Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kcasey McLoughlin, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Newcastle

As debate rages about sexual harassment in the legal profession, a key outstanding question is reforming the way judges are appointed.

Underscoring the response to these allegations has been the acknowledgement the legal system – created by and for men – has excluded women through its formal and informal structures.

Read more: Dyson Heydon finding may spark a #MeToo moment for the legal profession

One important and long overdue change is boosting the diversity of the judges, who sit at the top of the profession.

‘Pale, stale and male’

To borrow a phrase used by former chief justice of Western Australia, Wayne Martin, Australia’s judiciary is overwhelmingly “pale, stale and male”.

Although it stands to reason the judiciary will not necessarily be representative in terms of age (given the importance of experience), no such justification can made in regard to other key characteristics.

Women’s historic formal exclusion from the profession has been well documented.

Women have since entered the law in significant numbers, and it was assumed they would then begin to occupy positions of power and authority within the profession.

This has not been borne out by the statistics.

Women today comprise 62% of Australian law graduates, 52% of NSW solicitors, and 23% of NSW barristers. The number of barristers is significant, as judges tend to be chosen from leaders at the bar.

Indeed, only 36% of Commonwealth judges are women. The proportion of women judges and magistrates is between 31 and 37% across at the state level, with the ACT (54%), Victoria (42%) and Tasmania (24%) as outliers.

How are judges appointed?

Australia’s judges are appointed by state and federal governments. Particularly at the federal level, this is an opaque system that lacks transparency and genuine political accountability.

When it comes to High Court appointments, there is no formal application process, no formal system for the checking of references, and no requirement that candidates undertake interviews.

In practice, the appointment is made by the government of the day, with the attorney-general presenting a nominee to Cabinet, which then recommends the appointment to the governor-general.

The government is therefore largely unrestrained in making their appointments beyond a requirement they consult with state attorneys-general and the appointee meets the minimum qualifications of admission as a legal practitioner.

Certainly, there is nothing that legally compels those making judicial appointments to consider diversity.

Reluctance to implement formal reforms

Pressure to reform judicial appointment practices is not new.

There have been previous calls to improve not just diversity but also transparency and accountability.

Importantly, these criticisms have very rarely been personal (about the suitability of individual appointees). But about the potential for political or other concerns to influence the process.

Read more: 72% of Australians have been sexually harassed. The system we have to fix this problem is set up to fail

In fact, some of these debates came to the fore in 2003, with the Howard government’s appointment of Dyson Heydon to the High Court.

The appointment raised concerns about what his appointment meant for the diversity of the bench, because he was replacing the first and, at that time, only woman member of the High Court, Mary Gaudron.

The lack of publicly available selection criteria speaks to the breadth of this discretion.

The ‘merit’ myth

Another issue here is the insistence these appointments are made solely on the basis of “merit” – as though this imprecise concept, which has the potential to reproduce informal networks of power and privilege, is an adequate substitute for clearly articulated selection criteria.

As Australian National University professor Kim Rubenstein noted in response to Heydon’s appointment:

when male politicians gaze at the available gene pool of potential High Court appointees, they only see reflections of themselves, and what they understand as depictions of merit.

Of course, what counts as meritorious is the eye of the beholder. It is notable that former prime minister, John Howard stands by his appointed of Heydon, observing this week he was an “excellent judge of the High Court of Australia”.

Previous reforms have not been enough, or stuck

In 2007, then attorney-general Robert McClelland instituted a number of reforms to the Federal Court judicial appointment process, during the early days of the Rudd government.

These included the introduction of publicly available selection criteria for appointments and the requirement that vacancies be advertised, as well as the use of advisory panels to make recommendations.

But these reforms (which did not extend to the High Court in any case) were abandoned in 2013, when the Coalition came to power.

Why the life experience of judges matters

Inevitably, questions have been raised about how Chief Justice Susan Kiefel’s gender shaped her response and leadership regarding the High Court inquiry into sexual harassment.

Would a male chief justice have responded in the same way?

Read more: Australia urgently needs an independent body to hold powerful judges to account

Of course, we may never know the answer to this, but her apology to the young women in question and her words “their accounts … have been believed” are powerful and important and will form an important part of her legacy.

This week, former Family Court chief justice Diana Bryant told the ABC “this kind of behaviour isn’t new” and said she had been sexually harassed by a former High Court judge as a young lawyer.

During that interview, she also described the changes she made once she had the power to do so on the Family Court – making clear that associates are not the personal employees of the judges they work with.

What next?

Addressing the lack of accountability and transparency in making these appointments is an obvious area of reform. We need to make selection criteria public and clear to create the political accountability that is currently lacking.

But more must also be done to explicitly value diversity in judicial appointments.

Some relatively straightforward changes could include, involving women’s lawyer groups in judicial appointments, as well as quotas.

In the context of High Court appointments, Rubenstein has argued that any given point in time, the High Court should be comprised of at least 40% of either gender.

Of course, diversity is not a synonym for “women”, although their exclusion is especially visible. Moving away from “state, male and pale” has the important potential to address the law’s homogeneity on other fronts, including race.

Any changes must be formalised

Importantly, any reforms which reflect this commitment to judicial diversity across must be formalised.

Formalising them would safeguard any gains so that they are not at the whim of the politics of the day.

Who our are judges are matters. It always has.

This moment of reckoning should be a catalyst for change in finally demanding long overdue reforms to the process by which these important appointments are made.

– ref. No selection criteria, no transparency. Australia must reform the way it appoints judges – https://theconversation.com/no-selection-criteria-no-transparency-australia-must-reform-the-way-it-appoints-judges-141446

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Criena Fitzgerald, Honorary Research Fellow, Faculty of Arts, Business, Law and Education, University of Western Australia

We’ve been reminded about avoiding hugging or kissing, especially among large family groups, in light of the recent Melbourne coronavirus clusters.

But alerting the public to the potential for kissing to spread infectious diseases isn’t new. It’s been a feature of past pandemics, including the scourge of tuberculosis (or TB) in Australia a century ago.

Read more: This isn’t the first global pandemic, and it won’t be the last. Here’s what we’ve learned from 4 others throughout history

In the first half of the 20th century, people with TB were advised to stop kissing to protect their friends and family from contracting the dreaded disease.

In 1905, delegates at an International Congress on Tuberculosis in Paris described kissing as “dangerous, detrimental and responsible for countless diseases”.

A minority of overly enthusiastic public health physicians suggested banning kissing altogether.

In Western Australia in 1948 an article in the Tuberculosis Association pamphlet warned “Kissing can be Dangerous: Doctors and Married Men are agreed on this”.

Showing bodily restraint was one of the few weapons against TB before the antibiotic streptomycin and other drugs became widely available after the end of the second world war and into the 1950s.

Other measures, with which we are familiar today, included sanitation and social distancing.

Laws and by-laws prohibiting spitting in public were introduced. Publicans had to provide spittoons for customers to prevent the spread of the disease. And people with TB had to spit into a jar, which they carried with them, or a tissue (known as Japanese paper), which they burnt after each use.

“Consumptives” (people with TB) were advised to cover their mouth when coughing or sneezing and not to speak near other people’s faces.

They were cautioned against drinking alcohol because even mild inebriation could make them careless in their behaviour and a danger to friends and family.

The message was clear. TB was a disease of the individual and any reckless or insanitary behaviour could infect others.

Extra cleanliness at home was encouraged. Regular dusting with a damp cloth kept surfaces clean and safe. Housewives were instructed to dampen the floor with wet tea leaves to prevent infected dust from contaminating the air and endangering family members.

An infected person used separate plates, cups and utensils that were boiled to sterilise them.

They separated themselves from their family, sleeping outside in an airy shelter or on the verandah or sleep-out.

If a person died from the disease, public health officials burnt their clothing and bedding. Their books were possible sources of contamination and had to be aired in sunlight to kill any remaining germs.

Contact tracing and mass testing

Public health officials conducted contact tracing to identify people carrying or having been exposed to TB.

People gave a sputum (spit) sample, which was then sent for analysis. They were warned to isolate themselves until the results were known.

Having a chest x-ray became compulsory for all Western Australians aged 14 years and over from 1950. The population was x-rayed at special clinics set up in every city or by mobile x-ray vans that went to every country town. Other states had different policies. By the early 1960s, x-rays were compulsory around Australia.

Only those who had had their x-ray and complied with public health requirements were deemed “safe”. If they didn’t comply they were called a public health menace and a danger to society.

Anyone refusing to be x-rayed could be sent to jail, where they were x-rayed.

Isolation housed the sick, often for years

If people weren’t at home convalescing, they were sent to specially built isolation hospitals, known as sanatoria, to be treated with rest and fresh air. Sanatoria were regarded as a last resort because until 1947, and the advent of antibiotics, there was no cure for the disease.

In Western Australia from 1904 people went to the Coolgardie Sanatorium and from 1914 to Wooroloo Sanatorium, where they slept in the open air to disperse infection.

Incarceration in the sanatorium might last years or even a lifetime. Patients were unable to have close contact with visitors or see their children, except from a distance. Their incarceration was intended to protect the public from infection.

In the 1950s, special chest hospitals were built in cities offering a more modern approach to the disease, although sanatoria remained open. Patients could still spend more than a year in hospital even after a cure became available.

By 1958, as the TB pandemic waned and was eradicated, chest hospitals began to treat patients with other diseases.

What can we learn?

COVID-19 and tuberculosis are both branded as public enemies, wreaking havoc on the fabric of society and destroying lives. But unlike COVID-19, TB is caused by a bacterium, can be treated with antibiotics, and we have a vaccine against it.

Still, the World Health Organisation reported 1.5 million people worldwide died from TB in 2018.

Until we have a vaccine or treatment for COVID-19, social distancing, good hand hygiene, contact tracing, testing and self-isolation are among our chief weapons during this latest pandemic. And yes, kissing can still be dangerous.

– ref. ‘Kissing can be dangerous’: how old advice for TB seems strangely familiar today – https://theconversation.com/kissing-can-be-dangerous-how-old-advice-for-tb-seems-strangely-familiar-today-140172

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Bennett, Chair in Epidemiology, Deakin University

The Australian Bureau of Statistics this week released a provisional tally of the changes in Australia’s overall death rate amid the coronavirus epidemic.

The figures record 33,066 doctor-certified deaths in Australia from January 1 to March 31, 2020 – compared with an average of 32,249 during the corresponding months during the years 2015-19.

What’s more, the final week of March 2020 featured the highest weekly death rate of the entire three-month period, with 2,649 recorded deaths. That week also featured the highest numbers of deaths from respiratory diseases, diabetes and dementia.

Australia has had 103 known COVID-19-related deaths, with 21 reported before the end of March. The ABS death counts for respiratory diseases do not include these known cases, but might include COVID-19 deaths that were not recognised or confirmed as such at the time.

Overall, there were more than 800 “excess deaths” in the first quarter of 2020, compared with the average of the previous five years. The 103 confirmed COVID-19 deaths represent just a small fraction of these deaths. But my analysis shows that even in the early days of the pandemic, there are some signs that the impact of COVID-19 on Australia’s death rate may be bigger than the official tally suggests.

Read more: The calculus of death shows the COVID lock-down is clearly worth the cost

Death data allow us to monitor death rates by age, gender, location and cause, and to assess how death rates are changing over time. “Excess deaths” – those that exceed the long-term average – are particularly important to understand, not least during a pandemic but also because they could be due to preventable causes.

The coronavirus death toll has become a feature of media coverage during the COVID-19 outbreak. Unlike in many other countries, the epidemic has stayed within the capacity of Australia’s health system, so we might reasonably expect all COVID-19-related deaths to have been counted accurately.

However, analysis of sewage and swab samples in Europe suggest SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) may have been responsible for infections as early as December, before the world became aware of the emerging crisis in Wuhan.

Given the uncertainty about when the coronavirus actually entered Australia, it is possible Australia had COVID-19 cases before official counts began. If so, they may have been recorded as a death from another cause in the death register, most likely as pneumonia.

A death can only be officially attributed to COVID-19 if that patient had been tested for the coronavirus. Australia had a limited supply of test kits initially, and the rules for testing were strict in the early days, mainly focused on returned travellers and their immediate contacts. Testing rules did include hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia, but this recommendation may not always have been followed.

What do the new data show?

The newly released ABS data are raw counts that only include deaths which occurred in January-March and were registered by the end of April. On average, 98% of deaths are reported to the ABS by the end of the following month.

The data compare the weekly death rates against the five-year average death counts for those same weeks from 2015 to 2019. There has been some population growth over this time, which in itself might lead to a rise in expected deaths, but is not yet factored in here. These counts only relate to the deaths that a doctor has certified (in home or hospital), but this is likely to include most deaths directly associated with COVID-19 patients, diagnosed or not.

The 33,066 recorded deaths in the first three months of 2020 is well above the five-year average of 32,249. But overall, the 2020 deaths follow a similar pattern to previous years, with the count rising as we enter the cooler months.

We do expect death counts to increase with population growth and population ageing. These changes will not be particularly pronounced from year to year in Australia, but certainly could account for the small rise in overall deaths seen in these three months. There are no obvious differences between states, but the smaller population in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory actually show slight declines.

Australia reported its first COVID-19 death on March 1, and has 103 confirmed COVID-19 deaths so far – a small proportion of the total number of deaths. Can we learn more by breaking down the new data?

Delve deeper into the data

One possible way to spot significant changes is to focus on groups known to be at most risk of dying from COVID-19.

First, let’s consider age at death. Older people are most vulnerable to COVID-19, but also have the highest death rates in normal circumstances too.

Differences from week to week are subtle, but we do see a slight trend by the end of January for the 2020 count to exceed the average. This could simply represent other factors contributing to the slight increase in all deaths, but will be worth watching over subsequent weeks.

Focusing just on those 65 and older in the ABS data, we see once again that 2020 counts are generally higher than average for all weeks for both males and females. Male deaths spiked in the final week of march, which is interesting as males represent 65% of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in Australia.

These are preliminary numbers, but there is no clear evidence of COVID-19 deaths in Australia before March 1, or before the first known incursion of SARS-CoV-2 into Australia. However, this might be obscured by the “noise” of looking at deaths from all causes at the same time.

It is therefore worth taking a closer look at deaths attributed to respiratory causes (the ABS states that these counts do not include the confirmed 103 COVID-19 deaths). The ABS data split the total respiratory deaths into two categories: chronic conditions such as asthma, and acute infections like influenza and pneumonia. It’s in this latter category (shown in the lowermost set of lines on the graph below) where any excess, uncounted deaths due to COVID-19 should be evident.

So far this year there have been 43 excess deaths due to influenza and pneumonia, relative to the average, and the ABS notes that most of these are pneumonia deaths. The excess deaths were mainly in the final two weeks of March, with the preceding weekly fluctuations largely cancelling each other out. This compares with 21 COVID-19 deaths reported by March 21, and 48 total by the end of the first week of April (ABS data are recorded by date of death; COVID-19 counts by the day publicly reported).

