be support for ADF partners to find work.

A $300 million “defence estate” program, supporting up to 2,200 jobs, will speed up work scheduled for defence facilities around the country. Some of the areas to benefit suffered in the bush fires.

The program will take in the RAAF bases East Sale, Pearce, Wagga and Amberley, as well as Jervis Bay and Eden, the Albury Wodonga Military Area, and Blamey Barracks. This builds on an announcement made in May.

About $190 million will be invested in bringing forward seven infrastructure projects in the Northern Territory, involving Robertson Barracks, RAAF Base Darwin, Larrakeyah Defence Precinct, and the Delamere Air Weapons Range.

Another $200 million will be spent on “sustainment of existing capabilities and platforms” including the upgrade of Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles, modernisation of ADF uniforms, and extra C-27J maintenance. The last will provide work for 23 former Qantas engineering and technical workers, and 14 ex-Virgin technical peronnel.

The uniform modernisation will speed up the delivery of “a contemporary, practical Navy uniform”.

Accelerating various projects to develop and deliver capability will cost $200 million and give work in the areas of manufacturing, construction and high tech.

About $110 million will be allocated to defence innovation, industry grants, skilling and micro credentialling and cyber training.

Scott Morrison, who will formally announce the package on Wednesday, said that like other parts of the economy the local defence industry was “doing it tough”.

“Supporting our defence industry is all part of our JobMaker plan – especially high-paying, high-skilled jobs that ensure we are supporting a robust, resilient and internationally competitive defence industry, ” he said.

“We will also support our ADF members and families, particularly any reservists who are doing it tough because of COVID-19.”

– ref. Government to recruit 500 more reservists in $1 billion accelerated defence spend to support jobs – https://theconversation.com/government-to-recruit-500-more-reservists-in-1-billion-accelerated-defence-spend-to-support-jobs-145062

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Caldicott, Emergency Medicine Consultant, Australian National University

The medical evacuation of Alexei Navalny, the outspoken political critic of Vladimir Putin who was allegedly poisoned last week, has shed more light on his illness.

The Charité – Universitätsmedizin hospital in Berlin said in a statement yesterday:

The patient is being treated in intensive care and remains in a medically induced coma. While his condition is serious, it is not currently life-threatening.

Notably, the hospital states he was poisoned by “a substance from the group of cholinesterase inhibitors”. But what are these, and how can this sort of poisoning be treated?

From pesticides to weapons-grade chemicals

Cholinesterase inhibitors, also called anticholinesterases, are a broad group of chemical agents.

They include many everyday pesticides such as organophosphate and carbamate compounds, which the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority regulates in Australia.

They also include more exotic weapons-grade chemicals such as sarin, which was deployed in Syria, and novichok, reportedly used to poison two Russian expatriates in Salisbury, UK, in 2018.

In this form, these chemicals are often collectively referred to as “nerve agents”.

First developed in Germany in the lead-up to World War II, nerve agents are several times more potent, and therefore dangerous, than organophosphate or carbamate pesticides. They’re banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

These chemicals can cause harm through simple contact or inhalation, in minuscule quantities. Some reports suggest Navalny was poisoned via a cup of tea, which would also be effective.

It’s no exaggeration to say this group represents the most lethal chemicals humans have ever created.

Read more: Alexei Navalny has long been a fierce critic of the Kremlin. If he was poisoned, why now? And what does it mean?

How do they make people sick?

Cholinesterase inhibitors work by blocking an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase.

Under normal circumstances, acetylcholinesterase regulates the amount of a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine (ACh) that crosses our nerve junctions (or synapses), converting electrical signals through the body.

ACh acts mainly on the body’s autonomic (involuntary) nervous system, which controls fundamental functions such as heart rate, breathing rate, salivation and digestion. It’s a crucial neurotransmitter.

Left unregulated, the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors is a little bit like blocking one of the major “off-switches” of the body. You’re left with all the lights turned “on” and the body quickly runs into trouble.

A rapid build-up of ACh at the nerve junctions leads to the effects we tend to see in nerve agent toxicity, including mucus secretions from the respiratory and digestive tracts, breathing problems, and muscle dysfunction.

Ultimately, death is usually a result of respiratory failure.

How can this poisoning be treated?

It is possible to treat nerve agent poisoning, with a combination of physical and pharmacological interventions. But it is dangerous, and difficult.

Initially, decontamination is critical. Poisoning continues as long as contact with the agent continues, and there’s a risk of contamination for those providing medical care.

Significant exposure will invariably require intubation and mechanical ventilation.

The German hospital reports Navalny is currently being treated with atropine. Atropine is used to bind to and blanket ACh receptors, rendering the circulating excess of these neurotransmitters less hazardous.

Read more: How Alexei Navalny revolutionized opposition politics in Russia, before his apparent poisoning

What’s the poison?

Health workers can detect whether or not someone has been exposed to harmful cholinesterase inhibitors by taking urine and blood samples.

But as time passes, and the toxin is secreted in the urine, it becomes more difficult to identify exactly what type of cholinesterase inhibitor was the culprit.

The “ghosts” of the poisoning — incapacitated acetylcholinesterase enzymes — are detectable for a longer time, but it can be very hard to link these in isolation to a specific agent.

Depending on the toxicity of the agent, how much was used, how long patients were exposed, and how they were exposed, enzyme levels can start to return to normal from several days to several weeks after exposure.

The person’s health will improve, but often not back to normal. An intermediate syndrome can last for weeks, and people affected describe this as very debilitating.

A history of exotic poisonings

Critics of the Russian regime and their affiliates seem to have a higher than average chance of succumbing to exotic poisons, compared with the general population.

In 2004, the then Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned with a chemical called TCDD-dioxin, and left with facial disfigurement.

In 2006 Alexander Litvinenko, a defected ex-FSB agent, was poisoned with radioactive isotope polonium-210.

The attempts on the lives of the Skripal family in Salisbury, with the agent generally assumed to be novichok, has probably been the highest-profile poisoning in recent years.

Read more: Alexei Navalny suspected poisoning: why opposition figure stands out in Russian politics

In the case of Navalny, it’s very unlikely the specific agent used will ever be proven. But his case does share common ground with these others.

To assume all of these attempts were necessarily at the personal behest of the Russian leader is probably too long a bow to draw. But it would be reasonable to assume someone in an inner coterie was involved each time — if only to access such sophisticated weapons of assassination.

– ref. What is the chemical agent that was reportedly used to poison Russian politician Alexei Navalny? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-chemical-agent-that-was-reportedly-used-to-poison-russian-politician-alexei-navalny-145013

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

The government has reclassified university courses in psychology and social work into a cheaper fee band under its Job-ready Graduates legislation, to be introduced into parliament on Wednesday.

The change, part of a deal with the Nationals, means instead of paying a proposed $14,500 for these courses, students will now pay $7,950.

The Nationals have also won a change in the planned $5000 Tertiary Access Payment for students from outer regional and remote areas who relocate to study. This will now be provided to universities to offer as scholarships, structured in a way that favours regional institutions.

As well, the government has agreed not to proceed with a January 1 2024 cut off for fee-grandfathering for students enrolled before January 1 next year.

Originally social work and psychology (as distinct from clinical psychology, a post-bachelor qualification) were both in the most expensive band 4.

To offset the reductions in the proposed fees for these courses, the maximum fee for student bands 1 and 2 are being increased by $250.

The new fee structure is designed to cut the cost to students of courses in areas of expected future job demand. But it contains big fee hikes for law and courses in the humanities.

Education Minister Dan Tehan said: “We have made sensible amendments to the legislation after listening to the constructive feedback provided during the consultation process”.

The Minister for Regional Education, Andrew Gee, from the Nationals, said the amendments would “help bridge the gap between country communities and the cities, including the divide in educational attainment and access to services such as mental health”.

“Country universities have made it clear that they like the fact that the reforms provide faster growth in university places for them, and bring stability and certainty to the tertiary education sector,” Gee said.

“The changes to the Tertiary Access Payment mean that country universities are able to better compete on a more level playing field with their city counterparts to attract country students, while uncapped grandfathering means that country students studying part-time can now rest easy with funding certainty.”

But as they mark a win on education, the Nationals are facing another bout of destabilisation with The Australian reporting speculation Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack’s leadership will come under pressure later in the year.

Questioned about the speculation, Deputy Nationals leader David Littleproud, who has recently been highly visible in the media on the issue of state borders, said on Tuesday the party was “100%” behind McCormack, who would lead them to the next election.

Asked whether he wanted to be leader someday, Littleproud said:

“Obviously, everybody in this place aspires to lead their party. but there’s a time and place and you’ve got to understand very few have achieved it.”

– ref. Nationals win cheaper fees for social work and psychology in Job-ready Graduates legislation – https://theconversation.com/nationals-win-cheaper-fees-for-social-work-and-psychology-in-job-ready-graduates-legislation-145045

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Piterman, Adjunct Associate Professor, Monash University

Heads have rolled at AMP, and rightly so.

Particularly the head of chairman David Murray, who this week resigned, somewhat unapologetically, over the sexual harassment scandal that has enveloped the embattled Australian financial services giant.

As chair, the buck stopped with Murray.

The board’s decision to promote executive Boe Pahari, an executive with a record of sexual harassment, to one of its most senior positions was bad enough.

Compounding the problem was the way the board defended its decision, downplaying the offence and dismissing staff concerns, until finally buckling under shareholder pressure.

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

Appointed to replace Catherine Brenner in 2018 in the wake of the damning findings of the banking royal commission, the veteran banker was probably never the right man to salvage AMP’s tattered reputation.

