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

The government on Tuesday will unveil a scaled-down, two-tiered JobKeeper program to commence after September and run until the end of March.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg will also outline their plan to lower the $550 coronavirus supplement, which effectively doubled JobSeeker.

Eligibility for both payments will be tightened.

The changes follow a Treasury review of JobKeeper, which said it should continue but warned a redesign was needed to prevent it blunting the incentive to work, and to wean businesses off support as the economy improves.

But current levels for both the JobKeeper and the expanded JobSeeker payments will continue until their legislated end in late September, when originally they were meant to “snap back”.

The revised JobKeeper will have two payment tiers, to more accurately take account of those who before the pandemic worked fewer hours.

The present rate of JobKeeper, designed to maintain workers’ attachment to businesses, is a flat $1500 a fortnight, which has meant some people receive more than they earned previously.

Read more: Government to announce revamped wage subsidy amid huge COVID uncertainty

Treasury said its “overall assessment is that an extension to JobKeeper is needed, coupled with a fresh eligibility test” to make sure it was well targeted.

This test of businesses’ turnover decline should be based on “measured or actual turnover change rather than projected change when businesses first applied”.

Under the present arrangements, businesses with turnovers under $1 billion have been eligible for JobKeeper if they had an estimated fall in turnover of 30%; the fall for bigger businesses was 50%.

Tuesday’s announcement comes ahead of Thursday’s economic statement, which will update the fiscal outlook and show massive projected deficits.

Morrison said on Monday the government’s support should be seen in terms of “phases”. “How many phases there are it is very difficult to say because there are so many uncertainties associated with COVID-19,” he said.

He said businesses would have several months to adjust to the next phase.

Treasury in its report found JobKeeper had been targeted well so far. “The payment went to businesses that experienced an average decline in turnover in April of 37% against the same month a year previous”. This compared with a 4% decline for other businesses. There was no evidence of widespread business closures.

But “JobKeeper has a number of features that create adverse incentives which may become more pronounced over time as the economy recovers,” Treasury said.

“It distorts wage relativities between lower and higher paid jobs, it dampens incentives to work, it hampers labour mobility and the reallocation of workers to more productive roles, and it keeps businesses afloat that would not be viable without ongoing support,” the report said.

About a quarter of those receiving JobKeeper had an income rise compared to their February earnings in the same job. This averaged about $550 for those receiving increases.

“For many people, the impact of the Coronavirus and the introduction of JobKeeper has altered what they are paid, their working hours, or both. These changes have potentially blunted their incentives to work, or to take on additional hours of work. In addition, the introduction ofenhanced income support under JobSeeker may also be affecting incentives to work.”

Treasury identified two groups whose work incentives “may have been blunted”.

These were part-timers and casuals who were getting more than previously because of the flat rate of JobKeeper, and workers who had been stood down.

“Several industry stakeholders advised the review team of instances where part-time workers have been reluctant to do additional hours of work more commensurate with the JobKeeper payment, as well as instances where stood down workers have been reluctant to take on any work hours as businesses have begun to re-open in recent weeks. No quantitative evidence has been presented on either of these matters.”

While in present conditions the adverse impacts would be likely modest “they could rise over time. This is a key rationale for JobKeeper being a time-limited, rather than ongoing, program”, Treasury said.

Read more: Australians highly confident of government’s handling of coronavirus and economic recovery: new research

Treasury said while there would be merit in targeting the ongoing JobKeeper program to needy sectors, it was too early to nominate these, and define their boundaries.

Rather, reassessing eligibility in October based on actual decline in turnover “would target the most affected businesses and would reduce the proportion of the economy at risk of the adverse incentives of JobKeeper.

“It may also be appropriate at this juncture to consider reducing payments to wean off businesses from ongoing support”, Treasury said.

Any move to reduce payment for some workers should be aligned with any changes to JobSeeker support.

JobKeeper was taken up by more than 960,000 organisations and about 3.5 million individuals over April-May. By late June payments had totalled more than $20 billion over the four payment fortnights to May 24.

– ref. Next phase of a pared-down JobKeeper will last until end of March – https://theconversation.com/next-phase-of-a-pared-down-jobkeeper-will-last-until-end-of-march-143037

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

Scott Morrison said on Monday that cancelling the fortnight parliamentary session that had been due to start August 4 was a “no brainer”, which is defined as something that “requires a minimum of thought”.

Surely the wisdom isn’t so obvious.

Morrison leaned heavily on the advice of Paul Kelly, Acting Chief Medical Officer in making what is a controversial call, quoting Kelly’s words.

Kelly argued that bringing “a high-risk group of individuals” to Canberra could place ACT residents “at unnecessary risk of infection”. Also, they could potentially infect other politicians and their staff.

Within days of the advice, ACT residents were already at risk – with about 80 in self-isolation after a breakout in the south coast town of Batemans Bay.

No doubt there would have been a degree of health danger in parliament meeting.

In terms of those posing risk, we are talking about Victorians and to a lesser extent those from NSW. Other states are safe.

Morrison said it would be neither feasible nor desirable to exclude parliamentarians “from a single state”.

But it would have been possible to limit numbers from Victoria (the situation in NSW is not as serious). In the earlier sittings during the pandemic, overall numbers were much reduced, and numbers in the chanber at any one time strictly controlled.

And couldn’t incoming MPs have been tested? That would not be an absolute guarantee they did not have COVID-19, but a substantial protection.

Morrison made the point, which is sound, that a face-to-face sitting is much better than trying to do things remotely. Labor agrees.

But many parents in Victoria are again struggling with the remote education of their children, when they wish they could send them off for face-to-face learning. They might think the parliament should also have a go at operating at a distance, even if it is very much a second best option.

It is not as impractical as it may sound, although it is unclear precisely how advanced the technology is, or could be made.

During the crisis Morrison has operated some party Coalition room meetings remotely, with audio rather than visual contact and people pressing a button if they wanted to ask a question.

Parliuamentary committees are running effective “virtual” meetings.

Morrison has emphasised the need for things to get back to normal as soon as feasible. We heard this endlessly in relation to schools, to say nothing of the issue of state borders (less about that at the moment).

Parliament surely should be setting an example. Or politicians may prefer to be cast in a more heroic mode, as “frontline” workers.

Morrison says the next sitting will now be August 24. But there is no guarantee because he also said Kelly had advised the risks posed by a sitting are unlikely to be resolved in the next month.

Hopefully the second COVID wave will be contained. But if it is not, and increases, will parliament be put on hold for even longer?

This would make a mockery of the system.

Labor has written to Speaker Tony Smith and Senate President Scott Ryan (both Victorians), proposing a working group be set up to develop “protocols that would enable parliament to sit in a safe manner, as scheduled”.

The opposition suggests the group should include Smith, Ryan, the chief medical officers of the Commonwealth and ACT, the leader of the House, the manager of opposition business, and their upper house counterparts.

The presiding officers have yet to respond. It’s a sensible suggestion.

Meanwhile Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, from the heart of Melbourne, will be in Canberra on Tuesday standing, properly distanced, with the Prime Minister to announce the detail of the new JobKeeper arrangements.

– ref. View from The Hill: Parliament not meeting, even remotely, sets a bad example – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-parliament-not-meeting-even-remotely-sets-a-bad-example-143002

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Burnett, Honorary Associate Professor, ANU College of Law, Australian National University

The Morrison government on Monday released a long-awaited interim review into Australia’s federal environment law. The ten-year review found Australia’s natural environment is declining and under increasing threat. The current environmental trajectory is “unsustainable” and the law “ineffective”.

The report, by businessman Graeme Samuel, called for fundamental reform of the law, know as the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. The Act, Samuel says:

[…] does not enable the Commonwealth to play its role in protecting and conserving environmental matters that are important for the nation. It is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges.

Samuel confirmed the health of Australia’s environment is in dire straits, and proposes many good ways to address this.

Worryingly though, Environment Minister Sussan Ley immediately seized on proposed reforms that seem to suit her government’s agenda – notably, streamlining the environmental approvals process – and will start working towards them. This is before the review has been finalised, and before public comment on the draft has been received.

This rushed response is very concerning. I was a federal environment official for 13 years, and from 2007 to 2012 was responsible for administering and reforming the Act. I know the huge undertaking involved in reform of the scale Samuel suggests. The stakes are far too high to risk squandering this once-a-decade reform opportunity for quick wins.

Read more: Let there be no doubt: blame for our failing environment laws lies squarely at the feet of government

‘Fundamental reform’ needed: Samuel

The EPBC Act is designed to protect and conserve Australia’s most important environmental and heritage assets – most commonly, threatened plant and animal species.

Samuel’s diagnosis is on the money: the current trajectory of environmental decline is clearly unsustainable. And reform is long overdue – although unlike Samuel, I would put the blame less on the Act itself and more on government failings, such as a badly under-resourced federal environment department.

Samuel also hits the sweet spot in terms of a solution, at least in principle. National environmental standards, legally binding on the states and others, would switch the focus from the development approvals process to environmental outcomes. In essence, the Commonwealth would regulate the states for environmental results, rather than proponents for (mostly) process.

Read more: A major scorecard gives the health of Australia’s environment less than 1 out of 10

Samuel’s recommendation for a quantum shift to a “single source of truth” for environmental data and information is also welcome. Effective administration of the Act requires good information, but this has proven hard to deliver. For example the much-needed National Plan for Environmental Information, established in 2010, was never properly resourced and later abolished.

Importantly, Samuel also called for a new standard for “best practice Indigenous engagement”, ensuring traditional knowledge and views are fully valued in decision-making. The lack of protection of Indigenous cultural assets has been under scrutiny of late following Rio Tinto’s destruction of the ancient Indigenous site Juukan caves. Reform in this area is long overdue.

And notably, Samuel says environmental restoration is required to enable future development to be sustainable. Habitat, he says “needs to grow to be able to support both development and a healthy environment”.

Streamlined approvals

Samuel pointed to duplication between the EPBC Act and state and territory regulations. He said efforts have been made to streamline these laws but they “have not gone far enough”. The result, he says, is “slow and cumbersome regulation” resulting in significant costs for business, with little environmental benefit.

This finding would have been music to the ears of the Morrison government. From the outset, the government framed Samuel’s review around a narrative of cutting the “green tape” that it believed unnecessarily held up development.

In June the government announced fast-tracked approvals for 15 major infrastructure projects in response to the COVID-19 economic slowdown. And on Monday, Ley indicated the government will prioritise the new national environmental standards, including further streamlining approval processes.

Read more: Environment laws have failed to tackle the extinction emergency. Here’s the proof

Here’s where the danger lies. The government wants to introduce legislation in August. Ley said “prototype” environmental standards proposed by Samuel will be introduced at the same time. This is well before Samuel’s final report, due in October.

I believe this timeframe is unwise, and wildly ambitious.

Even though Samuel proposes a two-stage process, with interim standards as the first step, these initial standards risk being too vague. And once they’re in place, states may resist moving to a stricter second stage.

To take one example, the prototype standards in Samuel’s report say approved development projects must not have unacceptable impacts on on matters of national environmental significance. He says more work is needed on the definition of “unacceptable”, adding this requires “granular and specific guidance”.

I believe this requires standards being tailored to different ecosystems across our wide and diverse landscapes, and being specific enough to usefully guide the assessment of any given project. This is an enormous task which cannot be rushed. And if Samuel’s prototype were adopted on an interim basis, states would be free, within some limits, to decide what is “unacceptable”.

It’s also worth noting that the national standards model will need significant financial resources. Samuel’s model would see the Commonwealth doing fewer individual project approvals and less on-ground compliance. However, it would enter a new and complex world of developing environmental standards.

More haste, less speed

Samuel’s interim report will go out for public comment before the final report is delivered in October. Ley concedes further consultation is needed on some issues. But in other areas, the government is not willing to wait. After years of substantive policy inaction it seems the government wants to set a new land-speed record for environmental reform.

The government’s fixation with cutting “green tape” should not unduly colour its reform direction. By rushing efforts to streamline approvals, the government risks creating a jumbled process with, once again, poor environmental outcomes.

– ref. Environment Minister Sussan Ley is in a tearing hurry to embrace nature law reform – and that’s a worry – https://theconversation.com/environment-minister-sussan-ley-is-in-a-tearing-hurry-to-embrace-nature-law-reform-and-thats-a-worry-141697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Burnett, Honorary Associate Professor, ANU College of Law, Australian National University

The Morrison government on Monday released a long-awaited interim review into Australia’s federal environment law. The ten-year review found Australia’s natural environment is declining and under increasing threat. The current environmental trajectory is “unsustainable” and the law “ineffective”.

The report, by businessman Graeme Samuel, called for fundamental reform of the law, know as the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. The Act, Samuel says:

[…] does not enable the Commonwealth to play its role in protecting and conserving environmental matters that are important for the nation. It is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges.

Samuel confirmed the health of Australia’s environment is in dire straits, and proposes many good ways to address this.

Worryingly though, Environment Minister Sussan Ley immediately seized on proposed reforms that seem to suit her government’s agenda – notably, streamlining the environmental approvals process – and will start working towards them. This is before the review has been finalised, and before public comment on the draft has been received.

This rushed response is very concerning. I was a federal environment official for 13 years, and from 2007 to 2012 was responsible for administering and reforming the Act. I know the huge undertaking involved in reform of the scale Samuel suggests. The stakes are far too high to risk squandering this once-a-decade reform opportunity for quick wins.

Read more: Let there be no doubt: blame for our failing environment laws lies squarely at the feet of government

‘Fundamental reform’ needed: Samuel

The EPBC Act is designed to protect and conserve Australia’s most important environmental and heritage assets – most commonly, threatened plant and animal species.

Samuel’s diagnosis is on the money: the current trajectory of environmental decline is clearly unsustainable. And reform is long overdue – although unlike Samuel, I would put the blame less on the Act itself and more on government failings, such as a badly under-resourced federal environment department.