Some of these extra deaths may indeed be due to factors such as population growth, but it does open up the possibility of unaccounted COVID-19 deaths in the early days of the epidemic in Australia that might match, or exceed, those confirmed cases we know about.

Read more: Has Australia really avoided 14,000 coronavirus deaths?

The issue of undetected COVID-19 deaths is not the only important question. Has the deferral of elective surgeries affected the death rate? Has there been a death toll associated with people being discouraged from visiting clinics or hospitals for other illnesses? Have the stresses of lockdown and financial uncertainty led to a rise in domestic violence or suicide?

We don’t know the answers yet. But hopefully the forthcoming ABS data will reveal the answers as 2020 continues to unfold.

– ref. Have there been uncounted coronavirus deaths in Australia? We can’t say for sure, but the latest ABS data holds clues – https://theconversation.com/have-there-been-uncounted-coronavirus-deaths-in-australia-we-cant-say-for-sure-but-the-latest-abs-data-holds-clues-141363

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter M Graham, Associate Professor – Architectural Performance, Monash University

The federal government’s new HomeBuilder scheme offers eligible Australians money to renovate or build a home. While it’s attracted controversy, HomeBuilder does offer a much-needed opportunity to make old homes more energy-efficient.

Research released in March showed the energy performance of housing must improve by an average 44-48% in the next decade for Australia to reach net zero emissions by 2050. This means building new homes above today’s energy standards and upgrading existing homes.

Australian houses built before 2004 weren’t required to meet national energy efficiency standards. In fact, many older homes average just 1.8 stars in energy efficiency, which means they need more than three times as much energy to heat and cool compared to today’s six-star standard.

Bringing forward their upgrade to incorporate better energy performance would help Australia’s COVID-19 economic stimulus, and save occupants money on energy bills.

Potential win-win

The HomeBuilder initiative will provide a grant of A$25,000 to eligible property owners, with an income of no more than A$125,000 per year (or A$200,000 for a couple). And they’re required to spend at least A$150,000 on renovations. It’s touted as a way to protect construction jobs and help stimulate the post-coronavirus economy, but should be expanded to reach a greater proportion of home-owners and renters.

Energy-efficient home improvements include:

• draught-proofing doors and windows
• switching to LED lighting
• upgrading to solar hot water heaters
• insulating ceilings, floors and walls
• replacing windows with double glazing
• creating temperature zones so you don’t have to heat or cool the whole house
• adding shading to windows and orienting living areas to the north, to take advantage of winter sun.

A new report from the Global Building Performance Network shows how large-scale building renovation programs can boost energy efficiency, and create jobs and long-term cost savings.

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

It found that globally, each US$1 million invested in energy-efficient buildings globally creates an average 14 years of net employment. And improving thermal comfort in homes can benefit heart and lung health, and productivity.

Drawing from international examples, here are six policies Australian governments should adopt to deliver both economic impact and emissions savings over the long term.

1. Set renovation targets

Australian governments should commit to annual renovation targets to meet energy efficiency goals at a local, state and national level.

Australia can learn from the European Union’s energy efficient directive, introduced in 2012.

The directive includes increasing the rate of public building renovations to 3% a year to improve energy efficiency. It’s coupled with a long-term strategy to mobilise investment to renovate existing residential and commercial buildings. This has helped the EU stay on track to reach its 20% energy efficiency target this year.

Analysts estimate EU initiatives to renovate buildings provided the opportunity to lift the EU’s gross domestic product by up to 2.3% between 2012-2020.

2. Upgrade local precincts

Australia can deliver “net zero makeovers” to multiple buildings in particular precincts, cutting emissions at scale. It could follow the lead of the Netherlands’s Energiesprong (or “Energy Leap” in English) program.

Energiesprong homes are designed to pay for themselves over 30 years. Innovative construction techniques, such as prefabricated facades, mean the work takes as little as a week and residents don’t have to move out during the process.

The program is now being implemented in the UK, Italy, France, Germany, California and New York State.

3. Make home energy ratings and labelling clear

In Australia, home energy ratings are not mandatory. Without them, many Australians probably know more about the energy efficiency ratings of their refrigerators than their homes.

The recently released King Review recommended Australia develop an energy performance rating scheme for new and existing residential buildings.

This is what’s happening in places such as the EU, China and some US states. Buildings certified under the US “Energy Star” label use 50% less energy than typical buildings.

Read more: Homes with higher energy ratings sell for more. Here’s how Australian owners could cash in

4. Enforce energy efficiency standards for renovation

One easy win available to governments is to ensure compliance with existing energy efficiency requirements.

By applying the energy efficiency provisions of the national building code to renovations, the Beijing municipal government substantially reduced emissions from existing buildings.

Australia’s National Construction Code, which sets out building regulations for new buildings, also requires major renovations to comply with its energy efficiency rules. But it’s poorly enforced.

Governments must urgently clarifying and enforce the code’s energy efficiency requirements for renovations.

5. Introduce standards for rental properties

In the rental market, landlords and tenants have “split incentives”: tenants pay the energy bills, but landlords make investment decisions. This means investments to improve energy efficiency in rental housing aren’t often made.

It also means many private renters are paying high energy bills and face health risks from heat and cold.

In some countries, such as France, rental properties must meet reasonable energy efficiency standards, which overcomes this problem. State governments in Australia should implement provisions like this.

6. Offer financial incentives

Local, state or national governments can provide direct financial incentives or tax incentives to create low-energy homes.

In Australia, states already offer financial incentives for energy efficiency, but tax incentives would require federal support.

In Germany, a grant scheme for energy efficient renovations and new housing created 253,000 jobs according to one measure. It also created a net benefit to public finances of about €10 billion in 2011.

Looking ahead

The COVID-19 impact on Australia’s construction industry is likely to last years.

But by adopting these six policies, Australian governments can deliver healthier, lower-energy housing, and bring us closer to meeting our climate targets.

Read more: HomeBuilder might be the most-complex least-equitable construction jobs program ever devised

– ref. Renovation rescue: 6 ways to ensure HomeBuilder helps consumers, the climate and the economy – https://theconversation.com/renovation-rescue-6-ways-to-ensure-homebuilder-helps-consumers-the-climate-and-the-economy-140939

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Alexander, Associate Professor, Network analysis, Procurement,Supply Chains, Curtin University

Australia Post delivered more than 3.3 billion items last financial year. That’s almost 14 million deliveries a day (not counting weekends and public holidays).

Its 2019 annual report itemises the massive logistical network required: 15,037 street post boxes, 4,343 post offices, 461 sorting and distribution facilities, 4,845 delivery vans, 2,600 trucks, six airline freighters, rail assets, and 8,992 motorbikes and electric delivery vehicles.

Letters and parcels move in “waves” to 12.1 million addresses daily. Federally legislated service standards oblige Australia Post to deliver a letter within the country in no more than four days at a fixed rate (currently A$1.10). And to do so every week day to 98% of all delivery points.

Or at least Australia Post did so until late April. That’s when the federal government granted a temporary suspension of the services standards, allowing it to deliver letters every second business day in metropolitan areas.

The rationale was to enable Australia Post to divert resources from letter delivery – the part of its business in decline for at least a decade – to the booming demand for parcel delivery driven by COVID-19.

Read more: COVID-19 has changed the future of retail: there’s plenty more automation in store

In May, with support from the Senate crossbench, the government passed amendments extending the suspension to June 2021.

That move is not universally supported. Unions fear postal workers will lose jobs. Federal opposition leader Anthony Albanese has signalled Labor Party support for a Senate motion to overturn the changes.

These cuts are to jobs, these cuts are to services that are absolutely essential […] In particular, older Australians really rely upon their postal services.

It’s true Australia Post provides an indispensable service. But its revenues tell a story of people relying on postal services less and less.

Lost letters

The decline of the letter business over the past decade has been relentless.

In 2009 Australia Post made a profit before interest and income tax of A$384.5 million. Of this its letter business generated A$52 million. Parcels and logistics made A$187 million. Other business (such as agency services and merchandise) made about A$146 million.

In 2019 its net profit was down to a razor-thin A$41 million. Profit before interest and tax for its non-letters businesses was almost A$259 million. Its letters business lost almost A$192 million.

Australia Post can still make profits delivering letters in major cities and regional centres, where population density is high and distances short. But not in in rural areas, where per-delivery costs skyrocket. Its commercial competitors, meanwhile, can cherry-pick the most lucrative market segments and avoid the loss-making ones.

Parsing parcels

Australia Post has long yearned to be freed from its obligation to deliver letters daily. In 2015 then chief executive Ahmed Fahour declared letter posting “in terminal and structural decline” and that Australia Post “is a parcels company more than a letters company”.

In March, current chief executive Christine Holgate told a Senate estimates committee:

Our most significant challenge is managing the tipping point of that transformation from letters for our delivery network, which is about 70% of our costs, which is actually now in need really of a significant transformation.

The cost of delivering a $1.10 letter is not much less than a $10 parcel. It makes no commercial sense to utilise resources on loss-making activities at the expense of profitable ones.

Read more: Delivery workers are now essential. They deserve the rights of other employees

But Australia Post is not just another corporation. Profits are not its only measure of success. It is owned by the nation. Its services are essential, particularly to rural communities.

At this time, a strong case can be made it is a better social service to ensure timely parcel delivery.

In the longer term, the issue for policy makers is whether the social good is best served by keeping Australia Post to its historical obligations, or allowing it to meet burgeoning parcel demand and return a bigger dividend to the federal government to help fund other public services.

Read more: Australia Post can’t turn back. Here’s why

While opinions will vary, the numbers make a compelling case. They show a mail delivery system designed before the advent of the internet doesn’t need to be daily any more – just as the telephone last century helped end the importance of mail being delivered twice a day.

– ref. You’ve got (less) mail: COVID-19 hands Australia Post a golden opportunity to end daily letter delivery – https://theconversation.com/youve-got-less-mail-covid-19-hands-australia-post-a-golden-opportunity-to-end-daily-letter-delivery-140848

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mojtaba Mahmoodian, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, RMIT University

Urban infrastructure – bridges, roads, railways, pipelines, power transmission towers and so on – must be inspected regularly to operate safely. Imagine if we used advanced technologies available to us, such as wireless sensors, mobile apps and machine learning, to remotely inspect and maintain this infrastructure. This could eliminate the need for regular daily inspections, save time and money for engineers and asset owners, and reduce the risks of working on job sites.

Everyone has experience of working with smart devices such as mobile phones and iPads. Using these technologies to perform technical and engineering work is a game changer. We have been developing “digital twins” – 3D-visualisation of in-service infrastructure – to monitor infrastructure performance under various service conditions and make intelligent maintenance decisions.

The digital model is the twin of the real infrastructure. Wireless sensors on the structure transfer performance data to our computer. We can see the performance of the infrastructure in real time online.

Read more: What’s critical about critical infrastructure?

This is extremely useful for engineers who need to regularly monitor the performance of infrastructure. They make critical maintenance decisions about which structural elements need to be repaired or replaced, and when this must be done, to ensure the infrastructure is safe.

How are digital twins created?

Digital twins are essentially a digital replica or a virtual model of a process, product or service. The concept of creating digital twins is still relatively new for civil and infrastructure engineers.

In the Netherlands, digital twins are being developed for operation at the Port of Rotterdam. A team at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology is working on a digital model of an operating crane.

To develop digital twins for intelligent infrastructure maintenance we must integrate a variety of disciplines. These include 3D visualisation, wireless technology, structural engineering and Internet of Things. The output is a digital model of the physical infrastructure, which can be seen on a PC, tablet or mobile phone.

Read more: As cities grow, the Internet of Things can help us get on top of the waste crisis

Looking at their smart device at home or in the office, an engineer can observe all deformations, deflections, cracks or even stresses due to various loads (such as traffic or wind). The intelligent digital twin model can also suggest appropriate maintenance decisions.

Cost benefits add up to billions

We have more than 7,000 bridges in Victoria alone that need regular inspection. Add all the pipelines, highways, railways and so on, and that’s a huge maintenance program.

Trillions of dollars are spent each year on inspecting, monitoring and maintaining infrastructure around the world. The non-profit Volcker Alliance recently warned repair costs of deferred maintenance of the United States’ ageing infrastructure could exceed US$1 trillion, or 5% of the country’s gross domestic product. For local roads across Australia, maintenance and renewal costs between 2010 and 2024 total an estimated A$45 billion.

Digitalising the way we look after our infrastructure can make the process more accurate and less costly in the long term than traditional labour-intensive practices. Using a digital twin is expected to produce cost savings of 20-30%. Given the huge costs of monitoring infrastructure – in the US, bridge inspections alone cost US$1.35 billion a year – the potential savings are huge.

There are also several indirect benefits for the nation.

The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of reducing crowds in public places. Considering the huge workload on transport infrastructure like highways, buses and rail, any concept that can reduce daily travel is important. Digitalising infrastructure management and maintenance can help by reducing the need for inspectors and technicians to travel to projects.

Reduced travel, by reducing emissions, benefits public health and the environment.

Read more: Smart tech systems cut congestion for a fraction of what new roads cost

What is being done in Australia?

In Australia, researchers from the School of Engineering at RMIT are developing digital twins for use in intelligent maintenance of almost all infrastructure across the nation.

Our current focus is on bridge and port infrastructure. However, soon we’ll be able to use the developed models for railways, water and wastewater pipelines, LNG, oil and gas pipelines, offshore platforms, wind turbines and power transmission towers.

RMIT researchers have also developed a cloud-hosted asset management platform, Central Asset Management System (CAMS). It uses discrete condition ratings given to components of infrastructure through inspections. We can use these ratings to develop predictive models to aid proactive planning and decision-making on civil infrastructure.

The system is being used commercially for property assets. Many public-private partnership clients are using the system for life-cycle modelling of buildings.

Read more: Explainer: what is BIM and is it the future of construction?

Proofs of concept have been completed for bridges, drainage and local council infrastructure. Funded research is in progress for road pavements and rail.

We are working on integrating live monitoring of infrastructure to progress the platform towards creation of digital twins. The system is available for trial by any interested infrastructure owners who wish to contact us.

This work represents a significant step in developing smart cities. It will help create a safer and healthier community.

– ref. ‘Digital twins’ can help monitor infrastructure and save us billions – https://theconversation.com/digital-twins-can-help-monitor-infrastructure-and-save-us-billions-138607

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robin Beck, Lecturer in Biology, University of Salford

Wombats are among the most peculiar of animals. They look like a massively overgrown guinea pig with a boofy head, a waddling gait, squared-off butt, backwards-facing pouch and ever-growing molars.

Indeed, wombats are oddballs and don’t look much like their nearest living relatives, the koala. But koalas and wombats (collectively known as “vombatiformes”) are the last survivors of a once far more diverse group of marsupials whose fossil history stretches back for at least 25 million years.

Working out how this diverse group fizzled out to just wombats and koalas has taken centuries of extraordinary discoveries in the fossil record. We are announcing one of these today in our research published in Scientific Reports.