Consider his statement announcing his departure.

In it he managed to avoid any apology or concede any mistake. He maintained the complaint against Pahari had been “dealt with appropriately” in 2017. He suggested putting Pahari in charge of the company’s investment management division had “considerable support” apart from “some shareholders”.

Social licence to operate

Under Murray’s leadership, AMP’s clear focus has been financial performance. His view of management responsibilities can be described as “traditional”. It emphasises the board’s prime responsibility is shareholder value. He has never been a fan of broader social and environmental responsibility agendas, or anything else he regards as a distraction.

He was one of the biggest critics, for example, of the Australian Stock Exchange’s 2018 proposal to include in its corporate governance principles a reference to “a social licence to operate”. The proposal was ultimately dropped in early 2019.

The proposal would have added the following commentary to its principle of acting lawfully, ethically and responsibly:

A listed entity’s social licence to operate is one of its most valuable assets. That can be lost or seriously damaged if the entity or its officers or employees are perceived to have acted unlawfully, unethically or in a socially irresponsible manner.

Preserving an entity’s social licence to operate requires the board and management of a listed entity to have regard to the views and interests of a broader range of stakeholders than just its security holders, including employees, customers, suppliers, creditors, regulators, consumers, taxpayers and the local communities in which it operates.

Long-term and sustainable value creation is founded on the trust a listed entity has earned from these different stakeholders. Security holders understand this and expect boards and management to engage with these stakeholders and to be, and be seen to be, ‘good corporate citizens’.

Murray (and others) pushed back against the proposal hard. In his first major interview after taking over as AMP chair he declared.:

We will not be guided by the ASX corporate governance principles where they either weaken accountability or distract the company to less important issues.

Read more: The ASX abandons push to require companies to have a social licence to operate. Was it only ever ‘politically correct nonsense’?

Narrow focus hasn’t worked

More attention to social licence, though, might have helped Murray and AMP avoid its grievous recent history, which includes charging fees for no service and billing dead customers.

AMP’s business model has privileged shareholder value above community and employee consideration. Yet this narrow view has also failed to serve investors – a message that has been delivered by several of AMP’s biggest institutional shareholders.

A culture in which profit takes precedence over non-financial risks, ethical standards and legal constraints heightens the propensity for flawed business models, governance oversights, conflicts of interest and bad behaviour.

That pretty much sums up where AMP is still mired.

Murray departs with his promise to restore AMP’s battered reputation unfulfilled. But it will take more than his exit to change the company.

His replacement, Debra Hazelton, has said she is committed to regaining the “trust and confidence of clients, shareholders and employees”.

This will require a massive culture shift to win back customers and employees that have been treated so shabbily.

Companies that disregard social licence do so at their peril.

– ref. Social licence: the idea AMP should embrace now David Murray has left the building – https://theconversation.com/social-licence-the-idea-amp-should-embrace-now-david-murray-has-left-the-building-145029

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, University of Adelaide

Review: Tenet, directed by Christopher Nolan.

“Don’t try to understand it,” says the character Laura early on in Tenet, Christopher Nolan’s marvellous new film. The “it” here is time travel, or “technology that can reverse an object’s entropy”, as Laura (played by Clémence Poésy) tells us.

Time — the way it warps, bends and unravels — is Nolan’s favoured topic. So it’s no surprise that one of Tenet’s most intriguing concepts is the idea of “time inversion” — that time can travel both ways.

Cue a breathtaking opening in the Kiev Opera House that culminates in a scene in which a fired bullet magically returns to its gun. What follows is no less complex — but that’s something we’ve come to expect from a director long regarded as Hollywood’s most intelligent auteur.

John David Washington, last seen in BlacKkKlansman, plays The Protagonist, a CIA operative charged with tracking down Kenneth Branagh’s Andrei Sator, a rogue Russian oligarch (is there any other kind?) who can commune with the future.

Sator wants to acquire weapons-grade plutonium and bring about planetary destruction. Only The Protagonist can stop him, by mastering the art of “time inversion” and using Sator’s wife Kat (played by Elizabeth Debicki) to help him infiltrate this shadowy criminal network.

If this all sounds like a futuristic version of James Bond, then that is intentional. Nolan is a fan of 007, and it shows. Visually and tonally, all of Bond’s tropes and tics are on display — a sinister organisation, exotic locations, mind-bending car chases, parkour-style stunt work, and the usual race-against-time shenanigans.

Washington is assisted by a suitably eye-catching cast — Robert Pattinson (complete with blond highlights and wonderfully knotted scarves), Debicki and Nolan regular Michael Caine. To say any more risks spoiling the labyrinthine plot. Suffice to say, this is a big film with big ideas.

Tenet is a staggeringly ambitious work that blends popular, crowd-pleasing effects with psychologically complex storytelling. As with Memento and The Prestige, audiences are required to pay attention, but the rewards are remarkable. Characters bounce up walls, jumbo jets explode, cars flip over — these are not gratuitous money shots but set pieces integral to the story.

Ideas and ambition

It is the very definition of high-concept — sophisticated ideas presented in ways that are occasionally chilly, but never boring. It helps that Nolan always writes the film he directs, thus ensuring a perfect alignment between intention and execution. While there is nothing in Tenet as memorable as the Paris-folding scene in Inception or Heath Ledger’s performance in The Dark Knight, its action scenes make The Fast and the Furious seem pedestrian.

Read more: 10 years on, Inception remains Christopher Nolan’s most complex and intellectual film

Relying heavily on Hoyte Van Hoytema’s glittering, sinewy camerawork and Ludwig Göransson’s propulsive score, Nolan once again redefines the parameters of contemporary American cinema, cementing his reputation as the 21st century’s Steven Spielberg.

Like Spielberg, his graphic style is unparalleled, and the complexity of his stories rich and resonant. A case in point is Debicki as Kat, Sator’s wife. She is arguably the most intriguing character in Tenet, and a corrective to a common criticism of Nolan — that he cannot write strong female protagonists.

Kat, unlike Marion Cotillard, Anne Hathaway or Maggie Gyllenhaal in earlier Nolan films, looks, sounds and acts in ways that are consistent with the requirement of the plot.

If Tenet does not reach the high water mark of Insomnia or Batman Begins, it is still light years ahead of modern action cinema in terms of ideas and ambition. Nolan’s work since Memento has always straddled a fine line between blockbuster and art house: his versions of Batman were introspective, psychological portraits of damaged masculinity; Inception was a $160 million Leonardo DiCaprio film about dream extraction and the unconscious mind.

Even Nolan’s Dunkirk is less a history lesson than a study of men under extreme pressure. Tenet continues that trend. Amid the techno-babble and the talk of global entropy and World War III lie more profound meditations — on Russian entanglements with British intelligence, and how the past and the future are in perpetual combat.

Some images will remain with you for days — bombed-out buildings reconfiguring in seconds, and characters wearing oxygen masks to support their lungs during time inversion.

Saving cinema

Those masks remind us of something else, of course. Tenet will eventually go down as one of the most anticipated films Hollywood has made because it is the film to kickstart cinema going in a post-COVID 19 world.

Nolan has explicitly said that the first run of Tenet can only been seen in cinemas — there is no chance of a Mulan or Trolls World Tour streaming compromise here.

The message is clear — see Tenet on as big a screen as possible. Studio executives, critics and audiences alike all have high hopes. Nolan has delivered on his part of the bargain. Now it’s up to audiences to settle down once more in darkened cinemas around the globe and go along for the ride. It’s worth it.

Tenet is in cinemas from August 26.

– ref. Tenet is marvellous: a staggeringly ambitious blend of popular effects and complex storytelling – https://theconversation.com/tenet-is-marvellous-a-staggeringly-ambitious-blend-of-popular-effects-and-complex-storytelling-144872

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Sydney

Clive Palmer’s legal challenge to the Western Australian border closures seems less likely to succeed after findings made by the Federal Court.

Palmer started his case in the High Court, arguing the Western Australian border closure breached section 92 of the Australian Constitution, which says trade and commerce among the states and the movement of people across state borders shall be “absolutely free”.

But it’s not as simple as that.

The High Court has previously recognised that laws that are reasonably necessary to achieve another legitimate end, such as protecting public health, may impede the movement of people or goods across state borders. Most people will be familiar, for example, with having to dispose of fruit at state borders to stop the spread of fruit flies.

Stopping the spread of COVID-19 is certainly a legitimate end, so the question is whether a border closure is reasonably necessary to achieve this purpose.

Because the parties in Palmer’s case could not agree on the relevant factual matters, the Federal Court was given the task of hearing the scientific and governmental evidence and making findings on the facts. The matter will then return to the High Court, possibly in October, so it can decide the constitutional issue.

Read more: States are shutting their borders to stop coronavirus. Is that actually allowed?

Justice Darryl Rangiah in the Federal Court has now handed down his decisions on the facts and on an application to have the matter re-heard. He rejected the argument that the Commonwealth’s withdrawal from the case meant he had to start again. As Palmer had said he would adopt the Commonwealth’s evidence and call the Commonwealth’s witnesses in any new hearing, Justice Rangiah thought this would be pointless. He proceeded on the basis of the evidence as presented by all parties and interveners, including the Commonwealth.

Despite favouring Palmer in rejecting the argument for a re-hearing, Justice Rangiah’s separate judgment on the risks and probabilities of the spread of COVID-19 is a cautious one, which appears to favour the Western Australian position.