Samuel also hits the sweet spot in terms of a solution, at least in principle. National environmental standards, legally binding on the states and others, would switch the focus from the development approvals process to environmental outcomes. In essence, the Commonwealth would regulate the states for environmental results, rather than proponents for (mostly) process.

Read more: A major scorecard gives the health of Australia’s environment less than 1 out of 10

Samuel’s recommendation for a quantum shift to a “single source of truth” for environmental data and information is also welcome. Effective administration of the Act requires good information, but this has proven hard to deliver. For example the much-needed National Plan for Environmental Information, established in 2010, was never properly resourced and later abolished.

Importantly, Samuel also called for a new standard for “best practice Indigenous engagement”, ensuring traditional knowledge and views are fully valued in decision-making. The lack of protection of Indigenous cultural assets has been under scrutiny of late following Rio Tinto’s destruction of the ancient Indigenous site Juukan caves. Reform in this area is long overdue.

And notably, Samuel says environmental restoration is required to enable future development to be sustainable. Habitat, he says “needs to grow to be able to support both development and a healthy environment”.

Streamlined approvals

Samuel pointed to duplication between the EPBC Act and state and territory regulations. He said efforts have been made to streamline these laws “but these efforts have not gone far enough”. The result, he says, is “slow and cumbersome regulation” resulting in significant costs for business, with little environmental benefit.

This finding would have been music to the ears of the Morrison government. From the outset, the government framed Samuel’s review around a narrative of cutting the “green tape” that it believed unnecessarily held up development.

In June the government announced fast-tracked approvals for 15 major infrastructure projects as Australia in response to the COVID-19 economic slowdown. And on Monday, Ley indicated the government will prioritise the new national environmental standards, including further streamlining approval processes.

Read more: Environment laws have failed to tackle the extinction emergency. Here’s the proof

Here’s where the danger lies. The government wants to introduce legislation in August. Ley said “prototype” environmental standards proposed by Samuel will be introduced at the same time. This is well before Samuel’s final report, due in October.

I believe this timeframe is unwise, and wildly ambitious.

Even though Samuel proposes a two-stage process, with interim standards as the first step, these initial standards risk being too vague. And once they’re in place, states may resist moving to a stricter second stage.

To take one example, the prototype standards in Samuel’s report say approved development projects must not have unacceptable impacts on on matters of national environmental significance. He says more work is needed on the definition of “unacceptable”, adding this requires “granular and specific guidance”.

I believe this requires standards being tailored to different ecosystems across our wide and diverse landscapes, and being specific enough to usefully guide the assessment of any given project. This is an enormous task which cannot be rushed. But if Samuel’s prototype were adopted on an interim basis, states would be free, within some limits, to decide what is “unacceptable”.

It’s also worth noting that the national standards model will need significant financial resources. Samuel’s model would see the Commonwealth doing fewer individual project approvals and less on-ground compliance. However, it would enter a new and complex world of developing environmental standards.

More haste, less speed

Samuel’s interim report will go out for public comment before the final report is delivered in October. Ley concedes further consultation is needed on some issues. But in other areas, the government is not willing to wait. After years of substantive policy inaction it seems the government wants to set a new land-speed record for environmental reform.

The government’s fixation with cutting “green tape” should not unduly colour its reform direction. By rushing efforts to streamline approvals, the government risks creating a jumbled process with, once again, poor environmental outcomes.

– ref. Environment Minister Sussan Ley is in a tearing hurry to embrace environment law reform – and that’s a worry – https://theconversation.com/environment-minister-sussan-ley-is-in-a-tearing-hurry-to-embrace-environment-law-reform-and-thats-a-worry-141697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jo Caust, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow (Hon), School of Culture and Communication, University of Melbourne

On July 17, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced an additional A$400 million to attract film and television productions to Australia until 2027.

In a press release, Morrison argued Australia is an attractive destination due to our relative success in managing COVID-19. The idea is that this financial expansion of the “location incentive” program will attract international filmmakers in production limbo to come to Australia.

What does the Australian film industry get out of this incentive? There is no doubt more film production here will ensure the employment of production staff, technical crews and support actors, many of whom have been badly economically affected by the stoppage in film making. As Morrison notes:

Behind these projects are thousands of workers that build and light the stages, that feed, house and cater for the huge cast and crew and that bring the productions to life. This is backing thousands of Australians who make their living working in front of the camera and behind the scenes in the creative economy.

The existing location offset provides a tax rebate of 16.5% of production expenses spent in Australia, while the location incentive – which this $400 million will go towards – provides grants of up to 13.5% of qualifying expenses.

This new input is predicted by the government to attract around $3 billion in foreign expenditure to Australia and up to 8,000 new jobs annually.

This is not a fund to make Australian films, but an incentive for foreign filmmakers to make films in Australia.

Read more: Queensland has saved a Hollywood blockbuster, but the local film industry is still missing out

Global incentives

Many countries offer similar incentives.

The UK offers up to a 25% cash rebate of qualifying expenditure; Ireland offers 32% tax credit on eligible production, post-production and/or VFX expenses for local and international cast and crew, and goods and services.

Singapore is even more generous, offering up to 50% of qualifying expenses. But as a condition of receiving the money, the filmmakers must portray Singapore in a “positive light”.

There are usually caveats: a minimum spend of the film’s budget in the country providing the incentive; a minimum employment of local practitioners on the crew; and in some cases a “cultural test”.

In the UK, productions can earn points towards this cultural test by filming in English, contributing to local employment, and creating films “reflecting British creativity, heritage and diversity”.

Does Australia apply any similar conditions? The location tax offset requires the company be operating with an Australian Business Number, and have a minimum qualifying spend in Australia of $15 million, while the location incentive is for “eligible international footloose productions”, that is international films being produced in Australia.

Delights, and concerns

The Australian and New Zealand Screen Association — whose members include Universal, Walt Disney, Sony, Netflix, Warner Brothers and Paramount — commissioned a research report on Australian location incentives in 2018.

The report argued other countries have been more generous in their provision of location offsetting, thereby resulting in a loss of international production in Australia. The association is delighted about this latest announcement.

But how do local filmmakers feel about this funding? Screen Producers Australia, whose members include local producers and production businesses, has said this funding may help to support around 20% of the local workforce, but is concerned about the lack of support for Australian filmmakers making Australian films.

This new funding will certainly not help the production and development of locally made films and television. As Screen Producers Australia asserts, foreign made films and producers can now access more government funding in Australia than Australian made films and producers.

A sector in crisis

On June 24, the federal government announced new funding packages to support the “creative economy”. This included $50 million for a Temporary Interruption Fund to help film and television producers who are unable to access insurance due to COVID-19 to secure finance and restart production.

Read more: The arts needed a champion – it got a package to prop up the major players 100 days later

This $50 million is the only support the government has specifically targeted towards the local film sector under coronavirus. Nearly a month on, no details have been released on how filmmakers will be able to access this support.

Since April 2020, free-to-air and subscription television services have been exempt from the need to adhere to the Australian content stipulations, significantly reducing the amount of Australian television content produced into the foreseeable future.

Read more: Coronavirus TV ‘support’ package leaves screen writers and directors even less certain than before

This was further compounded by an announcement by the ABC in mid-June they would be reducing their commitment to local content production, given ongoing budget cuts.

The capacity of the Australian film and television sector to continue to make Australian stories that reflect our culture is seriously impacted.

While the government is showing support and generosity to foreign filmmakers and commercial television interests, it seems less inclined to demonstrate similar largesse to its own creators.

While some film workers are now likely to be employed, the sector overall will not be assisted. If our own stories are not being made for our audiences, the on-going loss to the nation will be significant.

– ref. $400 million in government funding for Hollywood, but only scraps for Australian film – https://theconversation.com/400-million-in-government-funding-for-hollywood-but-only-scraps-for-australian-film-142979

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Evans, Professor of Governance and Director of Democracy 2025 – bridging the trust divide at Old Parliament House, University of Canberra

Democratic Fundamentals podcast on “Political Trust in Times of Covid-19”

In this fourth episode of the Conversation-Democracy 2025 Podcast on “Political Trust in Times of Covid-19”, Michelle Grattan and Mark Evans explore the lessons that can be drawn from the management of COVID-19 for the recovery process with the ABC’s Norman Swan and Mark Kenny from the Australian Studies Institute at the Australian National University.

The discussion draws on the very latest findings from a comparative survey conducted by Democracy 2025 and Trustgov in May and June in Australia, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States on political trust and democracy in times of Coronavirus.

Read more: Australians highly confident of government’s handling of coronavirus and economic recovery: new research

The survey investigates whether public attitudes towards democratic institutions and practices have changed during the pandemic. We also asked questions on compliance and resilience issues and whether the way we do democracy in Australia might change post COVID-19.

We observe that Australia can be considered a global leader in its response to the pandemic and assess whether the highest levels of public trust in federal government seen for a decade can hold in the recovery period.

You can find the first of three reports on the findings at Democracy 2025.

– ref. After the crisis: what lessons can be drawn from the management of COVID-19 for the recovery process? – https://theconversation.com/after-the-crisis-what-lessons-can-be-drawn-from-the-management-of-covid-19-for-the-recovery-process-142987

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Evans, Professor of Governance and Director of Democracy 2025 – bridging the trust divide at Old Parliament House, University of Canberra

Australians have exhibited high levels of trust in federal government during the coronavirus pandemic, a marked shift from most people’s views of government before the crisis began, new research shows.

Australians are also putting their trust in government at far higher rates than people in three other countries badly affected by the virus – the US, Italy and the UK.

The findings, published today in a new report, “Is Australia still the lucky country?”, are part of a broader comparative research collaboration between the Democracy 2025 initiative at the Museum of Australian Democracy and the TrustGov Project at the University of Southampton in the UK.

The research involved surveys of adults aged between 18 and 75 in all four countries in June to gauge whether public attitudes toward democratic institutions and practices had changed during the pandemic. We also asked about people’s compliance with coronavirus restrictions and their resilience to meet the challenge of the post-pandemic recovery.

The main proposition behind our research is that public trust is critical in times like this. Without it, the changes to public behaviour necessary to contain the spread of infection are slower and more resource-intensive.

Read more: Coronavirus spike: why getting people to follow restrictions is harder the second time around

Levels of trust higher for most institutions

Australians are now exhibiting much higher levels of political trust in federal government (from 25% in 2019 to 54% in our survey), and the Australian public service (from 38% in 2018 to 54% in our survey).

Compared to the other three countries in our research, Australia’s trust in government also comes out on top. In the UK, only 41% of participants had high trust in government, while in Italy it was at 40% and the US just 34%.

Confidence in key institutions

Australians also have high levels of confidence in institutions related to defence and law and order, such as the army (78%), police (75%) and the courts (55%). Levels of trust are also high in the health services (77%), cultural institutions (70%) and universities (61%). Notably, Australians exhibit high levels of trust in scientists and experts (77%).

These figures were comparable with the other countries in the survey, with the notable exception of Americans’ confidence in the health services, which stood at just 48%.

Although Australians continue to have low levels of trust in social media (from 20% in 2018 to 19% in our survey), confidence is gaining in other forms of news dissemination, such as TV (from 32% in 2018 to 39%), radio (from 38% in 2018 to 41%) and newspapers (from 29% in 2018 to 37%).

Public trust in various media, scientists and experts

How does Morrison compare with Trump and other leaders?

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is perceived to be performing strongly in his management of the crisis by a significant majority of Australians (69%).

Indeed, he possesses the strongest performance measures in comparison with Italy (52% had high confidence in Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte), the UK (37% for Prime Minister Boris Johnson) and the US (35% for President Donald Trump).

Morrison also scores highly when it comes to listening to experts, with 73% of Australians saying he does, compared to just 33% of Americans believing Trump does.

Public perceptions of leadership

Interestingly, Morrison’s approval numbers are also far higher than the state premiers in Australia. Only 37% of our respondents on average think their state premier or chief minister is “handling the coronavirus situation well”. Tasmanians (52%) and Western Australians (49%) had the highest confidence in their leaders’ handling of the crisis.

This suggests that in Australia, the politics of national unity (the “rally around the flag” phenomenon) is strong in times of crisis, whereas people tend to view the leaders of states or territories as acting in their own self-interest.

Perceptions of the quality of state and territory leadership

Compliance and resilience

Our findings also showed most Australians were complying with the key government measures to combat COVID-19, but were marginally less compliant than their counterparts in the UK. (Australians are relatively equal with Italians and Americans.)

Among the states and territories, Victorians have been the most compliant with anti-COVID-19 measures, while the ACT, Tasmania and the Northern Territory were the least compliant. This is in line with the low levels of reported cases in these jurisdictions and by the lower public perception of the risk of infection.

When it comes to resilience to meet the challenges of the post-pandemic recovery, we considered confidence in social, economic and political factors.

Although a majority of Australians (60%) expect COVID-19 to have a “high” or “very high” level of financial threat for them and their families, they are less worried than their counterparts in Italy, the UK and US about the threat COVID-19 poses “to the country” (33%), “to them personally” (19%), or “to their job or business” (29%).

Perceptions of the level of threat posed by COVID-19

About half of all Australians believe the economy will get worse in the next year (this is slightly higher than in the US but much lower than in the UK and Italy). In Australia, women, young people, Labor voters and those on lower incomes with lower levels of qualifications are the most pessimistic on all confidence measures.

However, Australians remain highly confident the country will bounce back from COVID-19, with most believing Australia is “more resilient than most other countries” (72%).

Perceptions of Australian resilience

We also assessed whether views about how democracy works should change as a result of the pandemic. An overwhelming majority of people said they wanted politicians to be more honest and fair (87%), be more decisive but accountable for their actions (82%) and be more collaborative and less adversarial (82%).

Staying lucky

Australia has been lucky in terms of its relative geographical isolation from international air passenger traffic during the pandemic.

But Australia has also benefited from effective governance – facilitated by strong political bipartisanship from Labor – and by atypical coordination of state and federal governments via the National Cabinet.