Mukupirna nambensis is one of the oldest discovered Australian marsupials. Its unveiling has deepened our understanding of the relationships and evolutionary history of one of the strangest groups that once ruled this continent.

Read more: Aboriginal Australians co-existed with the megafauna for at least 17,000 years

Acupuncturing the earth

In 1973 at Lake Pinpa – a small dry salt lake in South Australia – a multi-institutional expedition led by palaeontologist Dick Tedford from the American Museum of Natural History discovered a host of extinct animals.

A combination of drought and strong winds had blown the sand off the surface of the lake bed, revealing the remains of animals that died after getting stuck in mud 25 million years ago.

One of the discoveries was a skull and partial skeleton of a large, distinctive wombat-like animal that was clearly new to science – Mukupirna.

Its fossils were found by pushing a metal rod into the clay at intervals across the lake surface, a bit like acupuncturing the skin of Mother Earth. If the rod struck something hard, the team excavated down to find what was commonly the fossilised skeleton of an otherwise unseen animal.

Once uncovered, they were encased in plaster shells for transport back to the Museum of Natural History, where they were subjected to years of careful preparation. Although Mukupirna was discovered this way in 1973, it’s only now we can formally announce this discovery to the world.

A mammoth find

One of the most remarkable things about this marsupial is its large size, which we estimate was between 143-171kg, more than four times larger than any living wombat.

Its size inspired the scientific name Mukupirna, from the words muku, meaning “bones” and pirna, meaning “big”, in the Malyangapa and Dieri languages of Aboriginal people from central Australia.

We worked out the earliest vombatiform marsupials probably weighed about 5kg or less (about the size of a modern koala). That said, body weights of about 100kg, such as that of Mukupirna, then evolved independently at least six times in different branches of the family tree.

The biggest of these would be Diprotodon at about three tonnes, the world’s largest marsupial.

Behaviour up to scratch

Mukupirna‘s forearms were powerfully muscled and its hands may have worked like shovels, an attribute shared with modern wombats. Also like wombats, it was probably a good scratch-digger. But unlike today’s wombats, it probably couldn’t burrow.

Although Mukupirna was clearly herbivorous, unlike wombats its cheek teeth were low-crowned with well-developed roots. This indicates it couldn’t have survived on abrasive plant materials such as grasses, which today’s wombats consume without problems.

Pollens in the fossil deposit indicate that, unlike today, there were no grasslands in this area of central Australia back then. Instead, it was dominated by scrubby rainforest that was also home to possums, koalas and galloping kangaroos.

But alongside them were much stranger, more primitive animals that have left no living descendants. These included Ilaria, which was a bit like a gigantic koala, Ektopodon, an arboreal marsupial with teeth like a cheese-grater and Wakaleo, a leopard-sized marsupial lion with some of the most ferocious butchering teeth ever evolved by a mammal.

These forests were also punctuated by huge inland lakes that were home to lungfish, turtles, crocodiles, flamingos, ducks, stone curlews and even freshwater dolphins.

Read more: A new species of marsupial lion tells us about Australia’s past

A lost land

By comparing different features of Mukupirna’s teeth and skeleton, we discovered it to be the closest known relative of modern wombats. Yet, it was as different from wombats as wombats are from koalas, which is why it has been placed in a new family of its own: the Mukupirnidae.

Formal recognition of Mukupirna fills yet another fascinating gap in our knowledge of the weird and wonderful evolutionary history of mammals on this continent.

Sadly, it’s likely all mukupirnids vanished when a shift in global climate triggered an environmental change from scrubby rainforests 25 million years ago, to far lusher and more biodiverse rainforests 23 million years ago.

This would have resulted in more intense greenhouse conditions and an environment presumably not suited to mukupirnids.

Hopefully this rings a warning bell about the state of Earth’s climate now. If we can’t slow the global heating we’ve triggered, how many more of Australia’s uniquely endemic living creatures will soon join Mukupirna in the increasingly crowded abyss of extinction?

– ref. Meet the giant wombat relative that scratched out a living in Australia 25 million years ago – https://theconversation.com/meet-the-giant-wombat-relative-that-scratched-out-a-living-in-australia-25-million-years-ago-141296

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Chapple, Director, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

We all remember the lockdown, but not all our memories are the same. Some say they miss the tranquillity. Others don’t miss being stuck at home at all – especially those with young children. Some found new ways of working. Others just lost work.

New Zealand’s lockdown was ranked as one of the strictest in the world, and we wanted to find out how people felt about it. So we ran a “life under lockdown” survey in the third week of alert level 4 to examine general well-being, family resilience and employment.

We also asked people an optional question: Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experiences of lockdown, positive or negative?

Of the 2002 people surveyed, 894 (45%) gave a usable response. In survey terms, this was a surprisingly good result, and provided a rich historical record of the thoughts of many ordinary New Zealanders during lockdown.

Time and quality of life

Overall, there were more positive responses (43%) than negative (35%), with 23% neutral or mixed. We mapped the most commonly used significant words, as shown in the word cloud above and the graphs below – and “time” was the most frequently used word, often in relation to family.

It’s been a good way to focus on what’s important in my life. Personally for me it’s been a good time […] to connect with my two year old and enjoy having time with my husband and parents. On the flip side it’s highlighted what I’ve missed due to working.

For some lockdown was a chance for growth; for others, like these three people, it was a novelty:

Have enjoyed the time off to renew myself.

I’ve enjoyed a holiday from work as I have never had longer than a week off. Could never afford it.

Home life has not posed any stress in our bubble during lockdown, we have found many things to keep busy and are enjoying our time together.

Others, such as these four, expressed mixed or negative emotions:

I quite enjoy working from home (warm, comfortable, quiet) but I am lucky that I can work from home. It does get lonely though but I manage it.

Lots of productive time wasted.

Very bored a lot of the time.

It sux big time.

Read more: Coronavirus: an architect on how the pandemic could change our homes forever

Work and worry

As expected, employment and money worries came up often. Many people, like these individuals, reported losing jobs or general concern about income:

I’m just worried/depressed that I won’t have a job and be able to help out my family with finances. That’s what’s making me feel worthless because I got laid off. It’s not fair that I’m the youngest and I can’t help out.

The most distressing and stressful thing has been dealing with my job and disputes re hours and pay. It has basically been the whole cause of my angst during lockdown.

Zero income in house. Frustration applying for support on internet. We give up. WINZ [Work and Income NZ] suck. Really suck. It feels like their working life based on trying to find a reason to decline supporting people has left them as the worst place for the public to need to go to for support.

I cry all the time. I’m worried about money and the long term effects of this situation on our household and our finances. I am hanging on by a thread.

Separation and grief

And for some it was the hardest time of all:

I felt really bad not being able to take flowers to the cemetery on the anniversary of my husband’s death.

Very sad because I can’t visit my kids’ grandkids or elderly mother plus a close friend who’s dying of cancer. All are about five hours’ drive away. I get upset at times and cry a lot.

My husband passed away […] I need my kids and family here, but they live out of town, it’s going to be a while and that’s so, so sad.

Read more: New Zealand’s pandemic budget is all about saving and creating jobs. Now the hard work begins

Family, home and school

Not surprisingly, “family” and “home” (and related terms) were mentioned a lot. While the majority of family references were positive, for some – like these two – lockdown was a challenge, if not the last straw:

After lockdown my partner and I will separate!!! Being in lockdown emphasised the difficulties with our relationship. Nonetheless I think that the lockdown was important and necessary and that it saved many NZ lives.

Men that are home on full pay while wife works thinking, yeah it’s holiday time, sleep when they want, do bugger all round home to catch up, drink when should be doing chores that needed doing, not considering […] oh I should cook, give partner that’s working a break – plain annoying.

Many reported struggling with children and home schooling while working from home:

Definitely finding it hard to help three kids, all at different levels, complete their school work, especially with a toddler running around.

It’s so difficult trying to manage schooling for the kids while also making time to work from home. Very stressful.

Bubbles and zombies

And finally, some people just wanted to get things off their chests:

Stop using that bloody word “bubble”. God I hate that word to describe home. Hang whoever decided to use it.

This is the closest I’m ever going to get to a zombie apocalypse, and it’s all just so boring. This is not at all what I was expecting.

Zombies or not, people were more positive than we’d expected. Their answers tell us about human resilience, humour, hardship and tragedy. While everyone’s lockdown was unique, we also shared many experiences. We want to thank everyone who shared theirs with us.

– ref. Time, family, work – and bored zombies. New Zealanders open up about life in coronavirus lockdown – https://theconversation.com/time-family-work-and-bored-zombies-new-zealanders-open-up-about-life-in-coronavirus-lockdown-140237

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer Sport Management, Western Sydney University

In the early hours of the morning, we learned Australia and New Zealand won their historic joint bid to host the FIFA 2023 Women’s World Cup.

It’s the first time two nations from different football confederations (Asia and Oceania) will co-host a World Cup. And it’s an especially sweet victory for Australia after its expensive failed bid for the 2022 men’s World Cup, which resulted in just one vote. No doubt the smile on Matildas star Sam Kerr’s face extends from ear to ear.

In an increasingly fractious world, the symbolism of Australia and New Zealand’s “As One” bid collaboration ought not be dismissed. Both countries have experience with this kind of partnership, having successfully co-hosted the 2015 Cricket World Cup and 2017 Rugby League World Cup.

But as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage globally and Australia wrestles with recession, it’s worth asking: do we really want this win from a financial perspective?

Brazil certainly had similar concerns, which is why it pulled out of the running just weeks ago.

Whether it’s a good investment in an economic downturn requires weighing the benefits against the costs. And while some benefits are evident – the World Cup will no doubt be a huge boost for women’s football in both countries, as well as women’s sport overall – there are significant questions about the expected revenues and long-term economic benefit.

Weighing the costs vs benefits

Football Federation Australia (FFA) remains confident the World Cup will be a money-maker.

In fact, the FFA forecasts a A$460 million social and economic benefit from hosting the tournament. It’s expected serious money will flow through the economy – everything from tourist revenue and ticket sales to infrastructure investment. Major cities won’t be the only beneficiaries; regional centres like Launceston and Dunedin are also expected to host games, to considerable economic benefit.

The FIFA bid evaluation report estimated the cost of running the tournament would be about A$150 million, with just over A$100 million of that coming from governments.

So, if the FFA’s forecast of economic and social benefits is roughly accurate – and projected costs don’t blow out – net benefits could well exceed A$200 million.

Read more: Australia wants to host the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup. Equal pay for the Matildas will help our chances

Such an outcome is not without precedent. Canada enjoyed a stunning net economic gain of C$493.6 million (A$525 million) from hosting the 2015 Women’s World Cup, much of it coming from spending by tourists.

FIFA agreed with the commercial potential of an Australia-New Zealand bid, saying in its bid evaluation report:

The high organising costs projected for the Australia/New Zealand bid are significantly offset by substantial government contributions. … Strong revenue projections, driven by significant local attendance figures and sponsorship income at national support level, have also helped to place the bid in a strong financial position.

Overestimating the financial benefits?

Replicating Canada’s success, however, is far from assured, perhaps more so now than ever. The pandemic has made planning for major events much more difficult – just ask the Tokyo Olympic organisers.

For starters, if federal and state governments don’t engage in new infrastructure investment for the tournament, or do so by diverting money that would have been spent elsewhere in the economy, the immediate economic stimulus is likely to be negligible.

And governments might not be in the mood to spend on these projects when the COVID-19 recovery is plunging their budgets into deficits.

The planned A$810 million redevelopment of Sydney’s ANZ Stadium (otherwise known as Stadium Australia), which is expected to host the World Cup final, now appears unlikely due to the crisis. Perhaps this is justifiable, given the overstated economic benefits of stadium investments.

Read more: Five reasons why your city won’t want to host the Olympic Games

On top of this, revenue from international tourism is an extremely uncertain proposition. FFA and Football New Zealand have projected they can sell about 1.5m tickets for the World Cup.

But this projection was presumably made before coronavirus. While pandemic fears may have evaporated by 2023, it remains a big question whether international tourists will want to travel overseas again so soon, or be able to afford to.

Then there are the growing diplomatic tensions with China, which may further curtail tourist dollars.

Even if these issues can be resolved, the tourism benefits for host countries of World Cups have been shown to be temporary at best.

Unfortunately, Australia and New Zealand will not share in potential revenue from TV broadcast rights and sponsorships. These benefits go almost exclusively to FIFA – this is the “non-profit” organisation’s main source of income.

How women’s sport could benefit

Despite all this, hosting the Women’s World Cup would certainly result in a massive celebration of women’s sport in both countries.

While difficult to quantify, the social benefits from large-scale sporting events should not be overlooked, particularly for women’s sport. An estimated 1 billion television viewers watched the 2019 World Cup in France, for instance, a jump from 750 million four years earlier. This trend is expected to continue.

Hosting a large sporting event can also lead to a “trickle-down effect” in grassroots sports participation in host countries. The FFA president believes the World Cup will “supercharge” women’s football in Australia and New Zealand, though such post-event participation boosts are not always easily realised.

Women’s professional sport has also been experiencing increased commercial and public interest in both countries. In Australia, a record-setting crowd of more than 86,000 fans watched the Australian women’s cricket team win the T20 Women’s World Cup earlier this year.

Weeks later, Australia also won the rights to host the FIBA 2022 Women’s Basketball World Cup.

Of course, there is still room for improvement on gender inequality in the game. Research shows it is a barrier to female participation. It was only last year, for example, that the Matildas achieved pay equity with the men’s team.

Read more: The gender pay gap for the FIFA World Cup is US$370 million. It’s time for equity

There are important gains to be made in gender equality off the pitch, too. Our research shows how entrenched sexism in Australian sports organisations continues to limit women’s sports management careers.

The sporting world clearly needs more women in public-facing and influential governance roles. The president of New Zealand Football, Johanna Woods, was the only woman leader among the World Cup bidding countries.

Gender equality was a major part of the Australia-NZ bid. Both countries pledged to use the World Cup to support their goals of achieving 40% female representation in football governance bodies.

In the end, this is where we are likely to see the biggest benefits from a World Cup – improving gender equality in sports, not a boost in household incomes or employment.

With the 2023 Women’s World Cup event happily secured, let’s start working toward this goal.

– ref. World Cup 2023 will be a massive boost for women’s sport – but does it make financial sense? – https://theconversation.com/world-cup-2023-will-be-a-massive-boost-for-womens-sport-but-does-it-make-financial-sense-140445

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Peacock, Senior Research Fellow, UNSW

There’s no question COVID-19 has changed many aspects of our lives. As drug researchers, we are interested in how the pandemic has affected illicit drug use in Australia.

Our two new surveys of Australians who regularly use illicit drugs show people most commonly reported no change or a reduction in their use of various illicit drugs since COVID-19 restrictions came into effect.

While this may be perceived as a good thing, for people who regularly use drugs, a period of decreased use can heighten the risk of adverse effects, such as overdose, later on.