He accepted that the state’s border restrictions have been effective in reducing the probability of COVID-19 being imported into Western Australia from interstate. He ranked the risks of persons from different states importing COVID-19 into Western Australia if the border restrictions were partially or completely removed. He considered those risks were high for people from Victoria, moderate for those from New South Wales, low for visitors from South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory, very low for Tasmanians and uncertain for people from Queensland, given recent outbreaks. But, overall, he ranked the risk of the spread of COVID-19 in Western Australia as “high” if the state’s border restrictions were completely removed.

Critically, Justice Rangiah concluded that replacing border restrictions with mandatory hotel quarantining was not practical because Western Australia could not safely manage such numbers in hotel quarantine. He also thought other public hygiene measures such as mandatory face masks and testing would be less effective than border restrictions in preventing COVID-19 from being imported into Western Australia.

He was critical of the “hot spot” approach used by Queensland and the Northern Territory, finding it was also less effective than border closures. He concluded that due to the uncertainties involved, including predicting human behaviour, and taking into account the potentially serious consequences, a “precautionary approach” should be taken to decision-making about protecting the community.

Where does this leave matters?

When the High Court considers the constitutional issue, it will take broader matters into account. Justice Rangiah confined himself to risks to public health. He expressly did not take into account broader economic, social or other matters.

The High Court is not so constrained and has previously taken into account economic matters when considering the application of section 92.

Read more: WA border challenge: why states, not courts, need to make the hard calls during health emergencies

Another wild card factor is that the factual situation keeps changing. By the time the High Court hears this case, the situation is likely to have changed again. The risk levels, as assessed by Justice Rangiah, may no longer be applicable.

High Court Chief Justice Susan Kiefel has previously raised a concern that the findings on the facts may be “stale” by the time the court gets to decide the matter.

But the important aspect of the Federal Court’s ruling is the assessment about whether other approaches could equally protect public health while still allowing the movement of people across state borders. Once you remove hotel quarantine and hot spot exclusions as effective alternatives, this really only leaves the “travel bubble” idea of permitting entry of people from those states or territories where the risk of transmission of COVID-19 is low or very low.

The assessment of such risks is a moving feast. Not even Justice Rangiah, who is based in Queensland, could give an assessment of Queensland’s risk status at the moment, labelling it as “uncertain”. This makes it very difficult to apply such a risk assessment as a basis of constitutionality.

Of course, all of this is a matter for the High Court, taking into account a range of additional factors. But the Federal Court’s judgment is very helpful in providing a factual base from which to proceed.

– ref. Federal Court finds border closures safest way to protect public health in Clive Palmer case – https://theconversation.com/federal-court-finds-border-closures-safest-way-to-protect-public-health-in-clive-palmer-case-145038

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stewart Jackson, Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

On Tuesday, former Greens leader Richard Di Natale will give his farewell speech to the Senate.

The party has now had six months to get used to its new leader, Adam Bandt. But COVID-19 has made the year far more challenging than the Greens could possibly have expected when they swapped leaders back in February.

What does Di Natale leave behind?

Di Natale leaves parliament having been a senator for ten years and the party’s leader for five.

After his surprise resignation to spend more time with his young family, Di Natale (a medical doctor by background) now leaves parliament at the height of a pandemic.

His legacy can best be seen as a steadying one: he stabilised the party after it suffered a form slump at the 2013 federal election – where the Greens had a swing of more than 3% against them in the lower house. This followed the bad blood and bad publicity of the power-sharing agreement with the Gillard Labor government.

In 2015, when Di Natale became leader, the party was also riven by infighting in NSW and Victoria, with Queensland recovering from earlier internal divisions.

Yet by 2019, these tensions were largely resolved, with Di Natale successfully taking a hands-off approach, in contrast to his more interventionist predecessors.

Read more: How Bob Brown taught Australians to talk about, and care for, the ‘wilderness’

And while the party has still not managed to increase its lower house representation (from one), the Greens retained all six of its senators up for re-election at the 2019 federal election.

So when Bandt took over as leader, he started on the front foot.

The change to Bandt

Back in February, the Greens were sad about Di Natale’s departure (who was for the most part well-liked), but genuinely excited about their future with Bandt at the helm.

The summer’s massive bushfires had driven climate change to the forefront of the Australian political agenda and Bandt, having taken over from Di Natale in a swift transition, was riding a wave of media attention.

As a former industrial lawyer, his more combative style was seen to be perfectly suited to fights over energy, environment and direction of the economy.

Read more: Adam Bandt will be a tougher leader, but the challenge will be in broadening the Greens’ appeal

At the time, Bandt was enthusiastically spruiking his plans for a Green New Deal as a way to take the climate debate forward and his party to the next federal election.

But fast forward to Di Natale‘s valedictory speech and we also fast forward to the question: where are the Greens?

The COVID challenge for the Greens

This year has of course been overshadowed by COVID-19. There is no escaping the global pandemic. And this presents a big challenge for Bandt and the Greens.

The media’s hyper-attention on COVID has meant that unless you are the prime minister, a senior minister, state premier or chief health officer, there is little public airtime available for other people or issues.

So, it’s no surprise Bandt has struggled to break through with the Greens’ big priorities: discussion of climate change, environmental degradation (itself a risk when it comes to new diseases), or a federal anti-corruption commission.

There are opportunities for the Greens

However, there is light on the horizon. The glow around Prime Minister Scott Morrison over the initial containment of COVID-19 has faded as a second wave has bitten hard in Victoria. Anger grows over the handling of aged care during the pandemic.

There are also concerns around upcoming cuts to COVID-related payments, which opens up space for the Greens’ social welfare agenda. Debates about how to structure our post-COVID economy and society also present opportunities for the party.

With the ALP continuing to appear divided on energy and climate issues, the Greens have a further opening to pursue their signature policies.

So, there will be renewed scope and space for Bandt to make interventions on issues that directly affect individuals’ lives.

State elections and power-sharing questions

At the state/ territory level, watch out for two electoral tests for the Greens (and by proxy, Bandt’s leadership) in October.

In Queensland, the party will be looking to add one to two seats in central Brisbane to its currently held seat of Maiwar. In the ACT, the Greens will want to see a return of their power-sharing deal with Labor, which available polling suggests is likely.

Bandt has recently been talking up the potential of another power-sharing arrangement at the federal level with Labor.

While the ALP is dismissive of these overtures, they may not have that luxury if it comes down to a choice between government or opposition. The ongoing Labor-Greens arrangement in the ACT remains a clear sign the parties can – and perhaps should – work together.

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Adam Bandt on Greens’ hopes for future power sharing

Can the Greens afford to relax?

Meanwhile, we also need to consider that there is probably more than a year until the next federal election. It might be argued the party can coast for now – at least at the federal level.

According to Newspoll, the party’s lower house primary vote is sitting at about 11%. This is down from 13% in February, but around the 10.4% the party polled in the lower house on election day in May 2019.

Bandt’s focus now could be more on building up his Green New Deal plans – to come out with a bang when the best opportunity presents.

Nevertheless, the Greens need to keep trying to find ways to be seen and heard. Otherwise, if Bandt and his party are out of the headlines for too long in the middle of a crisis, there is the risk voters may see the Greens as irrelevant.

– ref. Where are the Greens? As Di Natale leaves, Bandt must find a spotlight for his party in a pandemic – https://theconversation.com/where-are-the-greens-as-di-natale-leaves-bandt-must-find-a-spotlight-for-his-party-in-a-pandemic-144869

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Hepburn, Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University

Australia’s leading scientists today sent an open letter to Chief Scientist Alan Finkel, speaking out against his support for natural gas.

Finkel has said natural gas plays a critical role in Australia’s transition to clean energy. But, as the scientists write:

that approach is not consistent with a safe climate nor, more specifically, with the Paris Agreement. There is no role for an expansion of the gas industry.

And yet, momentum in the support for gas investment is building. Leaked draft recommendations from the government’s top business advisers support a gas-led economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. They call for a A$6 billion investment in gas development in Australia.

This is a terrible idea. Spending billions on gas infrastructure and development under the guise of a COVID-19 economic recovery strategy — with no attempt to address pricing or anti-competitive behaviour — is ill-considered and injudicious.

It will not herald Australia’s economic recovery. Rather, it’s likely to hinder it.

The proposals ignore obvious concerns

The draft recommendations — from the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission — include lifting the moratorium on fracking and coal seam gas in New South Wales and remaining restrictions in Victoria, and reducing red and “green tape”.

It also recommends providing low-cost capital to existing small and medium market participants, underwriting costs at priority supply hubs, and investing in strategic pipeline development.

But the proposals have failed to address a range of fundamental concerns.

1. gas is an emissions-intensive fuel

2. demand for fossil fuels are in terminal decline across the world and investing in new infrastructure today is likely to generate stranded assets in the not-too-distant future

3. renewable technology and storage capacity have rapidly accelerated, so gas is no longer a necessary transition resource, contrary to Finkel’s claims

4. domestic gas pricing in the east coast market is unregulated.

Let’s explore each point.

The effect on climate change

Accelerating gas production will increase greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately half of Australian gas reserves need to remain in the ground if global warming is to stay under 2℃ by 2030.

Natural gas primarily consists of methane, and the role of methane in global warming cannot be overstated. It’s estimated that over 20 years, methane traps 86 times as much heat in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Read more: A contentious NSW gas project is weeks away from approval. Here are 3 reasons it should be rejected

And fast-tracking controversial projects, such as the Narrabri Gas Project in northern NSW, will add an estimated 500 million tonnes of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Accelerating such unconventional gas projects also threatens to exacerbate damage to forests, wildlife habitat, water quality and water levels because of land clearing, chemical contamination and fracking.