The big question now is whether Morrison can sustain strong levels of public trust in the recovery period.

Read more: A matter of trust: coronavirus shows again why we value expertise when it comes to our health

There are two positive lessons to be drawn from the government’s management of COVID-19 in this regard.

First, the Australian people expects their governments to continue to listen to the experts, as reflected in the high regard that Australians have for evidence-based decision-making observed in the survey.

Second, the focus on collaboration and bipartisanship has played well with an Australian public fed up with adversarial politics.

The critical insight then is clear: Australia needs to embrace this new style of politics – one that is cleaner, collaborative and evidence-based – to drive post-COVID-19 recovery and remain a lucky country.

– ref. Australians highly confident of government’s handling of coronavirus and economic recovery: new research – https://theconversation.com/australians-highly-confident-of-governments-handling-of-coronavirus-and-economic-recovery-new-research-142904

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted July 15-18 from a sample of 1,850, gave the Coalition a 53-47 lead, a two-point gain for the Coalition since the previous Newspoll, three weeks ago. This is the Coalition’s largest lead since the first Newspoll of the current parliamentary term in July 2019.

Primary votes were 44% Coalition (up two), 34% Labor (down one), 10% Greens (down one) and 4% One Nation (up one). Figures from The Poll Bludger.

Scott Morrison’s ratings were steady at 68% satisfied, 27% dissatisfied (net +41). He maintains the highest net approval for a prime minister since Kevin Rudd in October 2009. Anthony Albanese’s net approval dropped one point to +1. Morrison led Albanese as better PM by 59-26 (58-26 three weeks ago).

In the past weeks, there has been a major surge in Victorian coronavirus cases, reaching a peak so far of 428 new cases on Friday. Newspoll last polled the premiers’ ratings three weeks ago, when Victoria’s new coronavirus crisis was beginning. That poll had Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews dropping 18 points on net approval to +40.

Read more: Labor set to win Eden-Monaro; Andrews’s ratings fall in Victoria

In an Essential poll last week, state breakdowns had the Victorian government’s response to coronavirus slumping to a net +23 from +52 in late June. As the coronavirus situation in Victoria has worsened, voters appear to be blaming the state government far more than the federal government.

I have previously written that, with Morrison’s net approval at about +40 since late April, the Coalition should have been far further ahead than the 51-49 leads they previously held. The “national cabinet”, which involved Labor premiers, held the Coalition back.

But with Andrews being blamed for Victoria’s coronavirus crisis, the Coalition has increased its lead. As long as the virus does not become more widespread across Australia, the federal Coalition is likely to perform well in the polls.

Eden-Monaro byelection final result

Labor’s Kristy McBain won the July 4 Eden-Monaro byelection by a 50.4-49.6 margin over the Liberals’ Fiona Kotvojs; this was a swing of 0.4% to the Liberals since the 2019 election. Primary votes were 38.3% Liberal (up 1.3%), 35.9% Labor (down 3.3%), 6.4% Nationals (down 0.6%), 5.7% Greens (down 3.1%), 5.3% Shooters, Fishers and Farmers, and 2.3% Help End Marijuana Prohibition.

Biden maintains clear lead over Trump

This section is an updated version of an article I had published at The Poll Bludger on Thursday.

In the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate, Donald Trump’s ratings with all polls are 40.5% approve, 55.5% disapprove (net -15.0%). With polls of registered or likely voters, Trump’s ratings are 41.1% approve, 55.4% disapprove (net -14.3%). Since my article three weeks ago, Trump has lost about one point on net approval. While Trump’s approval has continued to drop, his disapproval has fallen a point from a peak ten days ago.

The latest FiveThirtyEight national poll aggregate gives Joe Biden a 50.4% to 41.6% lead over Trump. Most polls at this stage give voting intentions based on registered voters, but Republican-supporting demographics have historically been more likely to vote, hence FiveThirtyEight adjusts registered voter polls a little in Trump’s favour. Three weeks ago, Biden’s lead was 9.6%.

Where there have been few recent polls of a state, FiveThirtyEight adjusts that state’s polls for the national trend. In the key states that are likely to decide the Electoral College, Biden remains well ahead. He leads by 9.0% in Michigan, 7.7% in Pennsylvania, 7.5% in Wisconsin and 6.8% in Florida.

If Biden wins all the states carried by Hillary Clinton in 2016 (232 Electoral Votes), he needs another 38 EVs to reach the 270 needed to win. If Biden wins Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (46 total EVs), he wins the election with at least 278 EVs.

The issue for Biden is that the tipping-point state in the Electoral College is still about 1.5% better for Trump than the national polls. In 2016, the tipping-point state was 2.9% better for Trump than the national popular vote. If Trump were able to hold Biden’s national vote margin to under five points, and make bigger gains in the Midwestern swing states, he could still win the Electoral College.

Trump’s general behaviour offends well-educated voters, and they were always likely to vote for an alternative. To compensate, Trump needed the support of voters without high educational attainment. Had the coronavirus faded well before the November 3 election, and an economic rebound was on track, such an outcome would have been plausible.

However, the last few weeks have seen records set in numbers of daily cases, then exceeded a short time later. On four days since July 10, over 70,000 new US coronavirus cases were recorded.

Despite the surge in cases, daily coronavirus deaths had generally been decreasing until about two weeks ago. But it takes time for patients to go from showing symptoms to death, and it also takes time for states to process the paperwork. US daily coronavirus deaths are rising again, with just over 1,000 recorded last Wednesday. It is likely they will increase further.

With coronavirus such a huge crisis, the candidate seen as best able to handle it is likely to win, and at the moment, that’s Biden. In a terrible Quinnipiac poll for Trump, in which he trailed Biden by 15 and had a -24 net approval, Biden led on the coronavirus by 59-35, and Trump’s net approval of handling of coronavirus was -27. By 67-30, voters said they did not trust information about the coronavirus provided by Trump, while by 65-26 they trusted information provided by Dr Anthony Fauci. Picking a fight with Fauci appears to be dumb.

As I wrote recently, the June US jobs report was good, but there’s still a long way to go to reach employment levels that would normally be considered poor. The coronavirus surge is likely to derail any economic recovery.

In the battle for the Senate, the RealClearPolitics Senate map currently shows 47 seats where Republicans are ahead, 46 with Democrats leading and 7 toss-ups.

Polish and Croatian elections

Owing to lack of elections, last Wednesday’s article about the recent Polish and Croatian elections is the first I’ve published on my personal website since February. In the Polish presidential election, the candidate aligned with the economically left but socially conservative Law and Justice party won narrowly. In Croatia, the conservatives won easily in a disappointing result for the left.

– ref. Coalition’s lead increases in Newspoll; Biden maintains clear lead over Trump – https://theconversation.com/coalitions-lead-increases-in-newspoll-biden-maintains-clear-lead-over-trump-142978

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trent Yarwood, Infectious Diseases Physician, Senior Lecturer, James Cook University and, The University of Queensland

As COVID-19 cases surge in Victoria and NSW, authorities have again urged anyone with symptoms, including cough, fever, or sore throat, to get tested. Most results should be available within a few days and people should self-isolate while they’re awaiting results.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said today Victoria recorded 275 new COVID-19 cases. Mask-wearing whenever outside the home will be mandatory for residents of metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire from Wednesday at 11:59pm.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said there were 20 new cases in NSW today, and urged residents to avoid crowded places, consider wearing a mask when physical distancing wasn’t possible, and minimise any non-essential travel.

Here are the most important things to know about testing.

Read more: Got a COVID-19 test in Victoria and still haven’t got your results? Here’s what may be happening — and what to do

Do I need a referral to get a COVID-19 test?

For the vast majority of people, no — you don’t need a referral to get tested at dedicated public COVID-19 testing clinic.

However, you will need a pathology request form if you plan to get tested at a private pathology clinic.

COVID-19-testing clinics in NSW are listed here, and Victorian testing sites (including pop-up clinics) are listed here. The Victorian Department of Health and Human Services says on it website:

Please call ahead before visiting a testing site, unless you choose to be tested at a pop-up testing site.

Testing locations are listed on each state or territory’s health departments, including for Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.

Start by seeing if there is a pop-up drive-through or walk-through clinic near you. Some public sector fever clinics have a booking system to reduce wait times but many of the pop-up testing drive-through sites will allow you just to show up in your car.

Do not walk unannounced into a private pathology clinic, hospital emergency department or into your GP’s surgery.

If you can’t get to a dedicated public COVID-19 testing clinic, call your GP and ask for a telehealth consult. The GP can organise a pathology request form to be sent electronically to a private pathology clinic and will advise you on how to get tested there.

While you’re waiting for your test results, it’s important to stay at home in case you are infectious.

Read more: Explainer: what’s the new coronavirus saliva test, and how does it work?

What happens if I test positive?

You will be notified if you’ve tested positive to COVID-19. If you were tested at a private clinic, you may receive a call from your GP who ordered the test, or from the public health team.

If you were tested at a public testing site like a drive-through clinic, a state government public health official will contact you. They will usually do the contact tracing at the same time.

Their job is to find out about anyone else you may have given the virus to while you’ve been infectious. They will usually ask where you’ve been and who you’ve seen in the last few days before you became ill.

There are national guidelines for management of coronavirus, but how they are implement is usually a state decision. Generally, the facility where you got the test will tell you how long you need to isolate for.

It’s important to ask as many questions as possible when you’re informed of your result.

How can I get tested? Is there a blood test?

Most tests will usually be done by a swab around the back of the throat and the nose. Some sites will either just swab your throat, or just your nose, but the gold standard at the moment is to swab both.

There’s also a new saliva test, which tests a sample you spit into a small container. It’s used in limited circumstances where it’s not possible to take a nasal swab, such as with young children resisting a swab.

The problem is saliva seems to have less of the virus in it than sputum (which is collected from the back of the nose and throat), so a saliva test result may not be as reliable.

There are currently two types of blood tests. One is an antibody test, which can measure whether you’ve already had the virus and recovered. But it’s not very useful because health authorities are more concerned about finding out who has the virus now, so they can do contact tracing.

Researchers from Monash University announced recently they’ve able to detect positive COVID-19 cases using blood samples in about 20 minutes, and identify whether someone has contracted the virus.

However, it’s very new research and likely won’t be rolled out on a large scale very soon. The researchers said last week they’re seeking commercial and government support to upscale production.

Despite problems with new types of tests, in a pandemic it’s important to research and trial novel testing methods that can help us fight the virus.

The most important thing you can do to help stop the spread is to try to maintain physical distancing as much as you can. Wash your hands frequently, and if you develop any symptoms — even very minor ones — err on the side of getting tested.

Read more: Which face mask should I wear?

– ref. Do I need a referral for a COVID-19 test? What happens if you test positive? Your coronavirus questions answered – https://theconversation.com/do-i-need-a-referral-for-a-covid-19-test-what-happens-if-you-test-positive-your-coronavirus-questions-answered-142982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trent Yarwood, Infectious Diseases Physician, Senior Lecturer, James Cook University and, The University of Queensland

As COVID-19 cases surge in Victoria and NSW, authorities have again urged anyone with symptoms, including cough, fever, or sore throat, to get tested. Most results should be available within a few days and people should self-isolate while they’re awaiting results.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said today Victoria recorded 275 new COVID-19 cases. Mask-wearing whenever outside the home will be mandatory for residents of metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire from Wednesday at 11:59pm.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said there were 20 new cases in NSW today, and urged residents to avoid crowded places, consider wearing a mask when physical distancing wasn’t possible, and minimise any non-essential travel.

Here are the most important things to know about testing.

Read more: Got a COVID-19 test in Victoria and still haven’t got your results? Here’s what may be happening — and what to do

Do I need a referral to get a COVID test?

For the vast majority of people, no — you don’t need a referral to get tested at dedicated public COVID-19 testing clinic.

However, you will need a pathology request form if you plan to get tested at a private pathology clinic.

COVID-19-testing clinics in NSW are listed here, and Victorian testing sites (including pop-up clinics) are listed here. The Victorian Department of Health and Human Services says on it website:

Please call ahead before visiting a testing site, unless you choose to be tested at a pop-up testing site.

Testing locations are listed on each state or territory’s health departments, including for Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.

Start by seeing if there is a pop-up drive-through or walk-through clinic near you. Some public sector fever clinics have a booking system to reduce wait times but many of the pop-up testing drive-through sites will allow you just to show up in your car.

Do not walk unannounced into a private pathology clinic, hospital emergency department or into your GP’s surgery.

If you can’t get to a dedicated public COVID-19 testing clinic, call your GP and ask for a telehealth consult. The GP can organise a pathology request form to be sent electronically to a private pathology clinic and will advise you on how to get tested there.

While you’re waiting for your test results, it’s important to stay at home in case you are infectious.

Read more: Explainer: what’s the new coronavirus saliva test, and how does it work?

What happens if I test positive?

You will be notified if you’ve tested positive to COVID-19. If you were tested at a private clinic, you may receive a call from your GP who ordered the test, or from the public health team.

If you were tested at a public testing site like a drive-through clinic, a state government public health official will contact you. They will usually do the contact tracing at the same time.

Their job is to find out about anyone else you may have given the virus to while you’ve been infectious. They will usually ask where you’ve been and who you’ve seen in the last few days before you became ill.

There are national guidelines for management of coronavirus, but how they are implement is usually a state decision. Generally, the facility where you got the test will tell you how long you need to isolate for.

It’s important to ask as many questions as possible when you’re informed of your result.

How can I get tested? Is there a blood test?

Most tests will usually be done by a swab around the back of the throat and the nose. Some sites will either just swab your throat, or just your nose, but the gold standard at the moment is to swab both.

There’s also a new saliva test, which tests a sample you spit into a small container. It’s used in limited circumstances where it’s not possible to take a nasal swab, such as with young children resisting a swab.