Read more: Drug use may increase the risk of coronavirus. Here’s how to reduce the harms

Tracking drug trends

Many experts, ourselves included, predicted significant shifts in drug trends as governments around the world introduced restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19.

Evidence from major environmental, economic, and other past crises suggests the COVID-19 pandemic may have substantial effects on:

1. drug use (for example, switching to different substances or being unable to obtain drugs)

2. drug procurement (for example, shifts to online purchasing and buying drugs in larger quantities)

3. drug markets (for example, changes in price, purity and availability of illicit drugs).

These changes may increase the risk of drug-related harms, such as withdrawal, drug dependence and overdose. This could be especially problematic given challenges in delivery of drug treatment and harm-reduction services during COVID-19.

We wanted to see if Australians who use illicit drugs had experienced these changes.

We conducted telephone interviews with 350 Australians who live in capital cities and regularly use ecstasy and other illicit stimulants.

We also conducted an online survey of 702 Australians who regularly used illicit drugs in 2019.

We recruited participants for both studies between April and June via social media.

Drug use

Overall, we found the use of most illicit substances had largely remained stable or decreased since March. People most commonly reported they were using drugs like MDMA, ketamine and LSD at a similar level or less than they were before the pandemic.

Conversely, at least two in five people across both studies reported they were using more cannabis than before COVID-19.

These findings are unsurprising given cannabis is mostly used in private homes, whereas drugs like MDMA are more commonly used in public settings such as nightclubs or festivals.

Drug procurement

Most participants across both studies continued to obtain drugs face-to-face. But about 10% reported they had reduced face-to-face collection of drugs, obtained drugs less frequently, and bought drugs in larger quantities since COVID-19 restrictions.

People also reported trying to reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19 by washing their hands before handling drugs, and avoiding sharing equipment such as pipes, bongs, needles and syringes.

And about 10% of participants reported seeking information on how to reduce their risk of COVID-19 when using drugs.

These findings refute stigmatised views that people who use illicit drugs are reckless with their health.

Read more: Drug use can have social benefits, and acknowledging this could improve rehabilitation

Drug markets

Our participants largely perceived the illicit substances they sought were no less available since the start of restrictions.

The exception was MDMA pills; half of participants we interviewed by phone said they were “more difficult” to obtain.

These findings are surprising given illicit drugs like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine are typically detected at the Australian border, and air travel has been restricted with COVID-19.

However, the effects of COVID-19 on price, purity and availability of drugs may take time to become apparent and will vary by substance.

Reduced drug use is not always a positive

Participants commonly said their reduced substance use was a result of limited opportunities to “go out” and socialise. So as restrictions start to ease, it seems likely people will again increase their use of substances like MDMA and cocaine.

Resuming substance use after a period of abstinence or reduced use can increase the risk of harms such as overdose due to reduced tolerance to the effects of the drug.

Harm-reduction strategies — like taking smaller doses, spreading out doses during a session and having a sober person present — can help reduce the risk of these outcomes if people start to use drugs again or use larger amounts.

Peer-based organisations and online resources offer information and advice on how to reduce risk when using drugs.

Read more: Parents of teens, here’s what you really need to know about MDMA

We need broader research

Our samples mainly comprised young, educated capital city dwellers recruited via social media. Very few of our participants reported drug dependence or were engaged in drug treatment.

We need research exploring how COVID-19 has affected those who report more problematic patterns of use, like people who regularly inject drugs.

This group may be disproportionately affected by COVID-19 given underlying health issues, poorer health literacy, stigma, and higher economic and social vulnerabilities.

In responding to the impacts of COVID-19 on drug use, we need to remember that evidence shows punitive responses to drug control increase social and economic costs. We believe our findings reinforce the importance of pursuing drug policies and research focused on health, human rights and harm reduction.

Read more: Women are drinking more during the pandemic, and it’s probably got a lot to do with their mental health

We wish to acknowledge our research participants and the Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL) for their contribution to these projects.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call the National Alcohol and Other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015.

– ref. Pot, pills and the pandemic: how coronavirus is changing the way we use drugs – https://theconversation.com/pot-pills-and-the-pandemic-how-coronavirus-is-changing-the-way-we-use-drugs-141269

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kyle J.D. Mulrooney, Lecturer in Criminology, Co-director of the Centre for Rural Criminology, University of New England

This month, the Victorian government announced on-the-spot fines for trespassers on farms following an upper house inquiry into how animal activism affects agriculture.

It’s the latest in a string of new state and federal laws designed to crack down on activists who trespass on farms – often to gather video evidence of alleged animal cruelty, which is later distributed to the public.

But amid the flurry of attention on activists, another group of trespassers on farms has largely escaped attention: illegal hunters.

Unauthorised access to farm properties can create many problems – not least, it runs the risk spreading disease such as African swine fever that can devastate farming industries.

It’s important that laws to tackle farm trespass are evidence-based. So let’s look at the evidence.

Media and political focus

Media coverage of activists trespassing on farms has appeared regularly in recent years.

Over several months in 2018-19, activists targeted the Gippy Goat farm and cafe in Victoria – in one incident stealing three goats and a lamb. News reports covered the protests, claims by farmers that the fines issued to the activists was inadequate, and the eventual closure of the farm to the public.

In another example last year, the front page of rural newspaper the Weekly Times featured a family exiting the farming industry after alleged trespass and threats from animal activists.

Read more: Not just activists, 9 out of 10 people are concerned about animal welfare in Australian farming

Activists did not escape the attention of politicians. Ahead of Victoria’s new legislation this month, federal parliament last year passed a bill criminalising the “incitement” of both trespass, and damage or theft of property, on agricultural land.

Speaking in support of the bill, Attorney-General Christian Porter said trespass onto agricultural land could contaminate food and breach biosecurity protocols. He specifically cited “activists” when describing how the laws would work.

The New South Wales government last year also introduced significant fines for trespass on farms in the Right to Farm Act. And in South Australia, the government wants those who trespass or disrupt farming activities to face tougher penalties.

But as lawmakers crack down on animal activists, the problem of trespass by illegal hunters gets little political attention.

The illegal hunting problem

Illegal hunting includes hunting without a required licence and accessing private property without permission.

In 2015 and 2016, this article’s co-author Alistair Harkness surveyed 56 Victoria farmers about their experiences and perceptions of farm crime. Farmers reported that in recent years, illegal hunters had caused them economic loss and emotional anguish by:

• damaging fences
• shooting at buildings, beehives and livestock
• stealing from sheds
• failing to extinguish campfires
• destroying fields with their vehicles.

A follow-up mail survey of 906 Victorian farmers in 2017 and 2018 asked them to rate the seriousness of a range of issues. Farmers reported the following issues as either serious or very serious: illegal shooting on farms (34.4%), animal activism (30.9%), and trespass (44.2%).

Read more: Animal activists v private landowners: what does the law say?

Lead author Kyle Mulrooney is conducting the NSW Farm Crime Survey 2020. The work is ongoing, but so far farmers have reported feeling victimised by trespassers generally, and fear about illegal hunters. Farmers were not specifically asked for their views on trespassing activists.

A submission to a NSW parliamentary inquiry last year underscored the distress felt by farmers when hunters trespass on their properties. Farmer John Payne recalled:

Recently we had a period over several nights, where unknown persons trespassed on our property and callously killed a substantial number of our goat kids, in one case trussing one up before killing them. All just for fun and sport! […] This is one of several events where people have trespassed and shot our animals for fun, or hunted for pigs or wildlife, with little fear of detection, arrest and prosecution.

Police follow the evidence

Figures supplied to us by NSW Police show in 2018, 513 incidents of criminal trespass on farms was recorded – up from 421 in 2014.

Giving evidence to the NSW parliamentary inquiry, Detective Inspector Cameron Whiteside, the State Rural Crime Coordinator, said illegal hunting was “the most cited factor associated with the trespass” on farms.

Police action appears to be following the evidence. In communication with the lead author, Whiteside has said enforcement and operations focused on illegal hunting and trespass are a primary and current focus of the Rural Crime Prevention Team.

Target all trespassers

As African swine fever sweeps Asia, Australian pork producers have been urged to ramp up biosecurity efforts on their own properties. This reportedly includes restricting visitor numbers and separating visitor and farm vehicles.

There are fears that if the disease hits Australia, it could could shut down Australia’s A$5.3 billion pork industry, leading to mass job losses.

Given these risks, it’s important that policies to crack down on farm trespassers are guided by evidence, and don’t unduly target a single group.

And importantly, more research into the issue is needed – including into the social and economic impacts of farm trespass, in all its forms.

Read more: It isn’t clear how the new bill against animal rights activists will protect farmers

– ref. Illegal hunters are a bigger problem on farms than animal activists – so why aren’t we talking about that? – https://theconversation.com/illegal-hunters-are-a-bigger-problem-on-farms-than-animal-activists-so-why-arent-we-talking-about-that-126513

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Peetz, Professor of Employment Relations, Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, Griffith University

The future of jobs has been used to justify the major changes to university education announced last week. Fees for courses that, according to the government, lead to jobs with a great future will fall, while those with a poor future will rise.

But can the government predict the jobs of the future? And do proposed fee changes match those jobs that will grow?

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

It’s hard to predict future jobs

In the research I have done on the future of work, several things are clear. The further you look ahead, the less useful the present is as a guide. This is especially the case in employment because, in a quickly changing world, technology is hard to predict and changing consumption patterns even harder.

As prices for products fall in the face of new technologies, and new products are invented, those future consumption patterns are crucial but unforeseeable. Otherwise, we would all be using beta video camcorders but not the cameras on mobile phones.

Still, there have been several attempts to look at the jobs of the future, including by European researchers, the US Bureau of Labour Statistics, the CSIRO and the Australian government itself. There have been studies on future automation from Oxford university and the OECD.

From these we can tell some factors that will be important.

These include the ageing population and the increasing demands that will be put onto care workers. In the short to medium term, it is clear care work will be a major area of growth. But it is a lot harder to judge in the long term.

Artificial intelligence means it is no longer just routine jobs (remember typists?) that are threatened by new technology.

Information and communications technology (ICT) occupations may be strategically important but they need not provide lots of jobs. Computer programming may be done by other computers, for instance. Projected employment growth for ICT managers to 2024 (1.2%) is barely one sixth the average for all jobs (8.3%). Some jobs in ICT might end up quite insecure.

The type of skills (or competencies) that will likely be in demand appear to be those relating to creativity, problem-solving, collaboration, cooperation, resilience, communication, complex reasoning, social interaction and emotional intelligence.

They include empathy-related competencies such as compassion, tolerance, inter-cultural understanding, pro-social behaviour and social responsibility.

Read more: If the government listened to business leaders, they would encourage humanities education, not pull funds from it

Some of these are what universities preferred to call “critical thinking” skills – the sorts developed by generalist degrees like arts and commerce.

Choosing exactly the right field for a degree is less important, in terms of getting a job, than simply doing one. Reflecting the constant pressure of credentialism, employers will demand a more educated workforce (and continue to complain it is not “work ready”), regardless of universities’ or governments’ ability to anticipate the skill needs of the future.

Fee changes and future jobs

The government claimed higher personal incomes (“private returns”) from studying its preferred courses explained the different fees structure in its reforms. That’s how it justified raising fees for humanities, business and commerce courses while reducing fees for ICT, engineering and science.

But its own data actually showed there was no correlation between the two.

For example, by the logic of government policy, law and economics should have the fourth lowest student fees because their figures (see the chart above) show the expected private returns from law and economics courses are the fourth best. Yet the fees for law and economics under the proposed schema are equal worst (band 4, in the chart below).

The student fees for management and commerce, by their logic, should be right in the middle of the fee range as the returns are in the middle. Yet their fees are also equal highest.

And the government did not even use future-facing data to estimate private returns. It used census data from 2016 – on-average earnings in the census year. These did not account for the year a qualification was obtained.

That was a major gap, as returns tend to increase as time since graduation grows. These estimates made no use of the government’s own employment projections that suggested, for example, that employment for “industrial, mechanical and production engineers” would fall by 1.3%.

So it is hard to believe, even if the government thought it could predict the jobs of the future, that this is what motivated the changes to fees.

Read more: Humanities graduates earn more than those who study science and maths

After all, in many areas where student fees are cut, government contributions are also cut — by more. The resources to universities to provide the content of the future will be reduced. For instance, science and engineering courses will see a 17% reduction per student per year.

A more plausible explanation for the changes to university fees is that the marketable skills argument is just a cover for another agenda.

Critical thinking is a key skill for the future, but one can’t help but think it is not something the government wants encouraged.

– ref. Can government actually predict the jobs of the future? – https://theconversation.com/can-government-actually-predict-the-jobs-of-the-future-141275

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, University of Adelaide

For a short time Australia has an unrivalled opportunity to set itself apart from donors to the Pacific including China, Japan and the European Union.

As Victoria’s current COVID-19 spike shows, it will take Australia some time to open its borders to the world and allow residents to travel wherever they like.

But there’s no reason why it shouldn’t open its borders to some parts of the world sooner than others, especially those in which it has a special interest and in which the spread of coronavirus is slowing.

Australia and New Zealand have been talking about setting up a trans-Tasman “travel bubble” for some time.

It would allow quarantine-free travel between two geographically-isolated island nations that face little risk of outside infection.

Fiji has already expressed interest in joining, extending the bubble.

Read more: Why a trans-Tasman travel bubble makes a lot of sense for Australia and New Zealand

Throughout the South Pacific, youth unemployment averages over 23%. Tourism accounts for as much as half of gross domestic product and up to one in four jobs.

A bubble that extended beyond tourism to trade, education, and guest workers could help the Pacific (and holidaying Australians) in a way that the generous loans available from powers such as China could not.

Much of the architecture for a trade and tourism bubble is already in place.

The trade and investment agreement known as the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus concluded in Brisbane on 20 April 2017.

Good for Australia, good for the region

The agreement encompasses Australia, New Zealand and nine Pacific island countries: the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. It has been ratified by five of the members and will come into force when it is ratified by eight.

For the Pacific Islands, a “bubble” would provide a major boost to economic development and recovery from the crisis.

It could help relieve the social pressures that come from growing youth populations and attendant unemployment and minimise the danger of future political crises and associated need for Australian interventions and financial support.

The long-term importance of continued access to quality education, vocational and tertiary, for Pacific Islander youth is essential. Hard-pressed Australian Universities and vocational education suppliers would benefit too.

For Australia (and New Zealand) it could provide relief from isolation via travel to attractive destinations. Perhaps more importantly, it could help fill gaps in Australia’s skill set by supplying tradespeople and agricultural workers to meet genuine shortages.

It would also help maintain Australia’s business and investment interests in the Pacific. PACER Plus implementation would reinforce these gains. It will facilitate more investment and trade opportunities, in goods and services.

Read more: How might coronavirus change Australia’s ‘Pacific Step-up’?

Unfortunately, Fiji and Papua New Guinea have not yet signed PACER Plus, for various reasons.