These potential threats are enormous concerns for our agricultural sector. Insurance Australia Group, one of the largest insurance companies in Australia, has indicated it will no longer provide public liability insurance for farmers if coal seam gas equipment is on their land.

Fossil fuels in decline

Investing in gas makes absolutely no sense when renewable energy and storage solutions are expanding at such a rapid pace.

It will only result in stranded assets. Stranded assets are investments that don’t generate a viable economic return. The financial risks associated with stranded fossil fuel assets are prompting many large institutions to join the growing divestment movement.

Read more: Why it doesn’t make economic sense to ignore climate change in our recovery from the pandemic

Solar, wind and hydropower are rolling out at unprecedented speed. Globally, renewable power capacity is set to expand by 50% between 2019 and 2024, led by solar PV.

Solar PV alone accounts for almost 60% of the expected growth, with onshore wind representing one-quarter. This is followed by offshore wind capacity, which is forecast to triple by 2024.

Domestic pricing is far too expensive

Domestic gas in Australia’s east coast market is ridiculously expensive. The east coast gas market in Australia is like a cartel, and consumers and industry have experienced enormous price hikes over the last decade. This means there is not even a cost incentive for investing in gas.

Indeed, the price shock from rising gas prices has forced major manufacturing and chemical plants to close.

The domestic price of gas has trebled over the last decade, even though the international price of gas has plummeted by up to 40% during the pandemic.

Read more: Australia has plenty of gas, but our bills are ridiculous. The market is broken

As Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair Rod Simms declared in the interim gas report released last week, these price issues are “extremely concerning” and raise “serious questions about the level of competition among producers”.

To date, the federal government has done very little in response, despite the implementation of the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism in 2017.

This mechanism gives the minister the power to restrict LNG exports when there’s insufficient domestic supply. The idea is that shoring up supply would stabilise domestic pricing.

But the minister has never exercised the power. The draft proposals put forward by the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission do not address these concerns.

A gas-led disaster

There is no doubt gas producers are suffering. COVID-19 has resulted in US$11 billion of Chevron gas and LNG assets being put up for sale.

And the reduction in energy demand caused by COVID-19 has produced record low oil prices. Low oil prices can stifle investment in new sources of supply, reducing the ability and incentive of producers to explore for and develop gas.

Read more: Victoria quietly lifted its gas exploration pause but banned fracking for good. It’s bad news for the climate

It’s clear the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission’s recommendations are oriented towards helping gas producers. But investing in gas production and development won’t help Australia as a whole recover from the pandemic.

The age of peak fossil fuel is over. Accelerating renewable energy production, which coheres with climate targets and a decarbonising global economy, is the only way forward.

A COVID-19 economic strategy that fails to appreciate this not only naïve, it’s contrary to the interests of broader Australia.

– ref. 4 reasons why a gas-led economic recovery is a terrible, naïve idea – https://theconversation.com/4-reasons-why-a-gas-led-economic-recovery-is-a-terrible-na-ve-idea-145009

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eric Windholz, Senior Lecturer and Associate, Monash Centre for Commercial Law and Regulatory Studies, Monash University

The Victorian government has announced its intention to amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act to give it the power to extend Victoria’s state of emergency for up to another 12 months. The need for an extension is self-evident. The length and nature of the extension is not.

Victoria’s state of emergency was first declared on March 16 2020. Since then, it has been extended every four weeks.

The last of these extensions is due to expire on September 13 2020, at the end of the stage 4 restrictions to deal with the latest COVID-19 outbreak. That will take the total period of the state of emergency to six months – the maximum allowed under the law.

Read more: Explainer: what is a ‘state of disaster’ and what powers does it confer?

However, as the daily numbers of new infections and fatalities remind us, the pandemic is not over, and nor is the government’s need to issue public health emergency directions to control its spread. This is why the Andrews government needs to amend the legislation to enable it to continue the state of emergency and its emergency powers.

Extending the maximum period for which a state of emergency can be declared by 12 months does not mean Victoria will remain in lockdown for another 12 months. The two should not be conflated. The government would still have to declare a continuation of the state of emergency every four weeks.

The more pertinent question is whether the government needs to extend the power for another 12 months, and whether it should be subject to any conditions or changes.

Victoria’s public health emergency powers vest extensive legislative and executive decision-making authority in the hands of a select few. Specifically, unelected public health officials are given extraordinary power. They have declared severe restrictions on our freedom of movement, association and livelihoods. These include directions requiring people to stay at home, restricting their activities outside of home, and compelling them to wear a mask.

When parliament enacted the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, it saw fit to grant these powers for a maximum of six months. After that, it required the government to return to parliament to seek an extension. Premier Daniel Andrews now wants to increase that period to 12 months. The justification for the longer period is not strong.

That the pandemic may continue for another 12 months is an insufficient reason to freeze parliament out of the process. The impact of the public health measures on the economy, and on our social and civil liberties, is dramatic.

Whether the right balance is being struck should be debated. Requiring the government to return to parliament periodically (say, every three or six months) if it wishes to extend its powers will facilitate that debate.

A 12-month extension also risks locking in the emergency power regime. Presently, a Victorian parliamentary committee is inquiring into the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of its findings can then be debated in the parliament if the government is required to request a further extension.

Read more: Can Australian businesses force customers to wear a mask? Here’s what the law says

The opportunity for parliament to be engaged (and to perform its role as the arm of government primarily responsible for debating and making the law) is all the more important where the nature of the emergency and the role public health experts play have combined to marginalise alternative views and solutions, freeze deliberation and lock in certain policy directions.

Whether the government’s emergency powers should be extended – and, if yes, for how long and subject to what conditions – is the very debate that should take place in a democratic society. This is especially so under (dare I say it) unprecedented restrictions on people’s economic, social and civil liberties.

– ref. Explainer: why is the Victorian government extending the state of emergency, and is it justified? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-is-the-victorian-government-extending-the-state-of-emergency-and-is-it-justified-145020

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sandra Garrido, NHMRC-ARC Dementia Research Development Fellow, Western Sydney University

The NSW health department recently instructed schools to stop certain activities to minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Among these — which includes school formals and graduation ceremonies — is a ban to all “school-related group singing or chanting activities and use of wind instruments in groups”.

These guidelines came after new evidence emerged that such activities could potentially contribute to the spread of Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes the disease COVID-19. The velocity with which airborne particles of the virus can be expelled from the mouth while singing is much greater than when speaking. This means the usual social distancing rules schools are adopting may not prevent the virus being passed between students when they sing.

These measures are of course necessary, at least temporarily, to protect the community against further transmission of COVID-19. But the thought a ban on group singing in schools might be part of our new normal is frightening.

There is nothing quite like the sound of a group of children singing together. I can still remember my first experience of singing in a choir when I was in third grade, and the hair-raising thrill of being part of a large group of children singing in four-part harmony at the Sydney Opera House.

But this is about more than just fun for our children. The social and psychological benefits of singing are well established. It is important we find innovative solutions to make it safe for singing to become a part of classroom activities again as soon as possible.

Singing is integral to humans

Singing has been part of human communication for thousands of years. Singing, or something much like it, may even pre-date human speech.

Speech is composed of both the linguistic content — the words — and what is known as prosody — the song-like element in which we vary the pitch and rhythm of our speech to communicate emotion. Some theorists argue this song-like element may have been an important way for our ancestors to communicate prior to the development of speech and might have been the pre-cursor to song.

Music may also play an important role in parent-child bonding, which is important to the survival of human children who are born relatively dependent compared to other species. Even before birth, singing is a way parents bond with their child. Newborn babies can recognise both their mother’s voice and music they heard in utero.

And singing still serves important functions. Group singing provides a sense of social connection and unity. One study found group singing in primary-school aged children increases cooperativeness more than participation in group art or games.

The proliferation of virtual choirs on social media during lockdowns across the world are testament to the way group singing connects us.

Read more: A song in your heart shouldn’t lead to an infection in your lungs: reasons to get with online choirs

Singing in schools

Singing doesn’t just make us feel closer to each other. It also has therapeutic and cognitive benefits For example, singing can have positive effects on mood, such as reducing a child’s arousal levels and calming them down.

The opportunity to master songs and perform them can be a wonderful boost to confidence in children too.

Singing is also an inherent part of the way we learn. Children all over the world learn the alphabet and other important information in the form of song, and have done so for centuries, with early songs for remembering the alphabet dating from at least as early as 1671.

We transmit cultural information in this way too. Some Aboriginal tribes use song to provide children with an understanding of their Dreamtime beliefs.

In some schools, particularly infant and primary schools, singing is part of the daily routine. It is used first thing in the morning so children start their day with a sense of unity and positivity and can cope better with the transition from home to the classroom.

Read more: Learning music early can make your child a better reader

The recent research around singing and COVID-19 suggests transmission options such as singing with masks on, or singing outdoors with greater spacing between students, might be viable solutions.

Our teachers are nothing if not versatile, as recent events have demonstrated. In current circumstances, we will need to be creative to ensure our children can experience the important benefits of group music making in school situations while adhering to health guidelines.

– ref. NSW hits pause on school choirs, but we can’t stop the music forever – https://theconversation.com/nsw-hits-pause-on-school-choirs-but-we-cant-stop-the-music-forever-145010

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Schmulow, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong

The sexual harassment scandal enveloping AMP is another graceless turn in what looks like the death spiral of one of Australia’s oldest and formerly most trusted companies.

Joining a long line of executives to walk the plank at the venerable financial services giant, AMP chairman David Murray and board member John Fraser have quit over the promotion of Boe Pahari to head AMP’s capital business division despite him being disciplined in 2018 for sexually harassing a female colleague.