The problem is saliva seems to have less of the virus in it than sputum (which is collected from the back of the nose and throat), so a saliva test result may not be as reliable.

There are currently two types of blood tests. One is an antibody test, which can measure whether you’ve already had the virus and recovered. But it’s not very useful because health authorities are more concerned about finding out who has the virus now, so they can do contact tracing.

Researchers from Monash University announced recently they’ve able to detect positive COVID-19 cases using blood samples in about 20 minutes, and identify whether someone has contracted the virus.

However, it’s very new research and likely won’t be rolled out on a large scale very soon. The researchers said last week they’re seeking commercial and government support to upscale production.

Despite problems with new types of tests, in a pandemic it’s important to research and trial novel testing methods that can help us fight the virus.

The most important thing you can do to help stop the spread is to try to maintain physical distancing as much as you can. Wash your hands frequently, and if you develop any symptoms — even very minor ones — err on the side of getting tested.

Read more: Which face mask should I wear?

– ref. Do I need a referral for a COVID test? What happens if you test positive? Your coronavirus questions answered – https://theconversation.com/do-i-need-a-referral-for-a-covid-test-what-happens-if-you-test-positive-your-coronavirus-questions-answered-142982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Allen, Demographer, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University

COVID-19 lockdowns have led to suggestions there could be a “coronial” baby boom.

But while a baby boom as a side effect of the devastating pandemic sounds kind of nice, it is probably too good to be true.

What is more likely is that Australians will delay or forego having children because of coronavirus. This could be personally devastating for people and a demographic disaster for the country.

What are people really up to?

The pandemic has seen the birth of terms such as “corona thirst”, based on the assumption people are having more sex than usual due to all the extra time at home with nothing much to do.

A United States poll released in June signalled a COVID-induced sexual enlightenment, with 54% of surveyed couples reporting they were being more adventurous in bed.

Read more: The safest sex you’ll never have: how coronavirus is changing online dating

The ABC has also recently reported an increase in sales at adult stores and strong demand for dating apps. Meanwhile, last month, Chemist Warehouse pointed to a 30% spike in pregnancy test sales.

But despite all the hype, all signs point to fewer babies being born as a result of COVID-19, not more. For one thing, pregnancy test purchases are more likely to reflect women trying to avoid seeing a doctor in person, rather than a prelude to a boom.

We do not have the necessary ingredients for a boom

It takes more than sex (or more sex) to have a baby boom. The necessary ingredients include more people partnering and reduced contraception use among couples and we are not seeing evidence of either of these things.

The fact that gathering places like pubs and bars are either closed or restricted is limiting opportunities to meet people and interact in real life. Decreased rates of sexually transmitted infections point to a reduction in the formation of new relationships, regardless of the increased use of dating apps.

And despite all the talk about adventurous sex, it’s also highly unlikely couples will suddenly decide to increase their intended family size.

For one thing, additional, forced time with loved ones tends to strain, not nurture, relationships. Rising domestic violence rates has also show the pandemic has been unsafe for too many others.

Read more: Love lockdown: the pandemic has put pressure on many relationships, but here’s how to tell if yours will survive

All the uncertainty and socioeconomic scarcity – including the inability to have basic needs, like toilet paper, met and record unemployment – also means even established, happy couples are likely to postpone having children.

It is important to note that birth rates dropped dramatically during the Great Depression, from an average of around three births per woman to about two – a substantial decline in terms of magnitude and the time it took to fall.

This offers the most comparable historical event to COVID-19, given the expectation of long-term economic doldrums due to the pandemic.

Headed for demographic disaster

Australia’s birth rate of 1.74 births per woman is already in decline, down from 2.02 in 2008. We can expect COVID-19 to exacerbate this trend.

This is a huge worry. Because, if we fall to or below a birth rate of 1.5, this is well below replacement level and places the future tax base at risk. Simply put, we won’t have enough people to work and pay taxes and fund all the roads, hospitals and welfare initiatives we need to function as a country.

Read more: Solving the ‘population problem’ through policy

This is a demographic disaster, leading to declining socioeconomic well-being. Future generations will have to cover the bill for far more than we have had to, meaning the Australia they inherit will be worse off.

Even more worryingly, once birth rates fall to around 1.5, they don’t tend to bounce back, because social norms around children and family become ingrained even if there are incentives to change.

While countries typically rely on increased immigration to balance demographic and workforce needs, this may not be possible in the same way, due to the pandemic.

The individual impact

For people who are hoping to have children in the near future, COVID-19 has presented new and no doubt stressful challenges.

Not only is it difficult to meet potential partners, but there have been extra constraints of accessing assisted reproductive technologies. Cancellation of elective surgery during the initial COVID-19 outbreak saw some IVF treatments postponed.

Melbourne’s worsening pandemic situation is now likely to cause further IVF delays.

Even with the resumption of IVF, prospective parents may have missed their chance to have a family or increase the size of the one they already have.

Demographic ripples

Not much is known about childlessness among men in Australia because the census doesn’t include this information and research typically focuses on women.

But we do know that at the 2016 Census, roughly 30% of women towards the end of their reproductive years aged between 30-44 years reported not having any children.

Read more: She won’t be right, mate: how the government shaped a blokey lockdown followed by a blokey recovery

Around half of these women would have been childfree by choice, if the distribution from a 2013 Australian qualitative study was applied.

This roughly translates to around a quarter of a million women being childless against their choice, due to not having a partner or requiring assisted reproductive technology (including same-sex attracted women).

The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey also tells us people don’t have as many children as they plan to at the best of times. The number of children adults intend to have typically reduces over time as people realise and experience the barriers confronted by parents trying to juggle paid work, family and life.

All these factors, combined with these raw numbers, conservatively suggests thousands of women will be left stranded in their childbearing years. While some of course may still have children down the track, for others, the window for childbearing will close sooner and more definitively because of COVID-19.

For some existing parents, they will not have as many additional children as they hoped for.

This is a heartbreaking individual outcome, as well as one that will send ripples into the nation’s future demography.

Demographic recovery

Post-coronavirus recovery requires comprehensive efforts to build and invest in the demographic capital of the nation, now and into the future.

This means we need to help families achieve their intended family size. The provision of accessible childcare, adequate support for the long-term unemployed and financial supports for people accessing IVF are just starters.

It’s going to be a rough road ahead. Sadly, for many Australians, it will be marked by significant personal heartache, with the ripple effects felt at a population level.

– ref. COVID-19 could see thousands of women miss out on having kids, creating a demographic disaster for Australia – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-could-see-thousands-of-women-miss-out-on-having-kids-creating-a-demographic-disaster-for-australia-142174

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By La Toya Jamieson, Wildlife Detection Dog Specialist, La Trobe University

Moss bounds happily through the bush showing the usual exuberance of a young labrador. Despite this looking like play, he is on a serious mission to help fight the extinction of some of our most critically endangered species.

Moss is a detection dog in training. Unlike other detection dogs, who might sniff out drugs or explosives, he’ll be finding some of Victoria’s smallest, best camouflaged and most elusive animals.

Read more: Sit! Seek! Fly! Scientists train dogs to sniff out endangered insects

These dogs use their exceptional olfactory senses to locate everything from koalas high in the trees, desert tortoises burrowed deep under soil and even whales — often more effectively than any human team could aspire to.

What makes Moss unique, however, is he’ll not only find endangered species in the wild, but will also be part of a larger team helping endangered species breed in captivity. These dogs will be the first in the world to do this, starting with a ground-breaking trial with Tasmanian devils.

Why Moss needed a job

Wildlife detection dogs are a very rare type of dog — they are highly motivated, engaged and energetic, but also incredibly reliable and safe around the smallest of creatures.

And Moss is the first dog to join Zoos Victoria’s Detection Dog squad, a permanent group of highly trained dogs that will live at Healesville Sanctuary.

Read more: Is your dog happy? Ten common misconceptions about dog behaviour

Moss was adopted at 14 months old, after he somewhat “failed” at being a family pet. He is a hurricane of energy with an intelligent and playful mind. He’s thriving with a job to keep him occupied and new challenges for his busy brain.

One sign he was perfect for this program was his indifference to the free range chickens at his foster home. For obvious reasons, a dog who likes chasing chickens wouldn’t be a good candidate for protecting some of Australia’s rarest feathered treasures.

Currently Moss is learning crucial foundational skills, and getting plenty of exposure to different environments. Equally important, he is developing a deep bond and trust with his handlers.

The detection dog-handler bond is crucial not only for his happiness, but also for working success and longevity. Research from 2018 found a strong bond between a handler and their dog dramatically improved the dog’s detection results and reduced signs of stress.

The Tasmanian devil’s advocate

Healesville Sanctuary breeds endangered Tasmanian Devils every year as part of an insurance program to support conservation and research. This program is crucial to help protect the devil following an estimated 80% decline in the wild due to a horrific transmissible cancer, Devil Facial Tumour Disease.

Read more: We developed tools to study cancer in Tasmanian devils. They could help fight disease in humans

But managing a predator that’s shy, nocturnal and prefers to be left alone can be tricky.

Wildlife, including Tasmanian devils, need a hands-off approach where possible, so they can maintain natural behaviours and thrive in their environment.

In the wild, devils leave scats (faeces) at communal latrine sites and use scent for communication. Male devils can tell a female is ready to mate by smelling her scat. And we think dogs could be trained to detect this, too.

We aim to train dogs to detect an odour profile in the collected scat of female devils coming into their receptive (oestrus) periods, so we can introduce females and suitable males to breed at the optimal time. The odour profile will be further verified via laboratory analyses of hormones in the scats.

Read more: Koala-detecting dogs sniff out flaws in Australia’s threatened species protection

The project will also explore whether dogs can detect pregnancy and lactation in the devils.

Currently, the best way to determine if a female has young is to look in her pouch, but our preference is to remain at a distance during this important time while females settle into being new mums.

If the dogs are able to smell a scat sample (while never coming into contact with the devil) and identify that a female is lactating with small joeys in her pouch, we can support her – for example, by increasing her food – while keeping a comfortable distance.

A new partnership in conservation

The results from this devil breeding research could offer innovative new options for endangered species breeding programs around the world.

Wildlife detection in the field means we can more accurately monitor some of our most critically endangered species, and quickly assess the impact of catastrophic events such as bushfires.

Read more: Curious kids: How far away can dogs smell and hear?

Detection dogs are the perfect intermediary between people and wildlife — they can sniff out what we can’t and communicate with us as a team.

And over the next few years, the Detection Dog Squad will expand to five full-time canines. They will all be selected based on their personalities rather than specific breeds, so will likely come in all shapes and sizes.

Dogs may yet go from being man’s best friend to the devil’s best friend and beyond, all starting with a happy labrador named Moss.

This article is co-authored by Naomi Hodgens, Wildlife Detection Dog Officer at Zoos Victoria, and Dr Kim Miller, Life Sciences Manager, Conservation and Research, at Healesville Sanctuary, Zoos Victoria.

– ref. Meet Moss, the detection dog helping Tassie devils find love – https://theconversation.com/meet-moss-the-detection-dog-helping-tassie-devils-find-love-142909

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Douglas, Professor, Flinders University

We teach English at university. Our weekly engagements include navigating unnerving plot twists, falling in and out of love with iconic characters, and evaluating the complexities of language and genre.

Reading challenges how we think. Each week, in English classes, we explore some of the most significant issues and representations affecting various historical periods and cultures.

In the first semester, our reading list included classic works of literature that deal with themes including mental illness and psychological as well as physical isolation: Charlotte Perkins-Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper, Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway, and Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar.

Then COVID-19 happened.

News reports began circulating on what professors were reading for refuge during the pandemic. An article in the New Yorker pondered why “anxious readers” might be soothed by Mrs Dalloway. This is a text that, in the past, has seen students request trigger warnings for its of “examination of suicidal tendencies” which “may trigger painful memories for students suffering from self-harm”.

Read more: When literature takes you by surprise: or, the case against trigger warnings

Our teaching suddenly moved online, which created an even more unsettling set of conditions. We were teaching literary texts representing various kinds of trauma to students coping with a range of new (or exacerbated) issues due to sudden loss of employment, social disconnection, anxiety and fear.

Would reading these difficult texts prove to be a solace for our students, a timely example of the social role of literary storytelling, or a trauma all of its own?

What are difficult texts?

Great stories move and they challenge. They draw attention to diverse social and cultural issues and to the transformative potential of empathy. But they can also be difficult and there are a range of reasons why.

The challenge might be intellectual. Or the text confronting on a psychological or emotional level.

A lot of literature is perceived as perpetuating racist stereotypes. Until quite recently, a good deal of canonical literature excluded the perspectives of women. This is something Woolf has written extensively about and that we can see at work in Mrs Dalloway. Part of her novel’s radicalism is its transgressive (for its era) narrowness of scope: a day in the life of a woman.

And of course, there are themes in literary texts that are in themselves inherently challenging or traumatic: war, racial violence, and misogyny are staples in Shakespeare’s plays.

In identifying difficult literature, the goal posts shift: what was confronting to past generations may not remain true for current readers. So too, what was acceptable to readers of a certain era may no longer be acceptable in the 21st century.

Universities have seen an escalation of interest in content and trigger warnings. Viewpoints have run at both ends of the extreme. Content warnings are either coddling the minds of the “snowflake generation”; or one step away from censorship. Others consider warnings as essential in protecting students from psychological harm.

As literature scholar Michelle Smith notes, it seems widely accepted a lecturer should give a warning before showing a graphic visual scene. However, the argument trigger warnings should accompany written literature that represents difficult or challenging subject matter has been met with more scepticism and opposition.

This places a great deal of responsibility on teachers to decide where to draw the line.

Teachers face the ambitious balance of wanting to protect our students from representations that might be too difficult and trigger unwanted emotional responses, alongside a desire to expose students to complex representations, and histories — for instance of inequality, discrimination, racism and sexism.