It is unfortunate because trade and investment flows are their best long-term route to advancement. There are strong economic complementarities between Australia and Pacific nations, especially for Papua New Guinea.

A bubble, implemented when the health situation allows, would be supported by many Pacific islands nations and most likely their regional coordinating body, the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat.

Together with PACER Plus implementation, it would benefit Australia and benefit the region in a way that aid and infrastructure support from big powers can not.

Read more: Sun, sand and uncertainty: the promise and peril of a Pacific tourism bubble

– ref. COVID-19 provides a rare chance for Australia to set itself apart from other regional powers. It can create a Pacific ‘bubble’ – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-provides-a-rare-chance-for-australia-to-set-itself-apart-from-other-regional-powers-it-can-create-a-pacific-bubble-139276

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

In light of Victoria’s COVID-19 resurgence, and with school holidays imminent, it might seem likely premier Daniel Andrews would tighten social mobility restrictions and his New South Wales counterpart, Gladys Berejiklian, would close the border with Victoria.

Read more: Victoria’s coronavirus hotspots: not quite a second wave, but still cause for concern

But it’s unlikely either will. Here’s why.

Politicians have varying degrees of competence. We voters only learn about that over time, based on their track record. We draw inferences about their competence from their actions. Because of that, politicians are reticent to ever admit they were wrong.

Judging competence

Imagine, for simplicity, there are just two types of politician: competent and incompetent. The reality is more complicated, of course, but all useful models simplify reality. To paraphrase the celebrated British economist Joan Robinson, a map on a scale of 1:1 is no use at all.

Let’s assume both types have a chance of knowing the best policy course, though competent types are more likely to get it right.

All else being equal – factoring out policy positions, for example – voters would like to elect competent politicians.

In lieu of better information (or even with it), they draw inferences about competency from politicians’ public actions.

Consider a politician who is competent. Faced with a degree of uncertainty about the right course, they take a specific policy stance. Think of Andrews going for a harder lockdown in Victoria than other Australian states. Or Berejiklian insisting Queensland closing its border with New South Wales was a bad idea.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Border wars split political leaders and embroil health experts

Or think of a stark example of incompetence, such as US president George W. Bush’s 2003 decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. Whatever one thinks of the decision – I consider it the then most significant US foreign policy mistake since Vietnam – the Bush administration believed it would bring democracy to the Middle East.

As Bush’s vice-president Dick Cheney said in the days just before the US invasion began:

My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

Then, as is wont to happen, new information arrives that casts doubt on the original decision. In the case of Iraq, it turned out Americans weren’t greeted as liberators, and toppling Saddam sparked a vicious and protracted civil war.

But did Bush reverse course?

He did not. A big part of the reason (along with neoconservative advisers like Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz being in his ear) was that to do so would be admitting he got it wrong.

Incentives to gamble

In the language of economics, this would have led voters to update their beliefs about the probability of Bush being competent.

This might sound blindingly obvious. But it is also a subtle point. Why wouldn’t voters, we might ask, reward a politician who says: “I messed up. I made the best decision with the information I had at the time. Now I have new information, and when I get new information I change my mind.”

But voters have limited information to figure out if a politician is competent. So while we know people do make mistakes, it’s also rational to consider a politician who admits to getting it wrong as less likely to be competent, because incompetent types are more likely to make mistakes.

Even when faced with new information, politicians thus have an incentive to “gamble” on the risky choice that vindicates their initial stance. By not changing course, they preserve their reputation with many voters as likely competent. In fact, “sticking to their guns” might even boost their appeal.

So it is that competent politicians may fail to admit their mistakes, even when they know they’ve messed up.

Doubling down

Back to the spike in COVID-19 infections in Victoria.

If Andrews reverses course and tightens social-distancing provisions, he will be implicitly admitting his government relaxed them too soon.

Similarly, if Berejiklian now says closing the border with Victoria is a good idea, voters will question her past stance on borders.

In both cases, the premiers may wish to gamble (to a degree) by doubling down on their positions.

Read more: Vital Signs: rules are also signals, which is why easing social distancing is such a problem

The perverse but logically inescapable possibility is this. Andrews and Berejiklian might well have been right all along. It might now make sense for them to change course. But doing so could damage their re-election prospects.

Maybe politicians have an even tougher job than we give them credit for.

– ref. Vital Signs: why even competent politicians refuse to change policy course – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-why-even-competent-politicians-refuse-to-change-policy-course-141356

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerrie Davies, Lecturer, School of the Arts & Media, UNSW

Washington Post publisher, Philip L. Graham, famously declared that journalism is the “first rough draft of history”. It’s also the first rough draft of inspiration for movies and books “based on a true story”.

Since four Victorian journalists witnessed Ned Kelly’s last stand on June 28 1880, their vivid accounts have influenced portrayals of the bushranger – from the world’s first feature film in 1906 to Peter Carey’s 2000 novel, True History of the Kelly Gang, adapted to a gender-bending punk film earlier this year.

In the hours before the Glenrowan siege, the four newspaper men – Joseph Dalgarno Melvin of The Argus, George Vesey Allen of the Melbourne Daily Telegraph, John McWhirter of The Age and illustrator Francis Thomas Dean Carrington of The Australasian Sketcher with Pen and Pencil – received a last-minute telegram to join the Special Police Train from Melbourne to confront the Kelly Gang.

The rail journey would prove to be one hell of an assignment and inspiration for Kelly retellings over the next 140 years.

Read more: True History of the Kelly Gang review: an unheroic portrait of a violent, unhinged, colonial punk

All aboard

The journalists have a fleeting scene in the 1970 Ned Kelly film starring a pouty Mick Jagger. Two characters rush up to the train, holding huge pads of paper to signal their press credentials to the audience.

It’s a cinematic glimpse of the journalists whose historic descriptions continue to influence the Ned Kelly cultural industry that is the cornerstone of Australia’s bushranger genre.

The train left Melbourne late Sunday evening. Carrington, “embedded” along with the others, described the journey:

… the great speed we were going at caused the carriage to oscillate very violently … The night was intensely cold.

McWhirter’s take was somewhat more upbeat, suggesting a thrill in the cold evening air. He wrote the night was

a splendid one, the moon shining with unusual brightness whilst the sharp, frosty air caused the slightest noise in the forest beyond to be distinctly heard.

After 1am Monday, the train arrived at Benalla, where it picked up more troopers, horses and “Kelly hunter” Superintendent Francis Hare, played by Geoffrey Rush in Gregor Jordan’s 2003 adaptation of Robert Drewe’s novel, Our Sunshine.

Sometime later, the train was flagged down before Glenrowan by schoolteacher Thomas Curnow, alerting the travelling party to the dangerous Kelly gang ahead. In a follow-up article about the siege, Melvin reported the first details of the teacher’s bravery. This would become a pivotal scene in future Kelly recreations: “Kindling a light behind a red handkerchief, he improvised a danger signal”.

When the train arrived at Glenrowan station, the horses were released and bolted “pell-nell into a paddock”, wrote Carrington, as the Kellys opened fire.

Part of the story

Unhindered by modern media ethics, the journalists became actively involved in the siege. Their involvement is a nod to “gonzo journalism” practices – made famous nearly a century later by writer Hunter S. Thompson – in which journalists join the action rather than neutrally report on it.

Kelly had a love-hate relationship with the press. He once wrote:

Had I robbed, plundered, ravished and murdered everything I met, my character could not be painted blacker than it is at present, but I thank God my conscience is as clear as the snow in Peru …

Early in the siege, the journalists sheltered from the gunfire at the station, until they saw Hare bleeding from the wrist. Carrington wrote:

We plugged each end of the wound with some cotton waste and bound it up with a silk pocket handkerchief … Mr Hare again essayed to start for the hotel. He had got about fifty yards when he turned back and reeled. We ran to him and supported him to a railway carriage, and there he fainted from loss of blood … Some of the bullets from the verandah came whistling and pinging about us.

As the siege continued into the early hours, the journalists recorded the wails of the Glenrowan Inn’s matron, Ann Jones, when her son was shot, as well as the eerie tapping of Kelly’s gun on his helmet, which Carrington wrote sounded like “the noise like the ring of a hammer on an anvil”.

Their interviews with released hostages revealed gang member Joe Byrne was shot as he reached for a bottle of whiskey that, like Curnow flagging down the train, has become another key Kelly siege scene.

Man in the iron mask

Of all the gripping details the journalists recorded, their first descriptions of the bushranger emerging in his armour in the morning mist were what proved most inspiring to subsequent Kelly creators.

Allen wrote the helmet was “made of ploughshares stolen from the farmers around Greta”, describing the cutting blade construction, and called him “the man in the iron mask”. Carrington wrote:

Presently we noticed a very tall figure in white stalking slowly along in the direction of the hotel. There was no head visible, and in the dim light of morning, with the steam rising from the ground, it looked, for all the world, like the ghost of Hamlet’s father with no head, only a very long, thick neck.

After Kelly was shot in the legs, the writer described his collapse and his dramatic unmasking:

The figure staggered and reeled like a drunken man, and in a few moments afterwards fell near the dead timber. The spell was then broken, and we all rushed forward to see who and what our ghostly antagonist was […] the iron mask was torn off, and there, in the broad light of day, were the features of the veritable bloodthirsty Ned Kelly himself.

Precious film footage restored by the Australian National Film and Sound Archive of the 1906 film The Story of the Kelly Gang, the world’s first feature film, shows Kelly shooting at police in his iconic armour, then collapsing by a dead trunk on the ground surrounded by police. The scene is just as Carrington and his colleagues described it in their reports.

Perhaps the most faithful rendering of Carrington’s Kelly description is Peter Carey’s fictional witness in the preface of True History of the Kelly Gang.

Carey’s witness echoes the description of Kelly as a “creature” and describes its “headless neck”.

After he was shot in the legs, the witness recounts Kelly “reeled and staggered like a drunken man” and falling near dead timber. The book’s preface and Melvin’s first Argus report both describe Kelly after he fell as “a wild beast brought to bay”.

Carey’s witness may be fictional, but his account is based on journalists’ accounts of witnessing Kelly’s capture. Carey credited many of his research sources to Kelly historian Ian Jones, who republished Carrington’s account titled Catching the Kellys – A Personal Narrative of One who Went in the Special Train along with illustrations in Ned Kelly: The Last Stand, Written and Illustrated by an Eyewitness.

‘Hunted like a dog’

The journalists helped the police strip Kelly of his armour and carry him back to the station, cut off his boots and kept him warm, all the while interviewing him as the siege continued with the remaining bushrangers inside the inn.

McWhirter remarked the bushranger was “composed”.

“I had several conversations with him, and he told me he was sick of his life, as he was hunted like a dog, and could get no rest,” Carrington wrote. He described Kelly’s clothes underneath the armour – a crimean (meaning a coloured, no button flannel) shirt with large black spots.

The journalists then turned their attention to the burning of the inn, featured in the background of Sidney Nolan’s 1946 painting, Glenrowan which depicts a fallen Kelly towering in his armour over policemen and Aboriginal trackers.

Kelly was hanged in Melbourne in November 1880, a few months after the journalists’ train ride and the siege.

The journalists continued their careers, with Melvin becoming the most prominent of the four in participatory journalism. After a stint as a war correspondent, he joined the Helena ship as an crew member to investigate, undercover, the “blackbirding” trade that indentured South Pacific Islanders to the Australian cane fields.

In the 1906 review of the first feature film – The Story of the Kelly Gang and exhibition, The Age critic wrote, “if there were any imperfections in detail probably few in the hall had memories long enough to detect them”.

Yet, the 1906 film was criticised by the Argus for not being faithful to the original descriptions of his “bushman dandy” dress as described by Carrington and his colleagues on the day.

The art may be in the interpreting eye, but the scenes are from that first rough draft of history.

– ref. Friday essay: how a ‘gonzo’ press gang forged the Ned Kelly legend – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-how-a-gonzo-press-gang-forged-the-ned-kelly-legend-136232

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

Excess buying of toilet paper has become a leading indicator of public alarm about COVID-19. This week in Victoria, people were heading for the shelves again.

Just when Australians’ march out of our dark months was accelerating, Victorian numbers of new cases started ticking up. The state government reimposed some restrictions and declared dangerous hotspots.

Daniel Andrews asked the military to help on both the logistical and medical fronts. Other states were ready to assist. More negatively, the Berejiklian government, which has been insisting Queensland should lift its border restrictions, suddenly wasn’t too keen on traffic across the open NSW-Victorian border.

“Please reassess where you’re going in the next few weeks,” Gladys Berejiklian said on Thursday. “If you have a planned trip to Melbourne, please don’t go. Please do not welcome your friends, who may be intending to visit from Victoria, in the next few weeks, into your home.”

Australia remains balkanised.

Scott Morrison’s frustration is obvious. After reluctantly but wisely initially accepting more of a shutdown than he wanted, Morrison has his eye firmly on the exit sign. With the government announcing $250 million for the creative arts sector, he is asking national cabinet to give the entertainment industry a timetable for reopening.

Read more: Government unveils $250 million for ‘creative economy’

Even chief medical officer Brendan Murphy, a fixture at prime ministerial news conferences for months, is vacating his role for a much-delayed start on Monday in his new job as secretary of the federal health department.

When the reopening of the economy began some weeks ago, Morrison and Murphy warned there would be fresh COVID outbreaks that would have to be managed. Now they’ve arrived, and how effectively they can be contained is yet to be seen.

Victoria’s daily tallies of new cases this week were: Monday 16; Tuesday 17; Wednesday 20; Thursday 33. Numbers are expected to rise with wider testing. The question for coming weeks is, when do selective outbreaks turn into a new “wave”?

Unless the health situation deteriorates dramatically, Morrison is determined not to take a step backward.

He sees Australia having the chance to emerge more strongly and rapidly from the crisis than most countries, a prospect reinforced by the latest figures from the International Monetary Fund. It revised its forecast for the Australian economy’s contraction in 2020 from 6.7% to 4.5%. But the broader picture became grimmer: the world recession is likely to be deeper and more prolonged than earlier thought.

Morrison believes in Australia we have reached the point where, with an adequately-reinforced health system and arrangements for dealing with limited outbreaks, we need to accept “that we live alongside the virus”. Speaking at the launch of the arts aid, he said with some force, “We can’t go, stop, go, stop, go. We can’t flick the light on and off, and on and off, and on and off, and on and off. ”.

But ultimately, it is the states that have the whip hands and in general the premiers, and not just Andrews, are a lot more risk-averse than the prime minister.

Andrews announced he was dispatching 1000 door-knockers to canvass a slew of suburbs, telling people to get tested at vans and ambulances stationed at the end of streets. “We again find ourselves on a knife’s edge,” he said on Thursday. “What we do now will determine what comes next.”

The Victorian outbreaks have stirred a blame game. Critics claim Victoria fell down on testing, didn’t spread the health messages effectively to ethnic communities, and failed to act strongly enough against the black lives protest.