Since the Australian Financial Review broke the story of the claims made against Pahari, sparking a revolt among AMP’s female employees, the board had been under increasing external pressure to admit and correct its mistake.

Now it has – half-heartedly.

The exit of Murray and Fraser (and Pahari’s demotion to his previous job level) was, AMP said in its statement to the Australian Stock Exchange, a response “to feedback expressed by some major shareholders”.

Murray’s own statement was even less apologetic:

The board has made it clear that it has always treated the complaint against Mr Pahari seriously. My view remains that it was dealt with appropriately in 2017 and Mr Pahari was penalised accordingly.

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

In other words: what’s all the fuss about?

Murray’s failure to appreciate why he and the board made a mistake is, arguably, symptomatic of AMP’s management for at least two decades. Its focus on money over trust is central to the failures and scandals that have trashed its reputation and share price.

Vertically challenged

Founded in 1849 as the Australian Mutual and Provident Society, AMP was a not-for-profit life insurer for almost 150 years before it demutualised in 1998. Since then it has pursued profits with gusto, if not prudence.

Part of the push to privatise was to have funds to expand, with “vertical integration” all the rage in the financial services sector.

Vertical integration involves a bank or other financial services company providing products all along the financial supply chain. Once a bank might have offered you just banking services, for example. Now it will provide contents and life insurance, financial and retirement planning, and ways to invest in the stock market.

“From the perspective of banks,” noted the 2019 final report of the Hayne Royal Commission that uncovered systemic cheating of customers in the financial services industry, “vertical integration always promised the benefit of cross-selling opportunities.” But the internal efficiency of the “one-stop shop” did not necessarily produce efficiency for customers:

The ‘one stop shop’ model creates a bias towards promoting the owner’s products above others, even where they may not be ideal for the consumer.

Read more: Banking Royal Commission: the real problem is how we value executives and workers

When what isn’t best for the customer becomes the business model, it’s a slippery slope to taking other liberties. AMP slipped to charging fees for no service and billing dead customers for life insurance.

Following these and other revelations from the royal commission, AMP chair Catherine Brenner, chief executive Craig Meller and most of the board resigned. But interim chief executive Mike Wilkins made it clear AMP remained “committed to a vertically integrated business model”.

That commitment was buttressed by the appointment of Murray, a long-term defender of vertical integration in financial services, as AMP’s new chair in June 2018.

Bad habits

It’s not only vertical integration, though, to which AMP’s management appears rusted on. Money (not trust) is still number one.

It is plain the board’s primary concern in keeping, then promoting, Pahari was that he “made a lot of money for the company”.

In this case, despite Murray’s insistence that the board treated the complaint against Pahari seriously, the evidence suggests AMP downplayed Pahari’s behaviour as “low level” and “about comments made”. The former executive who made the complaint, Julia Szlakowski, has detailed a much more substantial pattern of inappropriate behaviour.

To cap it all off, the company is reportedly seeking to track down employees who might have leaked information to the media. Chief executive Franco de Ferrari and other executives have warned about the consequences of leaking, including “possible termination”.

“I think this is a battle for the heart and soul of AMP, in my view,” the Australian Financial Review reported one employee saying. “It’s moving from a culture of harassment to a culture of fear.”

Breaking up

On June 30, de Ferrari appeared before the House of Representatives economics committee. He enthused about the changes the company had made, declaring:

Virtually no aspect has been untouched, starting from the top, with complete board renewal and streamlining and strengthening of the management team.

Within days the appointment of Paharai had kicked of a staff revolt. By August 6, the chief executive of AMP’s Australia division, Alex Wade, was forced to resign after multiple women, reportedly emboldened by the response to Pahari’s promotion, complained about behaviour including allegedly sending explicit photos.

On August 13, de Ferrari declared during a teleconference with journalists to discuss AMP’s first-half results:

We know we have more to do in improving diversity and inclusion. The transformation of culture is now my top priority.

Granted, AMP may well be “the most challenging corporate transformation in corporate Australia”, and he might have said “right from the beginning this does not happen overnight”.

But from someone two years into the job it was a startling remark.

Leaks, needless to say, should be the least of his concerns. It’s the lack of a moral compass that threatens to run this ship aground and ultimately break it up.

– ref. AMP doesn’t just have a women problem. It has an everyone problem – https://theconversation.com/amp-doesnt-just-have-a-women-problem-it-has-an-everyone-problem-144937

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Sarvasy, Research Fellow in Linguistics, Western Sydney University

Languages like Japanese, Korean, Turkish and the indigenous languages of the Amazon, East Africa, and New Guinea build sentences in a way that lets them grow to enormous length.

Our research shows learning one of these languages may help children create complex sentences that express multiple ideas at a younger age.

Two ways to tell a story

Try recounting what you did this morning, or telling a story, and chances are you’ll use a series of several sentences:

This morning, I woke early. I dressed and ate breakfast. I gathered my things, said goodbye to my family, and they waved goodbye to me. Then I drove to work.

In English, the simplest sentence, or “clause”, is just a subject plus a verb (“I dressed”). You can also join two clauses into a sentence using words like “and” or “while”, but it’s unnatural to join more than about three clauses into one English sentence.

But in many languages across Central Asia (from Turkish to Tibetan, Mongolian, Japanese, and Korean), and in many indigenous languages of the Amazon, East Africa, and New Guinea, stories can take the form of one long sentence. These sentences look more like this:

Waking up early this morning, dressing, making breakfast, eating, washing the dishes, gathering my things, saying goodbye to my family, they waving goodbye to me, I drove to work.

These long sentences are known as “clause chains”. Unlike in English, where most of the clauses in a story would make sense if you spoke them outside the story (“I dressed”), all but the very last clause in a “clause chain” are abbreviated – they can only function in a clause chain.

“Dressing” or “making breakfast” sounds unfinished on its own, and only the final verb of the clause chain tells you whether the events are happening in the past, present, or future.

Marathon sentences require planning

Clause chains are special because they can be extremely long, pushing the boundaries of what we consider “sentences” in English. Chains of more than 100 clauses have been recorded.

Non-native speakers may have trouble keeping track of who is doing what in clause chains. One linguist who studied a language of the Himalayas (where many languages use this type of sentence) colour-coded clause chains in her notes to keep track of the plot.

Read more: How a child’s first language includes more than words

In some languages, especially of the Amazon and New Guinea, there’s a further twist. In each clause of the chain, the speaker has to announce in advance whether a different person is carrying out the action in the upcoming clause (as in “saying goodbye to my family, they saying goodbye to me”).

This is called “switch-reference marking”, and it probably means speakers of these languages have to plan further ahead than speakers of English.

Complex chatter

So do kids learning Turkish or Japanese speak in precociously complex sentences, compared with their Anglophone peers? We investigated this for six languages – Japanese, Korean, and Turkish, plus three indigenous languages of New Guinea and Australia (Ku Waru, Nungon, and Pitjantjatjara).

We used a variety of methods, looking at data from different children and from the same children over time. For each language, an expert or team of experts recorded children between the ages of two and about five interacting with their parents, or telling stories in more controlled contexts, like retelling short videos or narrating wordless picture books. Numbers of children studied varied by language: from just three (Nungon) to over 100 (Japanese and Turkish).

It turns out children learning these languages are first able to speak in well-formed clause chains between the ages of two and two and a half. This is around the time that children learning English and French make their first attempts at combining clauses into sentences.

Read more: Should I raise my kids bilingually?

But the English- and French-speaking children generally make some mistakes (for instance, by leaving out conjunctions), or actually express only a single idea across two clauses (in “look at the house that we built!”, there is only one notion: that we built a house).

The children learning the clause-chain languages did not make such errors. What’s more, in most of these languages the children’s early clause chains express multiple ideas.

It may be that the abbreviated verbs used in all but the last clause of a clause chain make it easy for these children to describe complex sequences of events in a single utterance.

First two, then more

So can two-year-old Korean children (for example) speak in 20-clause sentences?

It’s well known that children learning most languages go through an early phase in which their utterances are limited to two words: the “two-word phase”. After this, children don’t proceed to a “three-word phase”. Instead, the progression is from two to “more”.

However, until now no-one has thought to ask when children learn to combine more than two clauses into a sentence. This may well be because research on how children learn to combine ideas into sentences has been largely shaped by speakers of English and other languages that lack clause chains. (This shows it’s important for scientists to come from varied backgrounds!)

Read more: Linguists found the ‘weirdest languages’ – and English is one of them

When we investigated this idea, we found that all children learning languages with clause chains begin by speaking in two-clause chains. So no, kids don’t begin spouting sentences of 20 clauses at age two!

But the “two-clause phase” lasts for as little as one or two months, and after that most children we studied advanced directly to a “more clauses phase”, in which their sentences include anywhere from two to five or more clauses. A Japanese child recorded a 20-clause chain at age three and ten months, and this may not be unusual.

Although we haven’t yet finished analysing how clause chains affect adult brain function, suffice to say: if you were to choose to learn a foreign language based on its mind-expanding potential, a language with clause chains might be a good choice!

– ref. Kids who learn ‘clause-chain’ languages are quicker to develop complex sentences – https://theconversation.com/kids-who-learn-clause-chain-languages-are-quicker-to-develop-complex-sentences-144740

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaz Ross, Lecturer in Humanities (Asian Studies), University of Tasmania

On September 5, a coalition of online groups are planning an Australia-wide action called the “Day of Freedom”. The organisers claim hundreds of thousands will join them on the streets in defiance of restrictions on group gatherings and mask-wearing mandates.