Read more: If you can read this headline, you can read a novel. Here’s how to ignore your phone and just do it

We use the term “trauma texts” to explore how new literary subjects and voices have emerged in the 21st century. Trauma texts reveal literature’s potential for direct and active political and cultural engagement. When we take these texts into the classroom, we ask students to accept difficulty into their lives (if they can), and to witness complex lives and histories in nuanced, critically engaged ways.

Teaching in the time of COVID has re-energised these ongoing debates. For instance, there is an opportunity to recognise (with renewed vigour) how a reader’s individual experience shapes how they approach a particular literary text. We have developed new understandings of how literary texts operate in moments of great cultural or social upheaval.

Iso-lit reading during COVID

In our research and practice we have found many positive outcomes when we teach difficult texts in university English. Our students appreciate the texts we teach address recognisable real-world problems.

These books offer opportunities for readers to show empathy, witness injustice and reflect on the ethics of representation. They offer skills (critical reading and thinking, debate, negotiation) that are transferable to diverse work contexts. They come to understand the value of literature (broadly conceived), and the wide cultural and political influence it may have.

Research has shown reading difficult texts with students requires care, and an awareness of how to approach content and trigger warnings. As life narrative theorist Leigh Gilmore reminds us, when we bring trauma texts into the literary classroom, we should teach as if someone in the room has experienced trauma.

The classroom needs to be a safe space.

In teaching difficult texts, it is a reasonable expectation we provide information (in advance) to students regarding any difficult content. We need to open a dialogue between student and teacher and this needs to be maintained throughout the semester so we can offer ongoing support.

Read more: What my students taught me about reading: old books hold new insights for the digital generation

As well as empowering our students, this approach provides us with an opportunity to reflect, dynamically, on why we want to teach these texts.

In previous research we have argued that in English, we want to encourage students to confront new ideas and to be challenged by what they read. This is integral to the university experience. We are asking students to be generous readers who have the capacity to look inward and outward.

Now, more than ever we need tools to read and respond to human experiences of crisis and pain. Reading difficult literature is one way by which the eternal and ongoing responsibility of humanism can be fulfilled.

– ref. Reading during coronavirus: books can be triggering, but difficult texts teach us resilience, too – https://theconversation.com/reading-during-coronavirus-books-can-be-triggering-but-difficult-texts-teach-us-resilience-too-141114

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian A. Nygaard, Associate Professor in Social Economics, Swinburne University of Technology

What will be the normal way of urban living when the COVID-19 crisis passes? What aspects will remain with us and what will disappear?

The coronavirus pandemic has thrust us into a moment of rapid change. Like all change, it is difficult to predict. But lessons from history provide us with two important insights.

Read more: Cities will endure, but urban design must adapt to coronavirus risks and fears

First, temporary change sometimes has remarkably little lasting effect.

Second, what looks like a lasting effect is often the acceleration of existing trends, rather than new, crisis-caused trends.

COVID-19 impacts provide an opportunity for our cities to shift to new ways of urban living. But only if we couple this opportunity with technology and deliberate collective action will sustained and equitable change happen.

What does history tell us?

Right now, COVID-19 impacts are front of mind. In thinking ahead, we might therefore overemphasise what a crisis will do to how we live in cities. To put it simply, history shows us that the ways we organise our cities are often resistant to abrupt change – even in response to catastrophic events.

In Japan, changes to population distribution as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 had disappeared by the early 1960s.

Almost 40% of Europe’s population died during the Black Death (1347-1352). Much of Europe’s urban hierarchy nevertheless returned to its pre-plague distribution over time.

Even the collapse of the urbanised Roman civilisation had little lasting effect on the urban hierarchy in France. It did lead, though, to a resetting of the urban network in England.

The reason for this urban inertia is that momentary change often does little to change the fundamentals of our cities. It doesn’t greatly change locational advantages, built environment legacy, property rights and land ownership.

London, for instance, has experienced slum clearance, Spanish flu, wartime bombing and the introduction of greenbelts and planning over the past 100 years. However, the location of the city’s rich and poor continues to be shaped by infrastructure investments in the Victorian era. And the Roman-period road layout has strongly influenced the street layout of central London today.

At the same time, cities do of course change. In some cases dramatic events – like fires or earthquakes – are the enablers of change that is already underfoot. That is, business and policy coupling opportunity with technology and determination.

Read more: Why Hurricanes Harvey and Irma won’t lead to action on climate change

How are business practices responding to COVID-19

Businesses will not – and should not – be slow to couple opportunity, technology and determination to achieve particular outcomes.

For instance, working from home has overnight (temporarily) become endemic. Higher education institutions (temporarily setting aside the challenges for teaching) switched remarkably quickly to almost exclusively online platforms.

COVID-safe shopping has popularised some automation. Demand for “contactless” service delivery has advanced some smart and robot technology into common use.

Some have argued that well before COVID-19 the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI) and online platforms had catapulted us into the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It’s a world of work and cities that are digitally smart, dispersed and connected.

Read more: We’re at a fork in the road: do we choose neighbourhoods to live, work and play in?

Working from home, online teaching and automation couple opportunity (as a result of COVID-19) and technology (digital communication) with longer-term trends.

Between 2001 and today, the office space per worker in many knowledge-intensive jobs shrank from 25 square metres to just 8sqm in new developments. Flexible working arrangements and casualisation across a range of sectors enable businesses to manage wage bills when wage rates cannot be reduced.

Automation also reduces business wage bills and has long been touted as a way to increase productivity. According to a 2019 McKinsey report, automation may affect 25-46% of current jobs.

The “death of the office” has long been predicted. Rumours of its death are likely exaggerated this time too.

Face-to-face interaction between workers often increases productivity in service and knowledge-based industries. Research shows face-to-face contact enhances co-operative and pro-social behaviour.

Read more: The death of the open-plan office? Not quite, but a revolution is in the air

Similarly, research suggests concentrating workers and their skills in one location (agglomeration economies) can increase much-needed labour productivity. This is required to offset the shifting labour-force balance in an ageing society.

What’s the role of public policy?

Our cities today work better for some than for others. Sustained and equitable change requires public sector action and will.

Temporary measures during the pandemic have brought home just how viable telecommuting is for some jobs and how achievable online teaching modes can be.

This will leave winners and losers. Unlike change itself, the winners and losers are often far more predictable. Women, renters, lower-income and migrant-dominated jobs are more vulnerable.

Read more: Low-paid, young women: the grim truth about who this recession is hitting hardest

What is imperative, therefore, is that governments similarly couple technology and opportunity with a vision for cities that are environmentally sustainable and socially just. This sort of urban future requires economic innovation. Change is confronting us with an opportunity and necessity to redress entrenched privilege.

History tells us critical events such as COVID-19 often do little to change the fundamentals of our cities. An important step in envisioning different urban futures is to recognise it is people, businesses, institutions and political will that collectively make change.

– ref. Why COVID-19 might not change our cities as much as we expect – https://theconversation.com/why-covid-19-might-not-change-our-cities-as-much-as-we-expect-142159

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Breunig, Professor of Economics and Director, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

We’re told Australia has a progressive tax system – the more you earn, the higher the rate.

And that’s certainly the case for earnings from wages. An Australian on A$35,000 sacrifices 21 cents out of each extra dollar they earn whereas an Australian on $90,000 sacrifices 39 cents.

That’s how it’s meant to be for income from savings, but in practice it isn’t.

Fresh calculations released this morning by the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Australian National University show that low income Australians in the bottom tax bracket pay a higher marginal rate of tax on income from savings than high earners in the top tax bracket.

It is because of exemptions and special rates, and the alacrity with which high earners take advantage of them.

Super gives the most to the highest earners

The taxation of superannuation drives the results.

Super contributions are generally taxed at a flat rate of 15%. For low earners on an income tax rate of zero, 15% would constitute a considerable extra impost did the government not refund the difference with a tax offset that cuts the effective rate to zero.

High earners on the 47% marginal rate do much better. The tax rate of 15% offers substantial tax relief. For them, it is an effective rate of minus 32%.

Other tax concessions are directed at older Australians, who are often on higher incomes than younger Australians.

Highest bracket, lowest rate

Our calculation of the marginal effective annual tax rates actually paid on income from savings is published in a report entitled the taxation of savings in Australia: theory, current practice and future policy directions.

It shows that the marginal tax rate high earners pay on additional savings held over a twenty year period is 5.3% of income, on average, whereas for low earners in the bottom (zero) tax bracket it’s 12.2%.

Low earners in the second lowest tax bracket are paying 13.8%.

Marginal effective tax rates actually paid on income from savings, by bracket

The way forward: a dual income tax system

Our report proposes taxing all types of saving at the same flat low rate.

This dual income tax system (a progressive rate for wages and salaries, a flat rate for income from savings) has been used in Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark since the early 1990s. Elements of it are used in Austria, Belgium, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands.

If the rate were 10%

• all interest payments would be taxed at 10%

• all dividends, both domestic and foreign, would be taxed at a rate of 10%

• all capital gains (including owner-occupied housing) would be taxed at 10%

• superannuation contributions would be made from after-tax income and then earnings in the accounts taxed at 10%

• rent and capital gains on investment properties would be taxed at 10%

• the imputed rent from owner-occupied housing (the benefit home owners get from not having to pay rent that is taxed) would be calcuated and taxed at a rate of 10%. An alternative would be to raise the same amount through a broad-based land tax.

Read more: Housing and tax: why is reform so hard?

Our calculations suggest that if the tax were applied broadly at a rate of 6.2%, it would raise as much as is raised now from taxes on income from savings. If income from owner-occupied housing were excluded, the rate would need to be 10.2%.

But there is no particular reason for the rate to be set to generate as much from savings income as it does now. It could be set to raise more, or to raise less.

The design and implementation of a dual income tax should be considered alongside broader changes to the tax and transfer system. In particular, it should be combined with removing opportunities to re-classify income for tax minimisation purposes. We outline some of the considerations in our report.

Read more: Tax-free super is intergenerational theft

In the meantime, as steps towards a flatter fairer system of taxing income from savings, the government could consider better targeting superannuation subsidies, replacing real estate stamp duty with land tax and including the family home in the means tests for pensions and other age-related benefits.

Our current approach to taxing income from savings is a mess at best and a serious driver of intergenerational inequality at worst. Some savings tax arrangements are progressive, taxing higher incomes more heavily, and some are regressive.

We want to encourage and reward savings. But we also need to remove the crazy incentives that impel ordinary Australians to take part in distorting and costly tax planning schemes.

Our report outlines a way forward, and steps to get there.

– ref. Progressive in theory, regressive in practice: that’s how we tax income from savings – https://theconversation.com/progressive-in-theory-regressive-in-practice-thats-how-we-tax-income-from-savings-142823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael O’Neil, Executive Director, SA Centre for Economic Studies, University of Adelaide

The government is about to make an historic decision.

The JobSeeker unemployment benefit (previously called Newstart) has scarcely increased in real terms since 1994.

In that time general living standards, as measured by real gross domestic product per capita, have almost doubled, climbing 83%.

Other benefits such as the age pension have broadly kept pace with living standards. They climb in line with wages rather than the slower-growing consumer price index.

In dollar terms the single rate is now just A$565.70 per fortnight, close to the poverty line and well below the $860.60 paid to single pensioners. Back in the early 1990s it was close to the pension.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said in 2010 Newstart had fallen so low as to call into question its effectiveness in “enabling someone to look for a suitable job”.

In March, as the scale of the looming job losses from coronavirus and the responses to it became clear, the government effectively doubled JobSeeker, boosting the $565.70 single payment and other lower payments by a $550 per fortnight coronavirus supplement in an acknowledgement that unemployed people “need to meet the costs of their groceries and other bills”.

The increase took effect from April 27, but was temporary, for six months after it received royal assent, meaning it is due to expire in late September.

Read more: What’ll happen when the money’s snatched back? Our looming coronavirus support cliff

The economic statement due on Thursday will provide an opportunity for the government to cushion the blow by either extending the life of supplement or permanently lifting JobSeeker.

It’ll also provide an opportunity for it to say no, allowing JobSeeker to collapse back to where it was.

An increase suggested to the recent Senate inquiry by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies was $80 to $120 per week, enough to restore it to where it was relation to other benefits in the early 1990s.

Some Senators wedded to low JobSeeker

But the government will need to get over its seemingly ideological premise that the unemployed are in some way responsible for their own misfortune and are usually undeserving of the support needed to meet living costs.

This sentiment on display in the dissenting report by Coalition members of the Labor and Greens dominated inquiry which recommended JobSeeker be increased.

In explaining their position in April, after the the government had temporally doubled JobSeeker, Coalition Senators Wendy Askew and Hollie Hughes, argued that a permanent increase could carry with it “disincentive effects in respect of engagement with the workforce”.

Read more: When the Coronavirus Supplement stops, JobSeeker needs to increase by $185 a week

Put plainly, they were concerned that if JobSeeker was boosted to a reasonable level (as it has been, temporarily) people mightn’t want to work.

Yet the transcript of evidence given by treasury officials at the inquiry reveals the department has never been asked to examine that question.

Asked whether the treasury had ever done any modelling of an increase in the payment now known as JobSeeker, deputy secretary Jenny Wilkinson relied “no”. Asked again: “You’ve never done that?” she replied “no”.

Others have done the analysis.

The compromise that might just stick

Deloitte Access Economics believes an increase would boost the size of the economy and boost the number of people employed by 12,000.

A compromise that might be acceptable to members of the Coalition who oppose lifting JobSeeker but support “job-ready” training programs, might be an increase in the JobSeeker allowance of, say, $80 per week, split into two.

Half of the increase would be a cash increase without conditions, the other half would be provided for accredited training.

With conditions in place to ensure participation in bona fide training, the increase could drive the skills development both employers and the unemployed want.

Read more: The government is making ‘job-ready’ degrees cheaper for students – but cutting funding to the same courses

The training that would emerge would be market-driven, responding to the post-COVID-19 needs of employers and potential employees.