Although only several protesters have tested positive and there’s no evidence the demonstrators in Victoria and other states spread the virus, the condemnation has become that they set a bad example, resulting in other people flouting restrictions and social distancing.

Morrison, who’s been outspoken about various states maintaining closed borders and censorious about the protests, is in general keeping himself in check. This is both to ensure his national cabinet works as smoothly as possible despite internal differences, and because he knows the public wants co-operation at this time, not political sniping.

In just-conducted University of Canberra focus group research ahead of the July 4 Eden-Monaro byelection, participants were in furious agreement with the proposition that in a post-virus world politicians needed to be more collaborative and less adversarial.

Read more: Eden-Monaro byelection will be ‘very close’, according to participants in focus group research

Most participants felt Morrison had gone through a learning process and this was reflected in the creation of the national cabinet. But there were some fears the old, more negative politics would return.

Labor’s research in this seat it holds on a margin of less than 1% would no doubt be hearing the same messages, which fit with leader Anthony Albanese’s point, expressed when he became leader, that the public has conflict fatigue.

With an eye to Eden-Monaro, Albanese this week proposed his lets-get-together-and-talk initiative – that he and Morrison should negotiate a bipartisan “framework” for energy policy.

Albanese stressed he wasn’t seeking the impossible – bipartisan agreement on the detail. Rather, this was a quest for broad brush strokes to give investors the certainty they crave.

The Albanese move could be read several ways.

Some regarded it as a policy pivot by Labor, especially as its reference to support for carbon capture and storage meant – though it was not spelled out in the letter he wrote to Morrison – there was provision for the coal and gas industries.

And here was Albanese trying to juggle Labor’s internal strains over climate policy, given the pressure from some in the caucus, notably resources spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon, to have the opposition’s 2019 position softened.

But primarily, Albanese was trying to put Morrison on the spot, given climate is an important issue in Eden-Monaro and voters are demanding a co-operative approach to politics.

In his letter, Albanese made no significant policy concessions. This was about a public political vibe.

For the opposition leader, there seemed little to lose. The push for bipartisanship echoes what business groups as well as the public desire.

Assuming it goes nowhere with Morrison, the proposal provides Labor with a serviceable line to run out in the last days of the byelection.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Scott Morrison undeterred on COVID re-opening despite rise in toilet paper index – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-scott-morrison-undeterred-on-covid-re-opening-despite-rise-in-toilet-paper-index-141456

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John O’Rourke, Senior lecturer, Edith Cowan University

Research has found people who have clarity around what provides meaning in their lives tend to be happier, healthier, more satisfied with life and resilient in the face of adversity.

Given the dramatic growth in mental health issues, particularly in young people, researchers have recently tried to more deeply understand what gives young people’s lives meaning.

We conducted a research project with 174 students in year seven, where they used photographs to show what was important to them. We found relationships – with friends, family and pets – were what they most believed gave meaning to their life.

Using the mind’s eye

A 2013 study in the US explored the meaning of life for college students using what the researchers called “the mind’s eye” technique.

Researchers asked college students to take photos of things that made their lives meaningful and write a short narrative to describe them. The photographs became a record of meaning-in-life sources. The most common photos were of relationships, hobbies and activities, and nature.

The research method also provided a personalised view on why students chose these images.

We used the same approach in an Australian secondary school to determine what gave 174 year seven students meaning in life – at school and outside of it.

The students took two photos each – of what provides meaning in life at school and out of school – and wrote why they had chosen these images.

Meaning in life, at school

Students took a variety of images. But overwhelmingly they identified friends as the main source of meaning in life at school, followed by their own learning.

This word cloud highlights the most commonly used words in the students’ narratives, and shows how important friends are in young peoples’ school lives.

Students suggested their friends not only provided meaning because they were fun to be with and shared common interests, but because they provided support as they tackled the challenges of high school.

Of the 151 images devoted to friendships, 31 of the accompanying narratives used the term “they’re always there for me”, suggesting these friendships were built on commitment and emotional support.

One student said friends

give my life meaning because if I didn’t have them I wouldn’t be the person I am now. Friends are people you learn from, they’re like fun teachers. They teach us what to do and what not to do.

Another student described her friends as inspirational

[…] they give my life meaning because they are always there to help me and inspire me to do great things. They are positive people who don’t bring me down – they make me feel better about myself.

Meaning in life, outside school

Students continued the theme of relationships when talking about the sources of meaning in their lives outside school. Their three main sources of meaning were sport, family and pets.

The selection of sport for both boys and girls appeared based more on the friendships in these settings, rather than the sport itself.

For example, this student took a photo of her trophies to represent netball, but said it was “the people you get to meet and the things you get to do that make it meaningful”.

Students also found meaning in life from their families. They consistently expressed the importance of being cared for and supported. It was clear that love and togetherness gave their young lives coherence.

Simple things were telling. One student wrote of their family:

[…] they give my life meaning because they love me, accept me and help me thorough the tough times.

Students also saw pets as part of the family and a strong source of meaning in life. Given students’ desire for loyalty and consistency from their friends, it was not surprising the uncomplicated relationships with pets were so important.

One student wrote:

This is a photo of my dog[…] She gives my life meaning because I love her, and love walking, playing and taking care of her. She is like a sister to me.

Others enjoyed creative pursuits. One student took a photo of herself singing and said:

It gives my life meaning because I love to do it, it’s fun and helps me to dream big for the future ahead.

While schools keep a careful eye on their students’ learning, it’s important they ensure academic growth is aligned with meaning and purpose.

Practical research interventions such as the minds-eye can provide schools with a sense of what gives their students meaning. This can direct programs and tailor support around nurturing these sources, and let students “dream big for the future”.

– ref. What’s the meaning of life? These students have some answers – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-meaning-of-life-these-students-have-some-answers-132003

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Moro, Associate Professor of Science & Medicine, Bond University

Why are our top eyelashes longer than our bottom eyelashes? Lilia, aged 7

Thanks for this great question, Lilia.

The upper eyelid is larger, longer and has deeper roots so it can support more luscious lashes.

All mammals have this feature, but why have the eyes developed this way?

The most significant reason is to protect our eyeballs. But having longer top eyelashes can also help us express our feelings and communicate with others.

They protect you

We have between 90 and 160 eyelashes in each upper lid, each of which grow between 8mm and 12mm long. In each lower lid, we have around 75 lashes which grow 6–9mm long.

Together, your long top and shorter bottom lashes provide a curtain of protection that covers the whole eye socket. This stops dust, insects or sweat getting into your eye and hurting it.

Without eyelashes, your eye would also dry out much quicker, and would be more likely to catch nasty germs. This is why people without eyelashes have to blink much more often.

Read more: Curious Kids: will I go blind if I shut my eyes and face the Sun?

There is actually an “ideal length” for upper eyelashes.

Using eyelash lengths from humans, as well as across a range of animal species, this is one-third the width of the eye. Any shorter and wind gets through too easily. Any longer and the wind starts to become caught under the lashes, with both scenarios causing the eyes to dry out more.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why do tears come out of our eyes when we cry?

Eyelashes protect animals too

Humans are not the only animals that have eyelashes — all mammals have them, including cats, dogs, elephants, and mice. But they differ in length and density depending on where the animal lives. In most cases, other animals also have much longer lashes on the upper lid.

For animals that live in dusty areas, their eyelashes stop them getting specks of dust in their eyes. This is why camels, kangaroos, elephants and giraffes have several rows of long eyelashes, not just one row.

In rodents, such as rats, eyelashes are positioned around the eye and act as sensors. That way, rats can protect their eyes by blinking whenever they sense an unknown object near their eyes.

But it’s not just mammals. Birds have also developed eyelash-like feathers around their upper eyelids.

These feathers protect birds’ eyes from sunlight by casting a shadow on their eye. Compared to mammals, these eyelash-like feathers are long (up to 2cm), thick, and widely spaced out.

Other ways eyelashes are useful

Our eyelashes are also important for when we meet and talk to other people.

If you are feeling tired, surprised or concerned, your eyelashes can help someone else tell how you are feeling. Also, fluttering your eyelashes at someone might be a way to indicate you really like them. The extra length of the top eyelashes helps to emphasise this.

Read more: Curious Kids: how do eyes grow?

Lash facts

• Unlike most other hairs in our body, eyelashes don’t have the tiny muscles that make the hairs stand on end, giving us goosebumps

• eyelashes are usually the darkest-coloured hair in our body, and they never go grey!

• the early Egyptians used makeup on their eyelashes, just like many people do today. They lived more than 5,000 years ago

• eyelashes vary a lot between people. Different people can have big differences in the number, thickness, curliness, shape or length of their eyelashes

• lashes curve outwards from the eye so the top and bottom hairs don’t get tangled up when we blink

• if we pull out our eyelashes it takes about eight weeks for them to grow back. So it’s probably best not to!

Read more: Curious Kids: why do our toes and fingers get wrinkly in the bath?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

– ref. Curious Kids: why are our top eyelashes longer than our bottom eyelashes? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-are-our-top-eyelashes-longer-than-our-bottom-eyelashes-132585

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

On July 4, the voters of Eden-Monaro will give their judgment on the performances of Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese.

The seat is held by Labor on a margin of just under 1%. Labor is campaigning hard on JobKeeper ending in late September, while the Liberals are hoping the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis will outweigh Scott Morrison’s poor conduct during the bushfires.

In this podcast, Michelle Grattan discusses the byelection campaign with the main candidates, Labor’s Kristy McBain and Liberal Fiona Kotvojs.

McBain: “I think everybody’s sick of old politics … this idea that you govern for only the people that vote for you. When you’re elected, you’re elected to represent everybody, whether they agree with you or not. You should be hearing them out, and I want to make sure that people in Eden-Monaro have a strong fair voice in Canberra for them.”

Kotvojs: “There [are] two key issues: one is about recovering after fires and after COVID, and the other is in terms of rebuilding our economy. So in terms of the first one, what we need to do is to look at getting more consistency and an integrated approach between the three levels of government… In terms of the rebuilding the economy, that’s all about jobs.”

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: The Battle for Eden-Monaro – interviews with Kristy McBain and Fiona Kotvojs – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-the-battle-for-eden-monaro-interviews-with-kristy-mcbain-and-fiona-kotvojs-141377

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margarietha de Villiers Scheepers, Senior Lecturer Entrepreneurship and Innovation, University of the Sunshine Coast

Market commentators view Apple’s announcements at this week’s Worldwide Developers Conference 2020 (WWDC) as one of the company’s most important strategic moves of the past decade.

Among the key announcements were details of the watchOS 7 – with a pandemic-inspired handwashing detection feature – and plans to end Apple’s reliance on Intel for Mac processing chips.

While Apple still views itself as an innovator, critics point out many of its product innovations in recent years have been incremental – with calls for an entire new product category. And consumers have been finding it increasingly hard to distinguish between Apple and competitors like Samsung.

Will we ever again see something from Apple that truly changes the market?

We think Apple’s newest updates may be early signs it is, in fact, looking to get back on the map as a “business model innovator”. This describes how an organisation creates, delivers and captures value through business activities.

As University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School professor Raffi Amit explains, Apple has renewed its business model many times – from changing the music industry with Apple Music, to creating a community of independent app providers through the App Store.

A pro-hygiene smartwatch

In today’s COVID-19 world, Apple’s new watch OS7 (expected to be released later this year) will offer automatic handwashing detection.

Motion sensors, the microphone (which will listen for water sounds) and on-device machine learning will detect when a user is washing their hands. The watch will then start a 20-second timer.

By monitoring the frequency and duration of handwashing, preventative health care will be in the hands of users.

Apple uses its wealth of consumer trend data, combined with advances in machine learning, data and analytics to offer an intensely human experience to suit users’ lifestyles. By focusing on the customer’s journey, Apple is in a unique position to create products with superior customer value.

For the WatchOS 7’s handwashing feature, the customer journey starts by reminding users to wash their hands when they get home. The health app monitors the process, even detecting if a user stops prematurely. By focusing on each step of this “journey”, Apple aims to provide peace of mind and address customer anxieties during the pandemic.

In the market of fashionable wearables, Apple’s smartwatch dominates. Last year, the Apple Watch outsold the entire Swiss watch industry.

In line with a strong trend towards personalisation, Apple’s WatchOS 7 also offers customisable watch faces, sleep tracking, improved workout apps with dancing and several built-in acoustic health features such as monitoring ambient sound levels.

Breaking up with Intel

Apple’s long-awaited breakup with Intel was confirmed at the WWDC 2020. Chief executive Tim Cook announced the company’s plans to transition to using its own Apple silicon processors for Macs.

Currently, Mac computers operate with Intel’s x86 desktop chips. By 2021, these will be replaced with the custom-designed processors Apple has already been using in newer iPhones and iPads – spelling the end of a 15-year partnership between Apple and Intel.

The move is part of Apple’s continued strategy to gain as much control as possible over its product ecosystem and development processes. It could also be seen as a reaction to Intel’s hesitance to meet its requirements.

Intel has fallen behind in the industry’s race to miniaturise and has experienced production delays and shortages. Apple’s new processors promise more power efficiency, are lighter and have superior performance for 3D graphics and for apps using artificial intelligence.

Similar to other tech giants, Apple is expanding its capabilities not just through acquisition, but also by developing its inhouse capabilities.

And while the Apple-Intel partnership only amounted to 5% of Intel’s overall sales, the breakup will still impact Intel’s image as a market leader in chip manufacturing.

Read more: Apple’s iPhone 11 Pro wants to take your laptop’s job (and price tag)

An insulated ecosystem

It’s likely the decision from Apple signals their intent to exert more control over developers, suppliers and customers through the Apple product ecosystem. Indeed, Apple’s tendency to entrench its customers in this ecosystem has raised concerns.

For instance, larger players like Netflix, Spotify and Amazon Kindle have been fighting back against Apple’s policy of forcing users to use Apple pay to purchase their apps, which sees Apple collect up to 30% of the revenue up front.

While companies such as Netflix can reach users independently through online marketing, smaller app developers are forced to pay the Apple tax of 15-30%.

Still a leading innovator?

At the WWDC, Cook framed the newest announcements as evidence of Apple’s ongoing commitment to innovation.

For many consumers, the most exciting updates will be Apple’s new internet-based technologies. These include spatial audio for AirPods Pro, a feature that creates a more realistic surround sound experience and the new CarKey function which will be compatible with 2021 BMW 5 Series. This will let drivers unlock and drive their car using their iPhone, thanks to a specialisied NCP (network co-processor) chip inside the phone.

It seems Apple has plans to keep excelling as a business model innovator.

The company’s innovations – even when incremental – still drive product value. This is used to turn profits which can then be reinvested into broader business model innovation.

It’s no surprise shareholders and enthusiasts remain confident about Apple’s future.

Read more: The new iPhone SE is the cheapest yet: smart move, or a premium tech brand losing its way?