Some online supporters believe Stage 5 lockdown will be introduced in Melbourne the following week and the “Day of Freedom” is the last chance for Australians to stand up to an increasingly tyrannical government.

The action is the latest in a series of protests in Australia against the government’s COVID-19 restrictions. The main issues brought up during these protests centre around 5G, government surveillance, freedom of movement and, of course, vaccinations.

And one general conspiracy theory now unites these disparate groups — QAnon.

Why QAnon has exploded in popularity globally

Since its inception in the US in late 2017, QAnon has morphed beyond a specific, unfounded claim about President Donald Trump working with special counsel Robert Mueller to expose a paedophile ring supposedly run by Bill and Hillary Clinton and the “deep state”. Now, it is an all-encompassing world of conspiracies.

QAnon conspiracy theories now include such wild claims as Microsoft founder Bill Gates using coronavirus as a cover to implant microchips in people, to governments erecting 5G towers during lockdown to surveil the population.

Last week, Facebook deleted over 790 groups, 100 pages and 1,500 ads tied to QAnon and restricted the accounts of hundreds of other Facebook groups and thousands of Instagram accounts. QAnon-related newsfeed rankings and search results were also downgraded.

Facebook is aiming to reduce the organising ability of the QAnon community, but so far such crackdowns seem to have had little effect on the spread of misinformation.

In July, Twitter removed 7,000 accounts, but the QAnon conspiracy has become even more widespread since then. A series of global “save the children” protests in the last few weeks is proof of how resilient and adaptable the community is.

Read more: QAnon believers will likely outlast and outsmart Twitter’s bans

Why Australians are turning to QAnon in large numbers

QAnon encourages people to look for evidence of conspiracies in the media and in government actions. Looking back over the last several years, we can see a range of events or conspiracy theories that have helped QAnon appeal to increasing numbers of followers in Australia.

1) Conspiracies about global governance

In 2015, Senator Malcolm Roberts claimed the UN’s 1992 “Agenda 21” plan for sustainable development as a foreign global plan aimed at depriving nations of their sovereignty and citizens of their property rights.

The belief that “Agenda 21” is a blueprint for corrupt global governance has become a core tenet of QAnon in Australia.

Any talk of “global bankers and cabals” directly taps into longstanding anti-Semitic conspiracies about supposed Jewish world domination often centred on the figure of billionaire George Soros. The pandemic and QAnon have also proven to be fertile ground for neo-Nazis in Australia.

2) Impact of the far-right social media

QAnon has its roots on the far-right bulletin boards of the websites 4Chan and 8Chan. Other campaigns from the same sources, such as the “It’s OK to be White” motion led by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson in the Senate, have been remarkably successful in Australia, showing our susceptibility to viral trolling efforts.

3) Perceived paedophiles in power

During the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse, Senator Bill Heffernan tried unsuccessfully to submit the names of 28 prominent Australians which he alleged were paedophiles.

His failure is widely shared in QAnon circles as proof of a cover-up of child abuse at all levels of Australian government. The belief the country is run by a corrupt paedophile cabal is the most fundamental plank of the QAnon platform.

4) Increasingly ‘unaccountable and incompetent’ governments

A number of recent events have eroded public trust in government — from the “sports rorts affair” to the Witness K case — and all serve to further fuel the QAnon suspicion of authority figures.

5) Longstanding alternative health lobbies

Australia’s sizeable anti-vax movement has found great support in the QAnon community. Fear about mandatory vaccinations is widespread, as is a distrust of “big pharma”.

Also, the continuing roll-out of 5G technology throughout the pandemic has confirmed the belief among QAnon followers that there are ulterior motives for the lockdown. Wellness influencers such as celebrity chef Pete Evans have amplified these messages to their millions of followers.

6) The ‘plandemic’ and weaponising of COVID-19

In the QAnon world, debates about the origin of the coronavirus, death rates, definition of cases, testing protocols and possible treatments are underpinned by a belief that governments are covering up the truth. Many believe the virus isn’t real or deadly, or it was deliberately introduced to hasten government control of populations.

Understanding QAnon followers

Understanding why people become part of these movements is the key to stopping the spread of the QAnon virus. Research into extremist groups shows four elements are important:

1) Real or perceived personal and collective grievances

This year, some of these grievances have been linked directly to the pandemic: government lockdown restrictions, a loss of income, fear about the future and disruption of plans such as travel.

2) Networks and personal ties

Social media has given people the ability to find others with similar grievances or beliefs, to share doubts and concerns and to learn about connecting theories and explanations for what may be troubling them.

3) Political and religious ideologies

QAnon is very hierarchically structured, similar to evangelical Christianity. QAnon followers join a select group of truth seekers who are following the “light” and have a duty to wake up the “sheeple”. Like some religions, the QAnon world is welcoming to all and provides a strong sense of community united by a noble purpose and hope for a better future.

4) Enabling environments and support structures

In the QAnon world, spending many hours on social media is valued as doing “research” and seen as an antidote to the so-called fake news of the mainstream media.

Social isolation, a barrage of changing and confusing pandemic news and obliging social media platforms have been a boon for QAnon groups. However, simply banning or deleting groups runs the danger of confirming the beliefs of QAnon followers.

Read more: How misinformation about 5G is spreading within our government institutions – and who’s responsible

So what can be done?

Governments need to be more sensitive in their messaging and avoid triggering panic around sensitive issues such as mandatory or forced vaccinations. Transparency about government actions, policies and mistakes all help to build trust.

Governments also need to ensure they are providing enough resources to support people during this challenging time, particularly when it comes to mental and emotional well-being. Resourcing community-building to counter isolation is vital.

For families and friends, losing a loved one “down the Q rabbit hole” is distressing. Research shows that arguing over facts and myths doesn’t work.

Like many conspiracy theories, there are elements of truth in QAnon. Empathy and compassion, rather than ridicule and ostracism, are the keys to remaining connected to the Q follower in your life. Hopefully, with time, they’ll come back.

– ref. Why QAnon is attracting so many followers in Australia — and how it can be countered – https://theconversation.com/why-qanon-is-attracting-so-many-followers-in-australia-and-how-it-can-be-countered-144865

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

As deaths in aged care continue to rise, the community may find the Morrison government’s announcement of an additional A$171.5 million to boost its response to COVID-19 in residential aged care reassuring.

The package was agreed by all states and territories at Friday’s National Cabinet meeting, and brings the total Commonwealth funding for aged-care support during the pandemic to more than A$1 billion.

The funding will go towards additional support for the aged-care workforce, the recently established Victorian Aged Care Response Centre, and an Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) Aged Care Advisory Group.

It will also fund grief and trauma support for families, more compliance and quality checks, and support the establishment of emergency response centres in each state and territory.

But this announcement appears to be geared primarily towards dealing with the unfolding disaster wrought by the federal government’s mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis in aged care. It will do little to better prepare the sector for further outbreaks or a third wave.

I would argue we haven’t had clear a plan for residential aged care since the pandemic began.

Read more: 4 steps to avert a full-blown coronavirus disaster in Victoria’s aged care homes

What should a plan look like?

While fighting the current fires is important, here are some of the things we would need to see in a truly forward-looking plan for managing COVID-19 in the aged care sector.

A leader

The first step for the Morrison government is to appoint a leader for aged care, who will be accountable and drive a coherent strategy to address the sector’s challenges.

Recent evidence presented to royal commission and senate inquiry hearings highlight there is no one in charge. It’s clearly not the federal Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians Richard Colbeck.

The person must be apolitical, without ties to peak bodies or providers, and represent the interests of residents and their families. This position could be similar to a chief health officer, but specifically for residential aged care.

Clear goals

Second, we need a clear statement describing the goals and overall objectives this plan will achieve. The latest announcement is a scattergun approach, neither coherent nor strategic. It plugs existing holes.

We have a clear, well-presented strategy for reducing community transmission of COVID-19. We should demand an equally clear strategy for aged care. The focus should be on saving lives, while being humane and compassionate to residents, family and aged-care staff.

Read more: Should all aged-care residents with COVID-19 be moved to hospital? Probably, but there are drawbacks too

And we must ensure transparency and accountability by making the plan available to and responding to the public in real time. We need to eliminate the diffusion of responsibilities for the aged-care response across the government, health department and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. It creates confusion and opportunities to excuse inaction, and offers no mechanism to redress failures.

We also need a structured approach for rapid two-way information flow between the people in charge and the people on the ground.

A national taskforce

The third step is a national taskforce with the ability to respond to rapidly changing conditions. The AHPPC Aged Care Advisory Group serves to advise government ministers, but only partially addresses this step.

The group’s composition and selection process ought to be publicly visible. The panel needs people with technical expertise, integrity and without any competing interests. There should be at least two members who are consumers — ideally aged-care residents with a human-rights lawyer to support and advocate on their behalf.

Outbreak preparedness

The fourth step is urgently addressing the aged-care sector’s approach to outbreak preparedness and prevention of COVID-19. We must agree to a set of objective measurement tools to assess the approach taken at a facility, organisational and regional level. Then we must be able to evaluate, support and strengthen those plans.

The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission was allocated an additional A$9.1 million to increase their compliance and quality checks of individual facilities across the country. But additional checks are worthless if we don’t have uniform, transparent checks and balances across the board.

Read more: Let’s heed the warnings from aged care. We must act now to avert a COVID-19 crisis in disability care

Supporting the workforce

The fifth step is genuine support for the aged-care workforce. Staff confidence is key to reducing absenteeism in those who are well and presenteeism in those who are unwell.

While the government has directed A$140 million to staff, including for additional surge workforce, increased training, and retention bonus measures, we’re still missing a strategy to retain staff.