The Productivity Commission has implicitly endorsed such an approach, reporting in May that there was “a manifest capacity to better allocate the $6.1 billion in government spending on vocational education and training to improve outcomes”.

JobSeeker could help, both supporting Australians who are out of work and supporting them to get back into work.

– ref. The compromise that might just boost the JobSeeker unemployment benefit – https://theconversation.com/the-compromise-that-might-just-boost-the-jobseeker-unemployment-benefit-142321

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Henderson, PhD Candidate in Literary Studies and Creative Writing, University of Canberra

Early ventures in queer young adult (YA) fiction followed certain conventions: they tended to be set in the contemporary world and their narratives focused on coming out, bullying, heartbreak or fighting for acceptance. Most unfortunately, these stories also have a long history of ending in tragedy.

There is absolutely a place for stories that address the often harsh reality of being queer in a heteronormative world. However, this history has left many adolescents (and adults!) under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella calling out for stories that break this mould.

Over the last decade, there has not only been an increase in the number of queer YA books being published (including by major publishing houses), but also a welcome and notable shift in the kinds of stories these books tell. Now, we have not just contemporary realism, but sci-fi and fantasy. Not just tales of unrequited love, but sappy romantic comedies.

Not just narratives about hardship — but narratives about hope.

Queer representation in fiction can provide education, validation and affirmation to young people and help normalise queerness — for teenagers exploring their identities, but also for readers of all ages and orientations who want to experience different perspectives or learn to be better allies.

But these hopeful queer stories are also important precisely because they are fun. Sometimes you want the catharsis of reading about a gay teenager coming out. Sometimes you want the escapism of reading about a gay teenager saving the universe, going through a magic portal or having a big mushy rom-com moment.

As well as providing entertainment, these books are giving queer teenagers stories that promise a life outside of sadness and hardship.

Want to know more? Here are five recent queer YA novels to get you started.

Babs is invisible most of the time, so she’s thrilled her classmate Iris can see her. Iris grew from a seed in their parents’ back garden and routinely hangs out with fairies and dryads, so magic is part of ordinary life as far as they’re concerned.

This is a witchy and whimsical story about the power of friendship and self-love. The novel’s magical setting provides a safe, hopeful and happy world for its trans characters, as well as a deeply dreamy reading experience.

Nasir “Nax” Hall is going to be a hot-shot space pilot … at least, that was the plan, but he’s just failed his entrance exam. When a mysterious faction attacks the academy, Nax and a group of other intergalactic wash-ups become the only ones who can save the known universe.

The Disasters is pure fun, throwing you into a high-stakes outer-space adventure at warp speed.

The rag-tag crew of diverse teenagers have a rocky beginning but develop a fire-forged bond across the novel. It’s a delightful read.

Plus-sized, pink-haired and gay, Abby figures she’s “the funny friend” in someone else’s love story and will never be the star of her own. That is, until she starts her summer internship at a vintage fashion store and meets the artsy and enigmatic Jordi Perez.

This has everything you could want from a summer romance: it’s sweet as ice cream, with equal scoops of bright and breezy comedy and heartfelt drama.

Though there are ups and downs, Abby gets her happily ever after.

Jess is the daughter of superheroes. Naturally, the best way she could rebel is to take a part-time job with the local supervillains.

Lee embraces all the secret identity shenanigans and zap-pow action scenes you could want from a superhero story, but starring a cast of queer teenagers.

This book plays with the tropes lovingly and cleverly, and is the first in a very fun series.

Felix arrives at school one day to find the lobby full of photographs of him before he transitioned.

Determined to get revenge on the anonymous “artist”, he creates a fake online personality to get dirty secrets out of his classmates … and soon finds himself embroiled in Instagram subterfuge and in the middle of a strange digital love triangle.

Callender explores some harrowing issues but I include their book on this list because it addresses harsh realities and still comes out the other side as a story about hope.

Felix Ever After speaks to the past and future of queer YA: it doesn’t shy away from the struggles queer teens can face while also offering a picture-perfect happy ending.

– ref. Queer young adult fiction isn’t all gloomy realism. Here are 5 uplifting books to get you started – https://theconversation.com/queer-young-adult-fiction-isnt-all-gloomy-realism-here-are-5-uplifting-books-to-get-you-started-141125

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

The government is set to continue a revamped and re-targeted wage subsidy when it delivers its Thursday economic statement amid massive uncertainty about the trajectory of COVID-19 in the two largest states.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann on Sunday said JobKeeper would be extended but with changes.

“There will be some adjustments to the scheme to make sure it is appropriate for the next phase,” he said.

Thursday’s statement is being framed when it is unclear whether Victoria, under a new shutdown, will get on top of its second wave – Sunday’s tally was 363 cases for the previous 24 hours and three deaths – and things are at a tipping point in NSW, with 18 new cases.

Mask-wearing in public will be compulsory from midnight Wednesday in Melbourne and in the Mitchell Shire.

The NSW government announced late Sunday there will be further restrictions on entering NSW from Victoria. There will be a strict new border zone, tightened permit conditions and stronger enforcement powers.

The doubt about where the COVID-19 situation will go from here makes projecting the economic numbers extremely difficult.

Cormann told Sky businesses particularly severely hit by the crisis would need an extra period of support so they could hang onto their workers.

Towards the end of September – when the JobKeeper program was due to finish – it would be important to reassess which businesses should still be receiving the support, he said.

“In the first six months, irrespective of what happened to your turnover after you initially qualified, you were in.

“But as we go into this new period, there is a need to reassess whether that support is still needed for specific businesses.”

The government is trying to set a determinedly upbeat tone. “The situation now is better than what we feared would be the case now,” Cormann said.

He said the aid would not be specifically targeted to Victoria, but given the circumstances more businesses there would qualify.

The government is also dealing with the future of JobSeeker which was effectively doubled for the pandemic. It is expected to be lowered but not to the old level.

Cormann said: “The current enhanced JobSeeker arrangements come to an end at the end of September. We will, the same as with JobKeeper, in a responsible fashion, seek to phase this back into a more situation as normal.”

Scott Morrison announced at the weekend the parliamentary sitting fortnight that was due to start on August 4 will be cancelled.

He said Acting Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly had advised there would be significant risk in having parliament sit then, given increased community transmission in Victoria and the trends in NSW. Kelly had advised the risks were “unlikely to be resolved in the next month,” Morrison said.

Morrison quoted Kelly as saying, “The entry of a high-risk group of individuals could jeopardise the health situation in the ACT and place residents at unnecessary risk of infection. In addition, the health risk to members and senators and their staff from other jurisdictions is a material concern.”

The next parliamentary sitting is now scheduled for Augusts 24.

Labor’s finance spokeswoman Katy Gallagher said parliament couldn’t continue to be cancelled every time there was an outbreak.

She said in light of businesses adapting, “it is going to require parliament to do the same thing”.

Meanwhile the Senate committee examining the government’s COVID responses, which she chairs, will convene extra hearings.

– ref. Government to announce revamped wage subsidy amid huge COVID uncertainty – https://theconversation.com/government-to-announce-revamped-wage-subsidy-amid-huge-covid-uncertainty-142969

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Burke, Senior Lecturer, University of Technology Sydney

Lorna Jane recently launched an “antiviral” line of its activewear, called “LJ Shield”, generating significant backlash from medical professionals.

The popular activewear brand has now pedalled back and removed any mention of LJ Shield being antiviral from its marketing. But it still claims the product is “antibacterial”.

Labelling it antibacterial may have marginally more merit than the antiviral claims, but either way, the evidence antibacterial fabric could stop you from getting sick is pretty slim.

Read more: What is a virus? How do they spread? How do they make us sick?

How does the product ‘work’?

LJ Shield is said to be sprayed onto the fabric as a lightweight mist, and then permanently adheres to the surface of the product, acting as a shield of protection.

This coating they describe is marketed by a company called Fuze Biotech, whose website says it can reduce the growth of bacteria on fabric and surfaces by more than 99%.

There’s not a lot of detail given on how this technology works, except that it’s based on nanoparticles that can break open and kill bacterial cells. Fuze has some data on their website showing their coating can prevent bacterial growth.

A range of approaches used to coat fabrics with chemicals or metal nano-particles like silver have demonstrated antimicrobial activity in laboratory tests. But antibacterial activity in a controlled laboratory environment doesn’t always translate to antibacterial activity on our bodies.

Read more: Silver makes beautiful bling but it’s also good for keeping the bacterial bugs away

Whether it makes a difference to the likelihood of disease transmission is the important question here — and the answer, in all likelihood, is no.

One study showed bacteria from sweat can multiply on synthetic materials (although the researchers incubated the material in almost 100% humidity which is not very close to real-world conditions). Sweat and skin bacteria are a normal part of our biology and are unlikely to cause an infection anyway.

In health-care settings like hospitals, pathogenic bacteria can survive on fabrics for many days, with synthetic fabrics and humid conditions favouring their growth. But it’s not clear how much of a risk transmission via fabric is versus other modes of transmission, such as via a person’s hands.

As for whether antimicrobial materials can offer protection in this context, one randomised trial found these were not effective at reducing the numbers of bacteria on hospital scrubs.

So even in a health-care environment where the risk of infection is higher than in the community, the effectiveness of antimicrobial materials for reducing transmission remains to be confirmed.

What about viruses?

Viruses generally survive on fabric for shorter times than bacteria, with a SARS coronavirus isolate from the 2003 coronavirus outbreak found to survive less than 24 hours on cotton.

So it’s possible that if a pathogenic bacteria or virus landed on your clothes, it could survive there for one or more days. Whether that would result in an infection would depend on a number of other factors, like the infectious dose (the number of cells or viral particles needed to cause an infection) and the route of transmission (how it enters your body).

Read more: Why is it so hard to stop COVID-19 misinformation spreading on social media?

While the ability to survive on fabrics may lead to disease transmission in a hospital setting, you’re far more likely to contract a respiratory infection like COVID-19 by breathing in contaminated droplets or touching a contaminated surface.

So even if this technology was proven to prevent bacteria or viruses from growing on your clothes, it isn’t likely to have much impact on your risk of getting sick.

There’s no evidence it will work against viruses

According to a Lorna Jane spokesperson:

Our testing shows that LJ Shield is an important part of stopping the spread of both bacteria and viral infections and should be used in combination with other precautionary measures such as face masks and thorough and frequent hand washing.

So, despite removing the word “antiviral” from promotional materials, it seems Lorna Jane is still claiming this product could help prevent the spread of viral infections.

Read more: ‘Deeply worrying’: 92% of Australians don’t know the difference between viral and bacterial infections

Even if the LJ Shield fabric is antibacterial, there’s no evidence to suggest this product affects the survival of viruses, including the one that causes COVID-19. Viruses are not the same kind of organisms as bacteria, which is why antibiotics (which kill bacteria) don’t work for viral infections.

Many antimicrobial products exist on the market. The important question for me isn’t so much whether they can kill microorganisms, but whether using those products actually reduces your risk of getting sick. In many cases, the answer is no.

Lorna Jane’s LJ Shield technology is no different. Promoting this clothing as antiviral was reckless. In the age of COVID-19, it might give people a false sense of security, leading them to believe they don’t need to practise social distancing, use face masks or wash their hands. These proven methods of limiting the spread of infectious disease are far more important.

– ref. Antibacterial activewear? The claim is just as absurd as it sounds – https://theconversation.com/antibacterial-activewear-the-claim-is-just-as-absurd-as-it-sounds-142828

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Burke, Senior Lecturer, University of Technology Sydney

Lorna Jane recently launched an “antiviral” line of its activewear, called “LJ Shield”, generating significant backlash from medical professionals.

The popular activewear brand has now pedalled back and removed any mention of LJ Shield being antiviral from its marketing. But it still claims the product is “antibacterial”.

Labelling it antibacterial may have marginally more merit than the antiviral claims, but either way, the evidence antibacterial fabric could stop you from getting sick is pretty slim.

Read more: What is a virus? How do they spread? How do they make us sick?

How does the product ‘work’?

LJ Shield is said to be sprayed onto the fabric as a lightweight mist, and then permanently adheres to the surface of the product, acting as a shield of protection.

This coating they describe is marketed by a company called Fuze Biotech, whose website says it can reduce the growth of bacteria on fabric and surfaces by more than 99%.

There’s not a lot of detail given on how this technology works, except that it’s based on nanoparticles that can break open and kill bacterial cells. Fuze has some data on their website showing their coating can prevent bacterial growth.

A range of approaches used to coat fabrics with chemicals or metal nano-particles like silver have demonstrated antimicrobial activity in laboratory tests. But antibacterial activity in a controlled laboratory environment doesn’t always translate to antibacterial activity on our bodies.

Read more: Silver makes beautiful bling but it’s also good for keeping the bacterial bugs away

Whether it makes a difference to the likelihood of disease transmission is the important question here — and the answer, in all likelihood, is no.

One study showed bacteria from sweat can multiply on synthetic materials (although the researchers incubated the material in almost 100% humidity which is not very close to real-world conditions). Sweat and skin bacteria are a normal part of our biology and are unlikely to cause an infection anyway.

In health-care settings like hospitals, pathogenic bacteria can survive on fabrics for many days, with synthetic fabrics and humid conditions favouring their growth. But it’s not clear how much of a risk transmission via fabric is versus other modes of transmission, such as via a person’s hands.

As for whether antimicrobial materials can offer protection in this context, one randomised trial found these were not effective at reducing the numbers of bacteria on hospital scrubs.

So even in a health-care environment where the risk of infection is higher than in the community, the effectiveness of antimicrobial materials for reducing transmission remains to be confirmed.

What about viruses?

Viruses generally survive on fabric for shorter times than bacteria, with a SARS coronavirus isolate from the 2003 coronavirus outbreak found to survive less than 24 hours on cotton.

So it’s possible that if a pathogenic bacteria or virus landed on your clothes, it could survive there for one or more days. Whether that would result in an infection would depend on a number of other factors, like the infectious dose (the number of cells or viral particles needed to cause an infection) and the route of transmission (how it enters your body).