– ref. Latest updates: Apple is trying to reclaim its major innovator status (by making you wash your hands) – https://theconversation.com/latest-updates-apple-is-trying-to-reclaim-its-major-innovator-status-by-making-you-wash-your-hands-141293

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Kamradt-Scott, Associate professor, University of Sydney

Australia has weathered the coronavirus pandemic better than many other countries, recording just over 7,500 cases and 100 deaths so far. But various errors, such as the Ruby Princess debacle, show we can – and must – do better.

The crisis has reignited a long-running debate about the need for an Australian Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (AusCDC).

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese advocated for one this week, as did Australian Medical Association President Tony Bartone. It is likely these calls will grow louder as the pandemic progresses, especially if we see a second wave in Australia.

Support has been building for decades

The proposal for an AusCDC has been debated for at least the past 33 years.

In 2012, a parliamentary committee on trans-border health threats received submission after submission supporting the creation of an AusCDC, prompting the committee to recommend commissioning an independent review into the feasibility of its creation.

Read more: Proposed Australian centre for disease control will deliver high-voltage public health

However, after a limited consultation and six-year delay, the federal government responded by saying a centralised agency to coordinate health emergency responses was not needed.

This finding goes against the consensus of the Australian public health community. It goes against the advice of the Australian Medical Association. Worse still, it goes against basic common sense.

The need for a coordinated and improved response to health emergencies across Australia’s multiple jurisdictions has been flagged many times during COVID-19. So what’s stopping us?

Politics getting in the way

The short answer is politics. While the public health community has long supported the creation of an AusCDC, it has repeatedly fallen foul of state and federal politics.

NSW and Victoria have consistently held any CDC should be based in their respective states, while others have argued for Canberra.

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

State governments have also resisted calls for a national CDC on the basis it might “steal” their top public health experts.

The federal Department of Health, meanwhile, has reportedly flagged its discomfort with an independent, arm’s length entity.

The case for an AusCDC

Australia’s pandemic preparedness efforts throughout the early 2000s established a solid foundation for the national COVID-19 response, but successive governments dropped the ball.

Multiple recommendations to continue strengthening our preparedness efforts were ignored. Our national influenza vaccine manufacturing capacity that once guaranteed Australians priority access has been privatised.

And our national medical stockpile of personal protective equipment appears to have been subjected to budget cuts and efficiency savings to the point where there was insufficient stock when the pandemic struck.

Read more: 4 ways Australia’s coronavirus response was a triumph, and 4 ways it fell short

While our politicians will no doubt point to the National Cabinet as evidence Australia managed the crisis well, its creation was a stop-gap measure invented in the middle of a crisis that ignored Australia’s existing pandemic governance arrangements.

Admittedly, an AusCDC would not fix all of these problems. But there is a reason why countries like China and Nigeria, as well as entities like the European Union, have followed the US lead in creating one.

In fact, Australia is the only OECD country without such a centralised disease control agency.

Basing a new AusCDC in the north

Building an AusCDC is only one small part of the equation. Our region is one of the most disaster-prone areas of the world. Added to that, it comprises nearly two-thirds of the world’s population, many of whom live in high-density urban environments where diseases can spread easily.

When the next crisis emerges – and it will – Australia will have an important role to play.

For these reasons, it makes little sense to locate the new AusCDC in Canberra or Sydney. It needs to be as close to Asia as possible – in Darwin.

Australia’s civil-military medical assistance teams (AusMAT) are already based there to respond rapidly to regional disasters.

Locating a new AusCDC in Darwin would address one of the Coalition’s long-standing priorities of developing Australia’s north, guaranteeing the creation of new jobs and infrastructure.

If built on the AusMAT foundations, it would complement the Australian Defence Force’s efforts to help regional neighbours to meet common threats, such as malaria, dengue, even Zika.

This would provide new opportunities for civil and military cooperation in health, and counter China’s growing influence through its military medical diplomacy activities across the region.

We could be doing more

An AusCDC would allow us to add another component – a new Australian Public Health Corps (AHPC), a uniformed service of epidemiologists, nurses, pharmacists, physicians and even engineers that could be deployed at a moment’s notice to respond to disasters or health emergencies.

This workforce would be based on the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (USPHSCC), which has responded to disasters such as Ebola outbreaks in Africa, Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. It also provides healthcare services to Native Americans living on remote reservations.

The same concept could work with an Australian Public Health Corps, staffed partially by highly skilled Indigenous health care professionals, who could provide health care services to rural and remote communities.

This would not only aid our Closing the Gap efforts, but also provide Indigenous healthcare workers with new employment opportunities similar to the Indigenous Rangers programme that has proven so successful.

We must look to the future and ensure we are better prepared for the next pandemic or regional health emergency. The time for the creation of an Australian Centre for Disease Control is well past due.

– ref. Coronavirus pandemic shows it’s time for an Australian Centre for Disease Control – in Darwin – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-pandemic-shows-its-time-for-an-australian-centre-for-disease-control-in-darwin-138724

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

It is now over 100 days since the country went into lockdown as a result of COVID-19. Overnight, all arts venues had to close, and arts activities essentially ceased because of the need for social distancing.

On March 19, three days after the lockdown, the Federal Arts Minister Paul Fletcher convened a meeting with state arts ministers to talk about the dire situation facing thousands of unemployed arts workers.

In late March, we waited for an announcement that the federal government would be offering targeted forms of support. We knew already that the sector provides enormous economic value to the country because the government published figures saying so.

And we waited.

Yet apart from a package announced in early April, of A$27 million for regional artists, indigenous visual arts organisations and mental health, the federal government announced nothing. Until now.

A new directed package, part of the JobMaker scheme, has been allocated $250 million. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said

Our JobMaker plan is getting their show back on the road, to get their workers back in jobs … This package is as much about supporting the tradies who build stage sets or computer specialists who create the latest special effects, as it is about supporting actors and performers in major productions.

There is an emphasis in this statement that workers in the creative economy are not just “artistic” types, but seemingly more palatable “workers”.

Read more: Government unveils $250 million for ‘creative economy’

What’s in it for the sector?

There are five aspects to the package:

• $75 million in competitive grant funding, providing capital for performing arts events (Seed Investment)
• $90 million in concessional loans through commercial banks to assist new productions and events in job creation (Show Loans)
• $50 million to support local film and television production and administered by Screen Australia (Kick Start)
• $35 million to provide financial assistance to support significant Commonwealth-funded arts and culture organisations to be delivered by the Australia Council (Supporting Sustainability)
• a Creative Economy Taskforce to partner with the government and the Australia Council to implement the JobMaker plan for the creative economy.

This package, while clearly welcome, preferences larger events, significant arts organisations (read organisations included in the major performing arts framework) and film and television production.

These packages will boost employment for artists and arts workers in the longer term. Given how the packages are described though, it is unlikely small to medium arts organisations will receive much benefit.

It is good the federal government has finally responded to pleas from the arts sector for help. It is disappointing it has taken so long and doesn’t acknowledge the breadth of the sector.

Fletcher adds in the press release that the federal government is providing $100 million per month to the arts sector through the JobKeeper program and other cash flow assistance. What this entails is hard to calculate.

We know many artists and arts workers have been unable to access JobKeeper. Many arts workers fell through the gaps of both schemes, given the nature of employment in the sector, which relies on short term contracts and often multiple sources of employment.

Read more: The government says artists should be able to access JobKeeper payments. It’s not that simple

While aware of these anomalies, the government rejected a move by the Greens to widen eligibility for JobKeeper.

State support

All the states have provided additional support to the arts sector, but some are offering a great deal more than others.

Both Victoria and Queensland, and more recently New South Wales, have offered generous support to both individuals and arts organisations. Until now, South Australia and Western Australia have offered very little.

The Australia Council redirected $5 million of its funding towards special grants (of $5,000 to $10,000) for individual artists and small organisations.

Though these small grants are unlikely to make a massive difference overall, the council has been trying in other ways: running training webinars for artists and arts workers to upskill themselves in the digital arena. It has also been more flexible in managing its grant agreements.

Yet in early April 2020, the council cut funding to over 30 small-to-medium arts organisations, bringing the toll to more than 90 organisations cut over the past four years.

The ability of artists to adapt creatively to the changing situation is laudable, but they may have been too generous in this process, by giving away their talent for free.

The federal government’s slow response has caused many commentators to argue it doesn’t seem to value either arts or culture.

Further, the latest figures from the ABS note that 78% of the sector has had a major decrease in income and only around 18% of the sector is operating normally. The capacity for parts of the sector to reactivate are now bleak.

Don’t call it culture

This latest announcement signals the government is more comfortable if the sector is framed as the “creative economy” rather than arts and culture.

Raising the cost of tertiary creative arts and humanities education implies the government believes they are expensive indulgences and not to be taken seriously.

The devastating destruction of unique indigenous cultural heritage and the threat of further destruction by mining companies, with no formal protest from government, is another warning sign.

The hits keep coming with job cuts at the ABC and the National Gallery of Australia.

Read more: Friday essay: the politics of dancing and thinking about cultural values beyond dollars

Through this period of lockdown, we have all benefited by the books we could read, the music we could listen to, the exhibitions we could visit online and the films and television we could watch.

This work is made by artists and facilitated by arts workers. They have our support, they deserve government support too.

– ref. The arts needed a champion – it got a package to prop up the major players 100 days later – https://theconversation.com/the-arts-needed-a-champion-it-got-a-package-to-prop-up-the-major-players-100-days-later-141444

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allen Cheng, Professor in Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Monash University

Brunswick East Primary School and Keilor Views Primary School in Melbourne have temporarily shut down after children from both schools tested positive to COVID-19, while a confirmed case in a year 2 student led to the closure of Sydney’s Lane Cove West Public School. A childcare centre in the Melbourne suburb of Essendon has also closed for cleaning after a child tested positive.

These cases, and others in young children, follow a handful of positive cases in teenage students in Sydney and Melbourne and may be prompting some to wonder whether it’s time to rethink reopening schools after lockdown.

The short answer is: no. The research still suggests that while children can be infected with COVID-19, it is uncommon. They also don’t seem to pass the disease on as efficiently as adults do, and cases of child-to-child infection are uncommon. And when children do get infected, they don’t seem to get very sick.

The temporary closure of schools (and at least one childcare centre) is evidence the system is working as it should — cases are being identified, contact tracing and deep cleans are underway and every effort is made to limit the spread.

Read more: Worried about your child getting coronavirus? Here’s what you need to know

What we know about children and coronavirus

We still don’t know exactly why COVID-19 is much more common in adults than children. The COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) infects people by attaching itself to a receptor called the ACE2 enzyme, and differences in this receptor in children may be one reason why children are less susceptible.

A lot of the thinking around schools and COVID-19 in Australia is based on follow up of school cases by the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS). It was released in April but still reflects what is currently known about the virus and how it interacts with children and school settings.

The report found:

In NSW, from March to mid-April 2020, 18 individuals (9 students and 9 staff) from 15 schools were confirmed as COVID-19 cases; all of these individuals had an opportunity to transmit the COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) to others in their schools.

• 735 students and 128 staff were close contacts of these initial 18 cases
• no teacher or staff member contracted COVID-19 from any of the initial school cases
• one child from a primary school and one child from a high school may have contracted COVID-19 from the initial cases at their schools.

Data from the Netherlands also found “children play a minor role in the spread of the novel coronavirus”.

In younger children, a rare but severe complication called PIMS-TS has been described. However, these cases have occurred in areas where there is extremely high transmission of COVID-19 in the community.

A bigger concern around schools is how adults congregate. Schools now have some version of physical distancing in the staff room and on school grounds to limit the risk of transmission between adults. Parents are asked not to enter school grounds or congregate in close quarters at the school gate, although the fact that this is outdoors and not a long period of contact also helps reduce the risk.

What about COVID-19 and high school students?

There have been several reports of cases in high schools both in Australia and abroad.

Older children in high school start to have similar risk to adults, although the risk of complications is still substantially lower than in the elderly. Importantly, kids in this age group are more able to physically distance and adhere to personal hygiene measures than primary school-aged kids.

At least one instance of a high school outbreak in Auckland was related to an event outside the classroom at which many adults were present. So it was less about transmission in the classroom and more related to a particular event.

Read more: Coronavirus or just a common cold? What to do when your child gets sick this winter

The system is working

It’s important that schools remain open. But precautions are still required: teaching children to maintain personal hygiene, enhanced cleaning, and making sure adults (teachers and parents) are appropriately distanced from each other.

The latest school cases are not unexpected, and don’t mean that school closures across the board are required. They show the system is working as it should — we are spotting cases early and intervening quickly to limit the spread.

When we do find COVID-19 cases in children, we don’t usually find cases of child-to-child transmission. But of course, we still need to go through the process of managing each case as it arises.

If there are ongoing cases in the community, it is likely that cases will continue to occur in students or teachers, and schools will need to have contingency plans for this.

Read more: Coronavirus or just a common cold? What to do when your child gets sick this winter

Parents need to make sure their children are well before sending them to school, and be prepared to get them tested and to keep them at home if they show any sign of illness. And of course, hammer home the message about hand washing.

Hand washing and physical distancing remain the very best things we can do to reduce the risk of COVID-19 spreading.

– ref. Yes, we’ve seen schools close. But the evidence still shows kids are unlikely to catch or spread coronavirus – https://theconversation.com/yes-weve-seen-schools-close-but-the-evidence-still-shows-kids-are-unlikely-to-catch-or-spread-coronavirus-141445

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mahmoud Elkhodr, Lecturer in Information and Communication Technologies, CQUniversity Australia

While lockdown restrictions have eased in many places, the coronavirus threat isn’t over yet. The number of cases globally has surpassed 9 million, and infections have slowly crept back for Victoria.

Read more: In many countries the coronavirus pandemic is accelerating, not slowing

Restaurants, pubs and cafes have been among the first places to which people have flocked for some respite from social isolation. In many cases, diners must provide their personal details to these venues for potential contact tracing later on.

Unfortunately, there’s a lack of clarity regarding what the best options are for businesses, and many aren’t following official guidelines.

Keeping records

In the rush to reopen while also abiding by government requirements, many businesses are resorting to collecting customer information using pen and paper.

This entails sharing the stationery, which goes against the basic principles of social distancing. Your written details can also be seen by other diners and staff, triggering privacy concerns.

You wouldn’t normally leave your name, phone number, email, address or any combination of these on a piece of paper in public – so why now?

Businesses collecting personal information from customers must abide by the Australian Privacy Principles under the Privacy Act 1988. This requires they “take reasonable steps to protect the personal information collected or held”.

The federal government has also released an updated guide to collecting personal information for contact tracing purposes. Establishments must use this guide in conjunction with individual directions or orders from certain states and territories. See some below.

The guide also outlines how businesses should handle customers’ contact information. The relevant parts are:

1. you should only collect the personal information required under the direction or order

2. you should notify individuals before you collect personal information

3. you should securely store this information once you have collected it.

One point specifically notes:

Do not place the names and phone numbers or other details in a book or on a notepad or computer screen where customers may see it.

Thus, many establishments are clearly not sticking to official guidance. So could you refuse to give your details in such cases?