Increasing staff confidence and retaining them in the sector, especially in such a tumultuous time, requires asking, listening and responding to aged-care workers’ concerns. Beyond just offering financial incentives, we need to make them feel prepared, safe and that their concerns are addressed.

Respecting residents and families

The final step is recognising the rights of aged-care residents and their families. An advocate not connected to the aged-care providers or government should have access to every aged-care home to be the eyes and ears for residents and their families. This could be achieved with a workforce of just 300 people, each advocate coordinating with ten aged-care homes.

The recent announcement provides for increased availability of grief and trauma support services, with A$12.5 million allocated to supporting residents and their families who have experienced a COVID-19 outbreak. This fails to recognise all residents and families are likely affected by the pandemic and lockdowns, even if they’re not directly affected by an outbreak.

Similarly, the A$1.5 million allocated to ensure regular direct communication from the health department appears to be only for “families and loved ones of aged-care residents impacted by COVID-19”. Is seems an odd approach as our whole country and every aged-care home is affected by the pandemic.

A coordinated, evidence-based national plan

The federal government’s commitment is a small amount, equating to roughly 1.5% of what this already struggling sector receives annually.

While it’s welcome, the majority of funds are allocated to expand existing initiatives which have had limited success.

Throwing money at a problem is not how we develop a coordinated, evidence-based national plan that addresses the known gaps.

– ref. The government has thrown another $171 million at the problem. But a real plan for aged care has been missing all along – https://theconversation.com/the-government-has-thrown-another-171-million-at-the-problem-but-a-real-plan-for-aged-care-has-been-missing-all-along-144929

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynette Bettio, Senior Climatologist, Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Heavy rain in parts of Australia in recent months has raised hopes Australia’s protracted drought is finally over. But determining whether a region has recovered from drought is a complex undertaking.

For example, a drought-stricken area may get enough rain that farmers can plant a viable crop, but that same rain may not affect major water storages. We’ve seen that in southern Queensland, where water restrictions remain in place despite recent rain.

And from a social, economic and environmental perspective, one great season of rain does not usually make up for a run of bad seasons.

So today, in World Water Week, we consider the effect of this year’s rain. The upshot is that most drought-ravaged areas still need sustained, above-average rain before streamflow and water storage levels return to average. And in other parts of Australia where little rain has fallen in 2020, unfortunately drought areas have expanded.

Three years with little rain

The Bureau of Meteorology is not responsible for declaring whether a region is or isn’t in drought – that’s a state government responsibility. But we do analyse rainfall and water data, which indicate whether a region is recovering.

In the three years from January 2017 to the end of 2019, rainfall for much of Australia was greatly reduced – with both 2018 and 2019 especially dry. Rainfall deficiencies were most severe in the northern Murray–Darling Basin; the period was the driest and hottest on record for the basin as a whole.

These record warm temperatures exacerbated dry conditions, at times rapidly drying soils in only a matter of months. This led to periods in 2017 and 2019 that researchers have termed “flash drought”.

2020: partial recovery in the east

Since January this year, above-average rainfall has fallen on some parts of eastern Australia, particularly across some of the worst drought-affected areas of central and western New South Wales and southwest Queensland. In February, much of eastern NSW experienced heavy rain, while there were more widespread and consistent falls through many parts of southeastern Australia from February to April.

Read more: It’s official: the last five years were the warmest ever recorded

But some areas have largely missed out on recent rains. Southern South Australia and southwest Western Australia have received below-average rainfall in 2020, continuing the dry conditions of 2019. Drought areas in parts of the southern coast of Western Australia and southwestern South Australia have expanded this year, and the regions may face a difficult spring and summer.

Wetter soils, better crops

Eastern Australia’s recent rain has helped replenish soil moisture levels, enabling favourable crop and pasture growth in many areas. For August to date, soil moisture is above average across eastern coastal areas and mostly average to above average in Murray–Darling Basin catchments.

This increase in soil moisture is a very positive foundation – catchments are now primed to produce runoff and inflows to water storages if there is significant rainfall in spring.

But soil moisture levels are below average for August across much of southwestern Australia, southern parts of South Australia, northern Tasmania, northern parts of the Northern Territory and parts of central Queensland.

Not all dams have filled up

In Sydney, water storage levels had been declining since July 2016. This resulted in level 2 water restrictions introduced in December 2019 and Sydney’s desalination plant operating at full capacity. But heavy rain in February and August this year filled Warragamba Dam to capacity, further increasing Sydney’s storage levels.

In contrast to Sydney, major storage levels in the northern Murray–Darling Basin remain low, at only 21% of total capacity despite rainfall in recent months. Unlike the significant and rapid recovery of these storages in 2010 and 2016, the current rate of recovery is slow. Significant follow-up rain is needed to replenish these northern basin water storages.

In the west, while Perth’s water supply system relies on desalinated water and groundwater to supplement its storages, the dry conditions are reflected in the Harvey rural supply system south of Perth. It needs a further 100,000 megalitres to replenish the drawdown of the past two years.

So, is the drought over?

For many regions in eastern Australia, rainfall in 2020 has eased drought conditions by wetting soils and helping fill dams on farms. But most drought-affected areas still need sustained above average rainfall for streamflow and water storages to increase to at least average levels.

Recently the Bureau of Meteorology raised its El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) status to La Niña ALERT. This means there is three times the normal likelihood of a La Niña weather pattern in 2020. La Niña events typically result in wetter than average conditions over Australia in winter and spring.

Read more: A city-by-city guide to how water supplies fared in Australia’s summer of extremes

Separately, warmer conditions in the eastern Indian Ocean may also boost the chance of a wetter end to the year.

The bureau’s latest outlook indicates the eastern two-thirds of Australia is very likely to receive above average rainfall in coming months. However, southwest Western Australia is less likely to have above average rainfall.

The bureau will provide further updates on current rainfall deficiencies through regular reports such as its monthly Drought Statement and weekly rainfall tracker.

The bureau’s Drought Knowledge Centre provides information about drought in your area. Water Reporting Summaries for the Murray–Darling Basin provide an overview of water currently in storage and commitments made for this water to different users, including the environment. The Water Storage Dashboard tracks water storages levels across Australia. Subscribe to receive our climate and water emails.

– ref. Yes, it’s been raining a lot – but that doesn’t mean Australia’s drought has broken – https://theconversation.com/yes-its-been-raining-a-lot-but-that-doesnt-mean-australias-drought-has-broken-144702

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Sonnemann, Acting Program Director, Grattan Institute

Today, Victorian Education Minister James Merlino will front the state parliamentary inquiry into the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He should answer these three questions on the handling of schools.

Q 1. How will the government help disadvantaged students catch up?

Victorian children have now been in remote schooling for about 17 weeks or almost two terms — virtually half of their 2020 school year. Many will have fallen behind in their learning, but the most vulnerable students will have been hit hardest.

Our analysis shows the equity gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students grows at triple the rate during remote schooling. Even in the best case scenario — where remote schooling was delivered well — disadvantaged students are likely to have lost at least two months of learning over the period. In schools where remote schooling was of average quality, disadvantaged students are likely to have gone backwards.

The government should be providing extra resources to help vulnerable children catch up fast. This can be done through small-group tutoring and targeted literacy and numeracy programs. The Grattan Institute analysis recommended an investment in these two areas of A$1.2 billion nationally — including over A$350 million in Victoria – at the end of term two. With more remote schooling in term three, the need is now even bigger.

For small-group tuition programs, disadvantaged students would receive regular short sessions in reading and maths, three or four times a week over 12 weeks. Tuition is expensive, but it can increase student learning by an additional five months over one or two terms of schooling.

Read more: Disadvantaged students may have lost 1 month of learning during COVID-19 shutdown. But the government can fix it

Young university graduates and student teachers should be hired as tutors where possible. They make good tutors, and will also be hit harder by the recession than older Australians, which will make them more likely to spend the extra income quickly, stimulating the economy at the same time.

The UK government has already announced £1 billion (A$1.8 billion) of extra support for disadvantaged students, with investments in a new national tutoring scheme. Our governments should spend big, and quickly.

Q 2. What extra money will the government provide to improve students’ mental health?

Many students, especially those with pre-existing mental-health issues, will have found social isolation hard during remote schooling. And many children have had to deal with family hardships due to loss of income, as well as the added stress of remote learning.

The interim inquiry report into the government’s response to COVID-19 highlights that around 25% of secondary schools now have a mental health practitioner on staff, but many are still concerned about inconsistency in accessing support across schools.

Given the increase in demand from young people for mental-health services, the minister should clarify what the average wait times are for students referred, along with plans to ensure they are reasonable in the near future.

Importantly, the minister should demonstrate how the government will support primary school students, not just secondary students. Early mental-health support for children is key to preventing ongoing problems down the track, and primary school is notoriously overlooked in this area.

Read more: To safeguard children’s mental health during COVID-19, parents must look after their own

More broadly, the minister should demonstrate plans for teachers to have adequate training in how to identify and refer students who may be struggling. This is also highlighted as an area of need in the interim report.

In addition, all students will need extra support to readjust from the period of social isolation. Evidence shows what the teacher does in the classroom, in their routines and everyday teaching, is key to helping students build social and emotional skills.

It’s a sophisticated art, and students can be harmed if teachers don’t do this properly. For example, asking students to talk about the challenges they faced during home learning can be damaging if they suffered negative experiences or trauma. Teachers need to be well trained in these areas.

Q 3. How will the government better support students if there is a third or fourth wave?