Read more: Why is it so hard to stop COVID-19 misinformation spreading on social media?

While the ability to survive on fabrics may lead to disease transmission in a hospital setting, you’re far more likely to contract a respiratory infection like COVID-19 by breathing in contaminated droplets or touching a contaminated surface.

So even if this technology was proven to prevent bacteria or viruses from growing on your clothes, it isn’t likely to have much impact on your risk of getting sick.

There’s no evidence it will work against viruses

According to a Lorna Jane spokesperson:

Our testing shows that LJ Shield is an important part of stopping the spread of both bacteria and viral infections and should be used in combination with other precautionary measures such as face masks and thorough and frequent hand washing.

So, despite removing the word “antiviral” from promotional materials, it seems Lorna Jane is still claiming this product could help prevent the spread of viral infections.

Read more: ‘Deeply worrying’: 92% of Australians don’t know the difference between viral and bacterial infections

Even if the LJ Shield fabric is antibacterial, there’s no evidence to suggest this product affects the survival of viruses, including the one that causes COVID-19. Viruses are not the same kind of organisms as bacteria, which is why antibiotics (which kill bacteria) don’t work for viral infections.

Many antimicrobial products exist on the market. The important question for me isn’t so much whether they can kill microorganisms, but whether using those products actually reduces your risk of getting sick. In many cases, the answer is no.

Lorna Jane’s LJ Shield technology is no different. Promoting this clothing as antiviral was reckless. In the age of COVID-19, it might give people a false sense of security, leading them to believe they don’t need to practise social distancing, use face masks or wash their hands. These proven methods of limiting the spread of infectious disease are far more important.

– ref. Anti-bacterial activewear? The claim is just as absurd as it sounds – https://theconversation.com/anti-bacterial-activewear-the-claim-is-just-as-absurd-as-it-sounds-142828

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Director, Health Program, Grattan Institute

Just weeks after allowing public hospitals to restart elective surgeries, the Victorian government has ordered Melbourne hospitals to defer category 3 procedures again.

Category 3 procedures include hip and knee replacements and cataract procedures. Category 3 patients are the easiest to defer because they have been assessed as not requiring treatment within three months.

Elective surgery will also be reduced to no more than 50% of usual activity across all public hospitals and 75% in private hospitals.

Whether further reductions in planned surgery will be necessary — such as limiting category 2 patients — will depend on the trajectory of the pandemic, and the extent of competing demands from other emergency patients.

Read more: The coronavirus ban on elective surgeries might show us many people can avoid going under the knife

Deferring planned procedures is not an easy decision

Although some surgery is of limited value to the patient, and some problems would be better treated in other ways, in most cases the surgery is necessary to reduce pain and enable people to go about their day-to-day lives.

But as Victoria’s second wave reaches concerning heights, the Victorian government has to make difficult decisions.

Hospital beds, including intensive care beds, are used both for planned procedures and for emergency treatment — and that includes patients infected with COVID-19.

As the number of people infected in Victoria has increased, so too has the demand for beds. To avoid a situation in which people need to be turned away by hospitals or denied effective treatment, the proper course for government is to order hospitals to reschedule lower-priority planned procedures.

Read more: 7 lessons for Australia’s health system from the coronavirus upheaval

It’s a staffing issue too

The pressure on the system is exacerbated when the number of available hospital staff falls. We’re currently seeing high numbers of COVID-19 cases among health workers, meaning they — and any fellow staff they’ve been in contact with — are having to stay home to avoid infecting others.

Victoria has mandated minimum staffing ratios so when the number of available hospital staff falls, the supply of staffed beds also falls. This double whammy of increased demand and reduced supply makes it even more important for the government to make this choice.

Read more: Rising coronavirus cases among Victorian health workers could threaten our pandemic response

This new deferral will be hard for patients whose procedures were deferred during the first wave of the pandemic. Some will have just been given a new date for their deferred surgery, but now face a further wait.

Unfortunately, there’s no way of knowing how long the deferral will be. Today has seen 428 new cases recorded in Victoria, and it’s still too early in the second lockdown to assess whether we’ve been able to bring the virus under control again.

– ref. Victoria’s latest elective surgery slowdown is painful but necessary – https://theconversation.com/victorias-latest-elective-surgery-slowdown-is-painful-but-necessary-142896

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Smith, Associate Professor in Disaster and Emergency Response, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University

Led by physicians, scientists and epidemiologists, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is one of the most reliable sources of knowledge during disease outbreaks. But now, with the world in desperate need of authoritative information, one of the foremost agencies for fighting infectious disease has gone conspicuously silent.

For the first time since 1946, when the CDC came to life in a cramped Atlanta office to fight malaria, the agency is not at the front line of a public health emergency.

Read more: Americans still trust doctors and scientists during a public health crisis

On April 22, CDC director Robert Redfield stood at the White House briefing room lectern and conceded that the coronavirus pandemic had “overwhelmed” the United States. Following Redfield at the podium, President Donald Trump said the CDC director had been “totally misquoted” in his warning that COVID-19 would continue to pose serious difficulties as the US moved into its winter ‘flu season in late 2020.

Invited to clarify, Redfield confirmed he had been quoted correctly in giving his opinion that there were potentially “difficult and complicated” times ahead.

Trump tried a different tack. “You may not even have corona coming back,” the president said, once again contradicting the career virologist. “Just so you understand.”

The exchange was interpreted by some pundits as confirmation that the CDC’s venerated expertise had been sidelined as the coronavirus continued to ravage the US.

In the latest development, the New York Times reported this week the CDC has even been bypassed in its data collection, with the Trump administration ordering hospitals to send COVID-19 data directly to the White House.

Diminished role

When facing previous public health emergencies the CDC was a hive of activity, holding regular press briefings and developing guidance that was followed by governments around the world. But during the greatest public health emergency in a century, it appears the CDC has been almost entirely erased by the White House as the public face of the COVID-19 pandemic response.

This diminished role is obvious to former leaders of the CDC, who say their scientific advice has never before been politicised to this extent.

As the COVID-19 crisis was unfolding, several CDC officials issued warnings, only to promptly disappear from public view. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, predicted on February 25 that the virus was not contained and would grow into a pandemic.

The stock market plunged and Messonnier was removed from future White House press briefings. Between March 9 and June 12 there was no CDC presence at White House press briefings on COVID-19.

The CDC has erred during the pandemic, most significantly in its initial efforts to develop a test for COVID-19. The testing kits proved to be faulty – a problem compounded by sluggish efforts to rectify the situation – and then by severe delays in distributing enough tests to the public.

But many public health specialists are nevertheless baffled by the CDC’s low profile as the pandemic continues to sweep the globe.

“They have been sidelined,” said Howard Koh, former US assistant secretary for health. “We need their scientific leadership right now.”

What does it mean for the world?

The CDC being bypassed in the collection of COVID-19 data is another body blow to the agency’s standing.

Hospitals have instead been ordered to send all COVID-19 patient information to a central database in Washington DC.

This will have a range of likely knock-on effects. For starters, the new database will not be available to the public, prompting inevitable questions over the accuracy and transparency of data which will now be interpreted and shared by the White House.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which issued the new order, says the change will help the White House’s coronavirus task force allocate resources. But epidemiologists and public health experts around the world fear the new system will make it harder for people outside the White House to track the pandemic or access information.

Read more: Even during the coronavirus pandemic, the role of public health workers is unrecognized

This affects all nations, because one of the CDC’s roles is to provide sound, independent public health guidance on issues such as infectious diseases, healthy living, travel health, emergency and disaster preparedness, and drug efficacy. Other jurisdictions can then adapt this information to their local context — expertise that has become even more essential during a pandemic, when uncertainty is the norm.

It is difficult to recall a previous public health emergency when political pressure led to a change in the interpretation of scientific evidence.

What happens next?

Despite the inevitable challenges that come with tackling a pandemic in real time, the CDC remains the best-positioned agency – not just in the US but the entire world – to help us manage this crisis as safely as possible.

In the absence of US leadership, nations should start thinking about developing their own national centres for disease control. In Australia’s case, these discussions have been ongoing since the 1990s, stymied by cost and lack of political will.

COVID-19, and the current sidelining of the CDC, may be the impetus needed to finally dust off those plans and make them a reality.

– ref. US coronavirus data will now go straight to the White House. Here’s what this means for the world – https://theconversation.com/us-coronavirus-data-will-now-go-straight-to-the-white-house-heres-what-this-means-for-the-world-142814

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abby Wild, Research fellow, BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University

As COVID-19 cases began spreading across many multicultural communities in Melbourne last last month, Victoria’s chief health officer said it was essential for the government to properly engage with linguistically diverse communities.

From a behavioural science perspective, we know working in partnership with a target audience helps to understand what drives their behaviours and how best to communicate health messages that people respond to.

To find out how the government could better communicate with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities, we embarked on a research project to ask them.

The leaders we spoke with were from the Chinese Community Council of Australia, Islamic Council of Victoria, Asian Australian Alliance, Faith Communities Council Victoria, Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria, Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia and multicultural community leaders from Monash health.

Read more: Multilingual Australia is missing out on vital COVID-19 information. No wonder local councils and businesses are stepping in

1. Involve communities in developing strategies

During last summer’s bushfires, Australia’s Islamic community mobilised to support the relief efforts, delivering truckloads of supplies to victims and cooking breakfasts for firefighters. These efforts allowed other multicultural communities to understand the severity of the crisis and also contribute.

This kind of cooperation is now being seen in the coronavirus pandemic, too. Members of various multicultural groups are working together to educate their communities about the pandemic and how they can help control the spread.

This empowers communities to be part of the solution by developing strategies together and leaning from one another. As one leader from the Islamic Council of Victoria told us,

We said to the government: use our leaders and volunteers. [COVID-19] testing is a perfect example. If you are from a CALD community and you have someone coming to your door saying ‘we want to test you’ … if that person is someone from their own community of faith, does the traditional greetings in whatever language, you already have one foot in.

Read more: Melbourne tower lockdowns unfairly target already vulnerable public housing residents

2. Tailor messages to community values

Understanding the importance of cultural context and values, and tailoring messages to align with those values, is also important when communicating with multicultural communities.

Richmond AFL player Bachar Houli, a devout Muslim and community leader, provided a powerful example of this when he shared on social media that his mother has been admitted to the ICU with COVID-19.

Houli tailored his message to the values of the Muslim community, emphasising the sanctity of life and importance of close, physical connection and family.

The Islamic Council of Victoria leader explained to us,

One of the key things for the Muslim community is the sanctity of life. Life is most precious thing; whoever it is, whatever their faith, life is precious and we must do whatever we can to protect it.

3. Use trusted messengers

Health information also needs to be delivered by trusted messengers who are acceptable and accessible to the target community.

For example, multicultural community leaders and health workers have been reaching out to their communities directly to help them access services. One such leader told us,

Community [members] believe if they go to the hospital, they will not come back because that’s what they heard from overseas … I call this mother and daughter every hour, until they go and get tested, get treatment, and now they are doing very well.

Religious leaders also have an important role to play when it comes to modelling desired behaviours. Some have done so by shifting religious ceremonies online to encourage people to stay at home.

Multicultural leaders also pointed to the importance of gender sensitivity when it comes to face-to-face interactions in some communities. An Asian Australian Alliance leader told us,

Women from South Asian communities, especially Muslim women, may not feel comfortable speaking with a man who comes to the door. As the Muslim Women’s Association has been saying: if you want to talk to them, it should be a woman.

4. Use channels that your audience can access

Each communication channel must be chosen with the individual community in mind. For example, the Chinese community engages with messages sent via WeChat. Other communities might engage better with Facebook videos or phone conversations with respected community leaders.

The Islamic Council Victoria leader told us,

One of the things that we are doing … on a weekly basis is being proactive [and] getting the chief medical officer or one of his deputies to address the community and have a Q&A session using Zoom … this has been an ongoing thing to get the message out to the wider community and anyone is able to come and participate.

These outreach strategies must not only include translating health information into many languages, but also using different communication methods, for example, having community leaders record messages to send to members of the community.

As a Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia leader explained,

The [written] translations are probably reaching 80% of the community and that 80% probably also speaks English. It’s the 20% we are trying to reach who are disconnected from SBS, social media, etc., but do listen to their community leaders.

Read more: We could have more coronavirus outbreaks in tower blocks. Here’s how lockdown should work

5. Establish a national peak body for multicultural health issues

The COVID-19 pandemic has created links across multicultural communities that have previously been unconnected. It has provided an opportunity to unite around a shared interest in community health and well-being, and to amplify community voices by coming together.

As one multicultural council leader told us,

there is a tendency for CALD communities to work within their own language or cultural group, Indians with Indians, Chinese with Chinese and so on … but during COVID, we are seeing some of these groups starting to talk to each other, and join together.

What’s lacking is a national platform to represent and support cooperative partnerships and working relationships across multicultural communities.

The creation of such a body would allow multicultural leaders to come together to share what they’ve learned and advise the national cabinet on health issues related to their communities.

If the government continues to partner with multicultural communities and adopts some of these strategies, it will certainly help ensure health-related messages are not lost in translation.

– ref. We asked multicultural communities how best to communicate COVID-19 advice. Here’s what they told us – https://theconversation.com/we-asked-multicultural-communities-how-best-to-communicate-covid-19-advice-heres-what-they-told-us-142719

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

University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor and President Professor Paddy Nixon is joined by Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics including community transmission in Victoria and New South Wales, the prime minister’s suppression tactic to fight the virus, the release of 1,200 pages of correspondence between the royal palace and former governor-general Sir John Kerr, the government JobTrainer program, and next Thursday’s economic statement.

– ref. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the palace letters, community transmission, and the JobTrainer program – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-the-palace-letters-community-transmission-and-the-jobtrainer-program-142905

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shaun Brooks, University Associate, University of Tasmania

Australia wants to build a 2.7-kilometre concrete runway in Antarctica, the world’s biggest natural reserve. The plan, if approved, would have the largest footprint of any project in the continent’s history.

The runway is part of an aerodrome to be constructed near Davis Station, one of Australia’s three permanent bases in Antarctica. It would be the first concrete runway on the continent.

The plan is subject to federal environmental approval. It coincides with new research published this week showing Antarctica’s wild places need better protection. Human activity across Antarctica has been extensive in the past 200 years – particularly in the coastal, ice-free areas where most biodiversity is found.

The area around Davis Station is possibly Antarctica’s most significant coastal, ice-free area. It features unique lakes, fjords, fossil sites and wildlife.

Australia has successfully operated Davis Station since 1957 with existing transport arrangements. While the development may win Australia some strategic influence in Antarctica, it’s at odds with our strong history of environmental leadership in the region.

Year-round access

The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD), a federal government agency, argues the runway would allow year-round aviation access between Hobart and Antarctica.

Presently, the only Australian flights to Antarctica take place at the beginning and end of summer. Aircraft land at an aerodrome near the Casey research station, with interconnecting flights to other stations and sites on the continent. The stations are inaccessible by both air and ship in winter.

Read more: Humans are encroaching on Antarctica’s last wild places, threatening its fragile biodiversity

The AAD says year-round access to Antarctica would provide significant science benefits, including:

• better understanding sea level rise and other climate change impacts

• opportunities to study wildlife across the annual lifecycle of key species including krill, penguins, seals and seabirds

• allowing scientists to research through winter.

Leading international scientists had called for improved, environmentally responsible access to Antarctica to support 21st-century science. However, the aerodrome project is likely to reduce access for scientists to Antarctica for years, due to the need to house construction workers.

Australia: an environmental leader?

Australia has traditionally been considered an environmental leader in Antarctica. For example, in 1989 under the Hawke government, it urged the world to abandon a mining convention in favour of a new deal to ban mining on the continent.

Australia’s 20 Year Action Plan promotes “leadership in environmental stewardship in Antarctica”, pledging to “minimise the environmental impact of Australia’s activities”.

But the aerodrome proposal appears at odds with that goal. It would cover 2.2 square kilometres, increasing the total “disturbance footprint” of all nations on the continent by 40%. It would also mean Australia has the biggest footprint of any nation, overtaking the United States.

Within this footprint, environmental effects will also be intense. Construction will require more than three million cubic metres of earthworks – levelling 60 vertical metres of hills and valleys along the length of the runway. This will inevitably cause dust emissions – on the windiest continent on Earth – and the effect of this on plants and animals in Antarctica is poorly understood.

Wilson’s storm petrels that nest at the site will be displaced. Native lichens, fungi and algae will be destroyed, and irreparable damage is expected at adjacent lakes.

Weddell seals breed within 500 metres of the proposed runway site. Federal environment officials recognise the dust from construction and subsequent noise from low flying aircraft have the potential to disturb these breeding colonies.

Read more: Marine life found in ancient Antarctica ice helps solve a carbon dioxide puzzle from the ice age

The proposed area is also important breeding habitat for Adélie penguins. Eight breeding sites in the region are listed as “important bird areas”. Federal environment officials state the penguins are likely to be impacted by human disturbance, dust, and noise from construction of the runway, with particular concern for oil spills and aircraft operations.

The summer population at Davis Station will need to almost double from 120 to 250 during construction. This will require new, permanent infrastructure and increase the station’s fuel and water consumption, and sewage discharged into the environment.

The AAD has proposed measures to limit environmental damage. These include gathering baseline data (against which to measure the project’s impact), analysing potential effects on birds and marine mammals and limiting disturbance where practicable.

But full details won’t be provided until later in the assessment process. We expect Australia will implement these measures to a high standard, but they will not offset the project’s environmental damage.

Playing politics

So given the environmental concern, why is Australia so determined to build the aerodrome? We believe the answer largely lies in Antarctic politics.

Australian officials have said the project would “contribute to both our presence and influence” on the continent. Influence in Antarctica has traditionally corresponded to the strength of a nation’s scientific program, its infrastructure presence and engagement in international decision-making.

Read more: Microscopic animals are busy distributing microplastics throughout the world’s soil

Australia is a well-regarded member of the Antarctic Treaty. It was an original signatory and claims sovereignty over 42% of the continent. It also has a solid physical and scientific presence, maintaining three large year-round research stations.

But other nations are also vying for influence. China is constructing its fifth research station. New Zealand is planning a NZ$250 million upgrade to Scott Base. And on King George Island, six stations have been built within a 5km radius, each run by different nations. This presence is hard to justify on the basis of scientific interest alone.

Getting our priorities straight

We believe there are greater and more urgent opportunities for Australia to assert its leadership in Antarctica.

For example both Casey and Mawson stations – Australia’s two other permanent bases – discharge sewage into the pristine marine environment with little treatment. And outdated fuel technology at Australia’s three stations regularly causes diesel spills.

At Wilkes station, which Australia abandoned in the 1960s, thousands of tonnes of contaminants have been left behind.

Australia should fix such problems before adding more potentially damaging infrastructure. This would meet our environmental treaty obligations and show genuine Antarctic leadership.

– ref. Australia wants to build a huge concrete runway in Antarctica. Here’s why that’s a bad idea – https://theconversation.com/australia-wants-to-build-a-huge-concrete-runway-in-antarctica-heres-why-thats-a-bad-idea-139596

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meghan S. Miller, Associate Professor; Program Director AuScope Earth Imaging, Australian National University

Our responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have dramatically changed human activity all over the world. People are working from home, schools are closed in many places, travel is restricted, and in some cases only essential shops and businesses are open.

Scientists see signs of these changes wherever they look. Carbon dioxide emissions are down, air quality has improved, and there is less traffic.

The drop in activity has also been a surprising boon for earthquake scientists like us. Our sensitive instruments are detecting far less of the noise and vibration produced by humans in motion — which means we have a unique opportunity to listen in on tiny earthquakes we might never have detected otherwise.

Read more: Underground sounds: why we should listen to earthquakes

The seismic hum of humans

Seismometers are sensitive scientific instruments used to detect earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and nuclear tests, by recording the movement of the ground. They often detect mining activity and can even pick out crowds responding to football games — so-called “footyquakes”.

On top of this, everyday human activity creates a high-frequency seismic “hum” that is stronger during the day and weaker at night. This is particularly evident in urban environments, but is also observed in rural or unpopulated areas.

The decrease in this noise signature was first identified in March by Belgian scientists as lockdown measures were introduced in Europe. These early results, computer codes and data were widely shared on Twitter, sparking an enthusiastic collaboration of seismologists around the world who found this change in signal everywhere they looked.

Schoolyard sounds

In Australia, the change in human behaviour was most dramatically observed in the data recorded by the Australian Seismometers in Schools (AuSiS) network. These instruments are research-quality seismometers that are maintained by school students — our next generation of geophysicists.

The usual happy schoolyard sounds and hubbub disappeared at many schools, as they shut and most or all students stayed home. The usual hum of the children (and teachers) during the school day, observed in the movement between classrooms, and during lunchtimes or Saturday morning sports, abruptly stopped at locations such as Ulladulla High School on the south coast of New South Wales and Keysborough Secondary College in suburban Melbourne.

At other schools, such as Daramalan College in Canberra, there was only a small decrease in human noise, with the school seismometer recording people commuting to work in essential public services and government offices that continued to operate throughout the initial lockdown. The seismometer at North Rockhampton State High School in Queensland also saw less of the effect, as the students were still able to attend classes.

The level of noise recorded across Australia during lockdown compares to the Christmas week. When restrictions began easing, the signal was similar to the annual January pattern when schools are closed, most businesses are open but many people are away on holiday. As schools reopened across Australia in mid to late May, noise levels were mostly back to “normal” except for what is usually observed for Saturday morning sports.

Lockdown 2.0

However, regional differences became even more pronounced as metropolitan Melbourne reinstated stay-at-home restrictions on July 8. As a second spike of COVID-19 cases was detected in Victoria and then ramped up in late June, the level of movement began to drop again.

In the seismic noise signal from Keysborough Secondary College, we can see the school holiday quiet period becoming quieter still as further restrictions to school activity were enforced.

Read more: The Victorian earthquake didn’t do much damage … but the next one might

Earthquake detection

The low level of background noise from humans recorded in the seismic data during lockdown gives us a window of opportunity to study smaller earthquakes. Detection of small earthquakes or motion on fault lines is essential for seismic hazard assessment.

Small events are typically identified by looking at changes in amplitudes of signals, but very small events have small amplitude signals and these cannot be observed because they are drowned out by the background noise.

This time of quiescence in seismic noise due to the COVID-19 emergency provides a unique opportunity to learn more about small earthquakes occurring in previously unidentified locations.

– ref. Australian cities are quiet during lockdown. Earthquake scientists are making the most of it – https://theconversation.com/australian-cities-are-quiet-during-lockdown-earthquake-scientists-are-making-the-most-of-it-142717

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christa Lam-Cassettari, Research Fellow, MARCS Institute BabyLab, Western Sydney University

COVID-19 has seen a huge increase in video calling as we try to socially distance but still stay in touch.

This is particularly the case for grandparents and their grandchildren, who have either chosen to stay away, given the vulnerability of older people to coronavirus, or been forced apart due to lockdowns and border closures.

Read more: Video chats can ease social isolation for older adults during coronavirus pandemic

As researchers in early childhood, psychology and linguistics, we are studying how video calls fit into the lives of grandparents and their grandchildren and how we can enhance this interaction.

Our research

In a project with Western Sydney University’s BabyLab, we are surveying grandparents and parents about their experience of using video chat with children under the age of five, to capture the changes brought by COVID-19.

So far, 130 grandparents and parents from around Australia have responded.

Of those surveyed, on average, grandparents video call two to three times a week with their grandchildren, for about five to ten minutes. They mostly used FaceTime and Facebook Messenger, as apps that are already available on their phones.

‘Being part of their lives’

About 40% of grandparents surveyed began using video calls with their grandchildren for the first time during COVID-19. For all those surveyed, it was a mostly positive experience.

Grandparents say the calls allow them to stay connected with their grandchildren – with respondents talking about “being a part of their lives” and “not missing seeing them grow”.

One grandmother, who started using video chat with her granddaughter during COVID-19, said

I can see her and see her react to our voices and smile, which makes me feel good.

Another experienced user, with grandchildren overseas, also said

Because it’s so frequent – almost daily – I know their environment, it feels‚ normal. There’s no shyness, we can start a book one day and continue each day. We walk around theirs and my apartment and garden and I just feel part of their lives.

But there are challenges. Not surprisingly, the greatest challenge was maintaining children’s attention during the calls.

For some, the interaction was “artificial and detached”. As one parent said

It was more of a novelty than a way to have a genuine connection with people.

Other parents described the experience as stressful, noting the call had to be at “right time”. As one parent noted of her one-year-old daughter, “she gets overstimulated and then will not go to bed”.

Some grandparents also expressed concern that it was an additional burden for parents and efforts were abandoned

I only did it once because it was too hard to fit into their already busy day.

What does this mean for ‘screen time’?

Many parents and grandparents we surveyed have questions about what increased video-calling means for “screen time”.

Is it harmful in any way for children? And for babies under 12 months – is there any benefit? Can it genuinely help such little ones remember their grandparents?

But video calls are not simply “screen time”. Rather, they offer an important opportunity for socialisation, as young children can still mimic the information typically available in face-to-face interactions.

Read more: Stop worrying about screen ‘time’. It’s your child’s screen experience that matters

The key appears to be the instant feedback that video offers. As recent research shows, one and two year-old children can develop a social connection and learn the names of objects from someone they see and talk with via a video call.

Babies as young as four and five months prefer looking at images of faces over other toys and objects. This continues into their second year of life.

So yes, you can engage a young child through FaceTime – and it can help their development.

But how can we optimise video calls with small children?

Tips for preparing for a video call

• Place your device on a firm surface, using your cover or something similar as a tripod to free your hands for gesturing and showing objects.

• Try to keep the light source in front of you, excessive sun glare behind you leads to poor quality video.

• Minimise background noise (such as the washing machine or radio).

• Make the call part of your routine, so children come to expect and get used to calls.

• Make calls at a time of day when you can all relax – when babies are fed, changed and alert and older children are fed and not too tired.

• Before making the call, parents can share images, videos and messages describing new skills or activities since you last spoke, so grandparents have something to ask questions about and engage with.

• Prepare the child before the call to help manage their expectations. For example, ask them to pick out their favourite toy or drawing so they can show and talk about it.

• Start with shorter calls (around five minutes) and increase the length as you see fit.

Tips for keeping the call going

• For parents, consider making the video call as you do routine activities, such as cooking, sharing meals or bath-time – this can bring grandparents into the day-to-day routine and reduce the stress of finding a time to call.

• As a grandparent, try to maintain eye contact and talk about things that baby or child is paying attention to at that moment.

• Use songs and games (“pat-a-cake” and “peekaboo” are good examples) to capture babies’ attention. Musical statues is a good game to play with older children.

• Make funny faces and hand gestures, blow kisses.

• Dance, take each other on a tour of your home or garden, or try exercise moves together.

• Set aside some books to use for video calls. You can carry on reading longer books with older children each time you call.

• Try out various filters or virtual backgrounds built into your apps to make it more interesting for kids and give you something else to talk about.

Save the Children has some further information about staying in touch with grandparents.

If you are a grandparent, you can register to participate in the BabyLab survey here. Parents can register here.

Read more: Pregnant in a pandemic? If you’re stressed, there’s help

– ref. Grandparent-grandchildren video calls are vital during COVID-19. Here are simple ways to improve them – https://theconversation.com/grandparent-grandchildren-video-calls-are-vital-during-covid-19-here-are-simple-ways-to-improve-them-141534