We’ve all been caught off guard by the pandemic. But what lessons has the government learnt about remote learning? What will be done better if there is a “next time”?

Asking this question is not a swipe at the minister or anyone else. The Victorian department and teachers have gone above and beyond to support learning from home. But we must be better prepared next time.

Read more: Students in Melbourne will go back to remote schooling. Here’s what we learnt last time and how to make it better

Australia can learn from high-performing countries that were better prepared, even before the first wave hit. As discussed in our June report Recovery Book, Singapore had a fully online curriculum ready to go. And Hong Kong had many more digital resources aligned to the curriculum that could be easily shared. Our systems can, and must, improve.

It will not be good enough for the minister to suggest we don’t yet know enough to make changes. It is OK to have made mistakes, but it is not OK if we’re not learning from them.

– ref. 3 education questions the Victorian government should answer at the COVID-19 inquiry – https://theconversation.com/3-education-questions-the-victorian-government-should-answer-at-the-covid-19-inquiry-144933

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cathy Smith, Senior Lecturer, Interior Architecture; Inaugural Women in Built Environment Turnbull Foundation Scholar, UNSW

The COVID-19 pandemic has temporarily shut down cities across the globe, resulting in abandoned buildings and deserted streets. How might we better use our own vacant buildings during the crisis and beyond? We can learn from the benefits and challenges of the UK’s “meanwhile” building use sector.

Sometimes referred to as meanwhile housing or property guardianship in its residential forms, it’s a recognised property tenure solution for vacant buildings in the UK and Europe. It enables properties that are lying dormant, or awaiting redevelopment, to be used temporarily as workspaces, shops or housing.

Read more: Unused buildings will make good housing in the world of COVID-19

Meanwhile use serves a dual purpose by activating an otherwise unused property while providing the owner with building security for a set period. It involves relatively cheap licences or flexible leases managed by a third-party, and often for-profit, agent.

Creatives and business startups who cannot afford expensive city rents or commercial leases are attracted to the unusual and large industrial or institutional buildings often used for meanwhile schemes. London property guardianship featured in Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s 2016 television comedy Crashing. The series chronicles the misadventures of a group of property guardians living in a former hospital.

It would be tempting to think of meanwhile use as a quick-fix for Australia’s own twin problems of temporarily vacant buildings and unaffordable rents in major cities. Yet, as I discovered when visiting London meanwhile schemes in 2018, their success relies upon careful management.

The intersecting legal, social and design issues can be complex. That’s particularly the case for property guardianship — perhaps the most controversial form of meanwhile use.

It is important to understand the different forms of meanwhile use that make it compelling and, in some cases, problematic.

Read more: As demand for crisis housing soars, surely we can tap into COVID-19 vacancies

Meanwhile use has limitations

The biggest criticism of meanwhile use is that it’s an insecure or unreliable form of accommodation. Schemes using short-term occupation licences rather than conventional tenancies may be ideal for occupants attracted by their relatively cheap costs and flexibility. However, occupants will not be legally protected to the same extent as they would be under tenancy law.

For example, UK property guardians may find themselves “homeless” 28 days after an eviction notice. Unlike rental tenants, they might not be protected from eviction during the COVID-19 crisis, even if they live in council-owned buildings.

If owned by local authorities, buildings used for property guardianships may also be requisitioned at short notice to be used for pandemic-related emergency care.

Read more: Property guardians live in legal limbo – despite new law to protect tenants from exploitation

Tenure terms only suits some people

Due to the uncertainty of its tenure, meanwhile use schemes target different participants to standard renters or commercial tenants. This makes them suitable for some people only.

My research suggests the low costs and flexible arrangements of meanwhile workspaces are attractive to return-to-work mothers or caregivers starting a business. They also appreciate the sense of camaraderie and community fostered by schemes such as the former non-profit Renew Newcastle and Renew Australia.

A similar sentiment was expressed by the young occupants of a women-only property guardianship I visited in inner London. They included an artist and a health worker on relatively low incomes.

Read more: From placeholder to pathfinder: innovative temporary site uses help us reimagine city spaces

However, the uncertain duration of property guardianship typically excludes people with children. Some agencies stipulate that property guardians must be employed full-time, over 21 years of age and nominate an alternative housing address in case they need to relocate quickly.

Thus the short-term arrangements that make meanwhile workspaces good for working mothers also make it difficult for them to become property guardians.

Building conditions and management vary

Another important constraint on meanwhile use may be the condition of the property itself. Unused shopfronts and office buildings can be ideal for young creatives like architects trialling design prototypes. They have the knowledge and skill sets to temporarily transform a space.

Problems can arise when a property unfit for human habitation is used for meanwhile schemes without the owner or agent making the necessary investment in building upgrades.

Some mismanaged property guardianships have led to costly legal disputes. In one Dutch case, the council building owner, a property guardianship agency and their maintenance worker were held to be negligent for the death by electrocution of a young property guardian. This worst-case example reminds us that, even though meanwhile use suits some people and professionally managed properties, it will not solve the root causes of our housing crises and vacant city streets.

– ref. ‘Meanwhile’ building use: another way to manage properties left vacant by the COVID-19 crisis – https://theconversation.com/meanwhile-building-use-another-way-to-manage-properties-left-vacant-by-the-covid-19-crisis-144056

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Shaw, Program Leader Fine Art, Head of Jewellery and Small Objects, Griffith University

The necklace worn by Michelle Obama while addressing the Democratic National Convention — a fine gold chain spelling out the word VOTE in spaced, sans serif letters — has gone viral.

Made by a small company owned by Chari Cuthbert, the necklace was designed “for powerhouse women who let their voices be heard, especially at the polls”.

Using jewellery to communicate a message is neither new or unusual. Archaeologists have described finding body adornments as “the closest thing to finding prehistoric thought.” Most jewellery, whether a ring or a medal or a badge, is visible to others and thus an expression of the wearer and their status.

But Obama’s is the latest in a long line of celebrated examples of jewellery as a political device: from suffragettes’ medals to Madeleine Albright’s pins. Even brooches worn by Queen Elizabeth have been read by some as political statements.

Examples from the British suffragette campaign for the vote (a political movement spanning from 1903 to 1918) included brooches and necklaces made from precious stones, enamel and ribbons. They used the colours of purple, white and green, associated with the Women’s Social and Political Union.

Medals awarded by the union leaders to women who contributed to the campaign drew on military aesthetics. Other jewellery worn by suffragettes reflected the fashions of the time, in particular art nouveau.

One Hunger Strike medal was awarded to women’s rights activist Myra Eleanor Sadd Brown after she was imprisoned in London in 1912, went on a hunger strike and was force fed. It includes an inscription on the reverse side “FED BY FORCE 4/3/12”.

More recently, Lady Hale, the president of the UK Supreme Court, wore a large, glittering spider brooch when announcing that Boris Johnson’s 2019 prorogation of parliament was “void and of no effect. There was discussion about what this brooch symbolised. Was it sending a message to the British prime minister?

In Australia, meanwhile, Greens Senator Larissa Waters caused a minor stir when she wore Stop Adani earrings in Parliament in 2018.

Read more: How ‘bling’ makes us human

Jewellery and diplomacy

In some instances, the context in which it is worn – or by whom – makes jewellery political. The first female U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline K. Albright, wore brooches and pins to express political and diplomatic intent. “I found that jewelry had become part of my personal diplomatic arsenal,” she has said.

In 2009, the Museum of Art and Design New York exhibited over 200 brooches and pins from Albright’s personal collection. The exhibition coincided with the publication of Albright’s memoir Read My Pins: Stories from a Diplomat’s Jewel Box. Notably Albright’s brooches don’t usually include text: others must read the symbolism.

For instance, after media controlled by then Iraqi president Saddam Hussein referred to her as an “unparalled serpent”, Albright wore a golden snake brooch pinned to her suit for her next meeting on Iraq.

She also had an “arrow pin that looked like a missile” (worn when negotiating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Russians). And after learning the Russians had planted a listening device — a “bug” — in a conference room near her office in the State Department, she wore a bug brooch the next time she saw the Russians.

In the late 1990s, Albright’s use of brooches for political purpose inspired Helen Drutt English to curate the exhibition Brooching It Diplomatically. Sixty-one art jewellers from 16 countries created brooches in tribute to Albright.

The origin of a piece of jewellery is also a consideration in understanding its meaning. In 2018, a simple green agate brooch Queen Elizabeth wore when meeting President Donald Trump and the First Lady, Melania, was identified as having been a gift from former President Barack Obama and Michelle, his wife.

At the next meeting, the Queen wore a snowflake brooch, a gift from Canada. Some read this as a reference to Trump’s use of the word “snowflake” as a derogatory term.

Jewellery and ethics

The Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle’s interest in wearing ethically sourced or sustainable clothes and jewellery has been widely reported and signals her priorities. She has worn jewellery such as gold studs and bangles from Pippa Small a UK firm committed to fair trade.

Increasingly, jewellery firms small and large are making statements about their approach to ethics and sustainability. So in choosing what jewellery you buy, you can make a political statement, perhaps by supporting local workers or ethical workplaces.

Read more: Fashion production is modern slavery: 5 things you can do to help now

While some might seek to trivialise jewellery, a traditional form of feminine adornment, brooches, rings and necklaces can make powerful statements. Since Michelle Obama wore her VOTE necklace last week, sales of the necklace have reportedly skyrocketed.

– ref. Michelle Obama’s necklace and the power of political jewellery — from suffragettes to a secretary of state – https://theconversation.com/michelle-obamas-necklace-and-the-power-of-political-jewellery-from-suffragettes-to-a-secretary-of-state-144741