No. Customers are required by law to provide the necessary details as per their state or territory’s order. Venues can deny entry to people who refuse.

What would a comprehensive solution look like?

For contact tracing to work effectively, it should be implemented systematically, not in a piecemeal way. This means there should be a system that securely collects, compiles, and analyses people’s data in real time, without impinging on their privacy.

It’s perhaps too much to ask hospitality businesses to take the lead on this. Ideally, government agencies should have done it already.

The COVIDSafe app could have provided this service, but with it being optional — and contact tracing by businesses being mandatory — it’s not a viable option. That’s not to mention the issues with the running of the app, including Bluetooth requirements, battery life drainage, and history of problems with iPhones.

Read more: How safe is COVIDSafe? What you should know about the app’s issues, and Bluetooth-related risks

Nonetheless, there are some free technologies that can offer better alternatives to the manual collection of customers’ details. These include:

All these tools have a similar set up process, and provide similar services. Let’s take a look at one of the most popular ones, Google Forms.

Using Google Forms

Google Forms is a tool that comes free with a Google account. The “contact information template” is a good starting point for businesses wanting to make a secure log of visitor details.

Once you create a form to collect customers’ information, you just have to share a URL, and customers can fill the form on their own device.

Data gathered via Google Forms is stored securely on the Google Drive account and can only be accessed through the same login that was used to create the form. The transmission of data from the customer’s device to Google Drive (where the data is then stored) is also secure.

Or use a QR code

If you want to make the whole process even easier, and not use a clunky URL, then using a QR code (linked to the URL of your Google form) is a great option. For this, you can use any free external QR code generator. These will generate a QR code which, when scanned by a smartphone, will direct the user to your URL.

This code can also be printed and hung on a wall, or stuck to tables where it’s easy to access without any human-to-human contact. A comprehensive guide to creating and accessing Google Forms can be found here.

That said, although the process of setting up and using such tools is very simple, there may still be people who are too mistrusting of the way their data is used, and may refuse to hand it over.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Galloway, Associate Professor of Law, Griffith University

For many, the allegations of sexual harassment against Dyson Heydon came as a shock. It seems difficult to imagine a senior member of the legal profession, a justice of the High Court, would engage in inappropriate or potentially unlawful behaviour.

Yet, sexual harassment in the legal profession is longstanding, and has proven an intractable problem in its incidence, reporting and effects. Nearly half of all female lawyers in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific report being sexually harassed at work.

Read more: High Court apologises for Dyson Heydon’s sexual harassment of six associates

This is at least partly to do with the culture of the profession. This culture has been built by men for men over centuries, and the legal profession continues to rely heavily on personal networks that by their very nature reinforce the status quo.

Tackling endemic sexual harassment requires a shift in the norms that make it an “open secret” – known about but ignored – and accepting women as professional equals rather than sexual objects.

A man’s world

The legal profession is traditionally the preserve of men. Women were for a long time under a “legal disability”, prevented from studying law and from practice. The first women practitioners were admitted in Australia in 1915 (Queensland) and 1917 (South Australia), and it was many more years before women began serving as judges.

Progress has been made in recent years in women studying law. From the mid-1980s, law schools were enrolling approximately equal numbers of men and women. Now, women comprise approximately 60% of law graduates.

Yet, women remain underrepresented in the senior ranks of the profession. In the mid-1990s, the Australian Law Reform Commission found women continued to be underrepresented in positions of influence and were concentrated in the less prestigious and well-paid areas of the profession.

This continues to be true today. In New South Wales, for example, women comprise approximately 25% of partners in law firms and 11% of senior counsel. As for the bar generally, only 23% of barristers in NSW are women.

Of particular concern is that lack of diversity at the bar means lack of diversity in the pool from which judges are appointed. The proportion of women judges and magistrates is highest in the ACT (54%) and Victoria (42%), but in most other jurisdictions, women make up only around a third of judicial officers.

Unless the government of the day is committed to increase diversity on the bench, the composition of the judiciary will not change in a way that reflects society’s needs.

The culture tacitly accepts sexual harassment

For all of the time women have been absent from the profession broadly, and in its senior positions particularly, the law has been populated by men who, consciously and unconsciously, have influenced its culture based on their own preferences and biases.

Consequently, the legal profession frequently displays masculine norms, to the detriment of women.

A recent study found, for instance, that female High Court judges were interrupted by counsel more frequently than their male colleagues. These findings reflect broader social norms about men interrupting women’s speech as a typical way of asserting male dominance.

Read more: To achieve gender equality, we must first tackle our unconscious biases

In a hierarchical profession like law, which is highly competitive and performance-oriented, sexual harassment is another feature of male dominance. The culture of the legal profession, which has excluded women for centuries, continues to tacitly accept this behaviour.

This is why, when allegations about sexual harassment are made public, we often hear the behaviour was an “open secret”.

There are two consequences of this culture that help explain why sexual harassment is so persistent. First, those who are harassed are themselves expected to adhere to the norm, and accept the behaviour or leave. Secondly, witnesses will not themselves see fit to speak out against it.

Such unethical, now unlawful, behaviour will only continue within this closed system, unless a broader cultural change is made.

Networks are key to professional advancement

Reinforcing the predominance of men in the senior ranks of the profession is the importance of personal networks to advancement.

Mentoring relationships are integral to the development of junior lawyers. Universities recognise this, and promote student placements in professional internships as a way of developing these networks.

Here, too, women have long found it more difficult to develop the types of networks needed to succeed. Advancement frequently requires not only a mentor, but a sponsor – someone “on the inside” – who will open doors to professional opportunities.

The majority of those “on the inside” are men, and their conscious and unconscious bias can exclude women from opportunities to advance their careers.

Read more: Australia urgently needs an independent body to hold powerful judges to account

Junior lawyers, especially those without established professional networks, must also compete to establish relationships with senior practitioners – including with judges through sought-after associateships.

The power in these relationships rests with the senior practitioner, most of whom are men in charge of their own domain and well-connected in the upper echelons of the legal fraternity.

Women are qualified to fill these coveted positions, but once there, the question becomes whether they are equipped to tolerate the “open secret” of sexual harassment as the price of maintaining the relationships they need for advancement.

In this kind of environment, a junior lawyer has very little power to call out unwanted sexual advances – particularly when the behaviour is accepted by those around her.

This contributes to the attrition of talented women from the profession and, of course, entrenches the male domination of its senior ranks.

Cause for optimism

Despite this grim picture, something changed this week. Allegations made by the most junior against the most senior were listened to and acted on.

While seemingly a small step, it represents a huge challenge to the culture of the “open secret” of sexual misconduct in the legal profession and the possibility of establishing new cultural benchmarks for the law.

– ref. The law is a man’s world. Unless the culture changes, women will continue to be talked over, marginalised and harassed – https://theconversation.com/the-law-is-a-mans-world-unless-the-culture-changes-women-will-continue-to-be-talked-over-marginalised-and-harassed-141279

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Wood, Associate Professor, Discipline of Childhood and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney

It’s Sunday night, around 8pm, when your ten-year-old tells you she has a sore throat. She doesn’t have any other symptoms, and feels OK. You tell her “let’s see how you feel in the morning” and she happily goes off to sleep.

But you’re left wondering what you’ll do if her throat is still sore the next day — or if she’s developed other symptoms by then. Should you get her swabbed for COVID-19?

Like most Australians, you haven’t recently travelled overseas or been in contact with anyone with COVID-19. And like most kids, your children often get coughs and colds during winter.

Read more: Worried about your child getting coronavirus? Here’s what you need to know

COVID-19 symptoms in kids resemble other respiratory infections

Generally, in their first 12 years, children can experience up to four to eight respiratory tract infections, or “colds”, per year. This number is highest among the youngest children.

One-quarter of all GP visits in children under five in Australia are for respiratory tract infections.

A recent review showed COVID-19 symptoms in children were typical of most acute respiratory infections and included fever, cough, sore throat, sneezing, muscle aches and fatigue.

In general, COVID-19 in children is less severe than in adults.

So how do I know if I should get my child tested?

If your child is unwell you can check their symptoms using healthdirect’s coronavirus symptom checker.

It will ask you questions based on what we know to be common symptoms of COVID-19, including whether you or the person you’re caring for have:

• a fever of 37.5℃ or more; or

• symptoms suggesting fever (such as night sweats or chills); or

• an acute respiratory infection (for example, cough, shortness of breath, sore throat); or

• loss of smell or taste.

Read more: Coronavirus and Kawasaki disease in children: it’s an intriguing but unproven link

It’s possible these could also be symptoms of a different respiratory infection. But if your child is displaying any of these symptoms, the current federal government guidelines recommend they stay at home and get tested.

You can also ask your GP if you’re not sure whether your child needs a test.

How likely is it my child will test positive to COVID-19?

Although Victoria is currently experiencing a spike, Australia has largely “flattened the curve”. In the past month there have been less than 40 new cases nationally each day.

Around the country, since the pandemic began, we’ve performed more than two million tests and identified 7,521 cases.

This means fewer than 0.5% of tests have been positive. And only a small proportion of confirmed cases have been in children.

So in our current situation it’s much more likely your child’s fever or runny nose is caused by one of the common respiratory viruses, such as rhinovirus, that we see each winter.

How sustainable is all this testing?

We’re now performing more tests each day than we were at the height of the pandemic in late March.

Australia’s high level of testing has undoubtedly played a significant role in our successful response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

But we now must ask ourselves whether, with potentially diminishing returns, it’s sustainable to keep testing every child with a cold for the foreseeable future.

Let’s remember there are 4.7 million children in Australia under 15 and each of them, particularly the younger ones, are likely to get multiple respiratory infections each year.

Read more: ‘Stupid coronavirus!’ In uncertain times, we can help children through mindfulness and play

One of the risks of a continued emphasis on COVID-19 testing is that when a child returns a negative result, the parent thinks “all good, my child doesn’t have coronavirus, they can go back to school”.

This risks spreading non-COVID-19 viruses to others, who then develop respiratory symptoms and need to be tested. Many of these viruses spread easily among children, especially where they’re in close contact, such as in childcare centres.

This may lead to an upward spiral of respiratory infections, particularly during winter when colds and the flu are traditional foes.

Keep sick kids at home

While testing is important, physical distancing and hygiene measures have been instrumental in flattening the curve.

And as a bonus, these measures may have led to decreased incidence of other viral infections in the community.

In our hospital in Sydney, we’ve seen fewer hospitalisations for respiratory syncytial virus this year, a common cause of infant hospitalisations.

Nationally, in the first five months of 2020 there were 20,569 influenza notifications, compared to more than 74,000 at the same point last year.

Read more: Kids are more vulnerable to the flu – here’s what to look out for this winter

Although restrictions are easing, Australians should continue to focus on physical distancing and hygiene throughout winter.

We need to see this pandemic as an opportunity to shift to a new normal: that is, staying at home when you’re sick, and keeping your child at home if they’re unwell (until their symptoms resolve).

We know it’s not always practical, but hopefully this “new normal” will see more flexibility from employers in these circumstances.

Finally, yes, follow public health advice around getting tested for COVID-19. But let’s not view this as the only thing that matters.

– ref. Coronavirus or just a common cold? What to do when your child gets sick this winter – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-or-just-a-common-cold-what-to-do-when-your-child-gets-sick-this-winter-140727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Mowle, Lecturer in Finance, University of Canberra

The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on the Australian economy, and the financial effects for many are deeply personal.

Sadly, there’s no shortage of terrible advice online when it comes to personal finance. And as September 30 looms – the date by which JobKeeper, the increased JobSeeker and many negotiated rent and mortgage deferrals end – it’s important to be fully informed before you make potentially life-changing financial decisions.

As a former financial counsellor and former consumer credit educator for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), here’s what I think you need to know if you’re considering mortgage deferral, rent relief or bankruptcy.

Read more: Going bankrupt is a life changing decision – so why is the process to do it so easy?

Mortgage deferral

Residential mortgages are covered by federal legislation, under which lenders can assist when borrowers can’t afford their usual repayments due to changed circumstances — such as losing hours or employment.

For example, you can ask your lender put on hold payments from June to September. It’s up to you and the creditor to establish clearly what happens to those payments. Are they pushed to the end of the contract, thereby extending the life of your loan? Or will you repay extra when you can afford repayments again?

Make sure you understand how much more it will cost you in additional interest if you extend the life of your loan by deferring these payments to the end of the contract. Depending on the details of your loan, you could be adding thousands of dollars to the amount you need to repay.

Most mortgage lenders don’t really want to repossess your house. It’s costly, time-consuming and stressful. But before asking for mortgage relief, you need to have a plan for the post-deferral period.

What happens if you still can’t make your usual repayments? Any licensed financial professional should be able to help negotiate a deferral on your mortgage or other consumer debts such as credit cards, but you should first consider seeing a free financial counsellor who is independent of any lenders. They can be contacted on 1800 007 007 or through the National Debt Helpline

Rent relief

If you can’t pay your rent due to changed circumstances, you can ask your landlord to reduce or defer your rent. They can, of course, say no.

Unlike mortgage deferral, the implementation and process is inconsistent across states and territories. It can be difficult to navigate.

There are reports of some landlords asking for comprehensive financial statements to support claims, or for their tenants to access the early release of up to A$10,000 in superannuation to pay the rent.

Ausralia’s corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), has warned real estate agents that advising tenants to take money from their superannuation may constitute giving unlicensed financial advice and/or be against people’s best interests, attracting possible fines and jail time.

If you’re talking with your landlord about rent relief, be clear on whether you’re talking about rent payments being reduced, deferred or permanently waived, and whether these payments would need to be made up by a certain date. Renters can seek help from free financial counsellors or a tenants’ union.

State and territory governments have established various schemes to help renters work out agreements with their landlord (see this Western Australian scheme as an example).

Read more: What if I can’t pay my rent? These are the options for rent relief in Australia

Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy should be a last resort. Many creditors have shown they’re willing to provide short-term delays (for about 90 days, for example) if people need more time to pay a debt.

Consumer credit contracts are written on the basis that life has its ups and downs and if a debtor genuinely can’t pay, the creditor can help by reducing payments, stopping interest charges, deferring payments and/or restructuring loans.

In almost all consumer bankruptcies, there is no return to creditors so they generally don’t want debtors to go bankrupt. It’s in their interest to help debtors through a difficult period so they can return to making payments.

Of great concern to consumer advocates is that searching “bankruptcy” or “help with debts” on the internet will often generate results for companies with a vested interest in placing you in what’s called a “debt agreement”. These should be approached with caution. It basically means you pay for a company to help you declare bankruptcy – but this is unnecessary.

A debt agreement is an act of bankruptcy that directs fees to those companies and quite often places consumers in unmanageable and unsustainable long-term repayment plans.

Instead, try to find free financial counsellors, some of whom work for charities. They are professional, unbiased and expert at informing people of their options when in debt. They can be found via the government’s MoneySmart site.

If you can’t pay your debts, there are many options available. The key is contacting the right person or organisation – and knowing whatever comes up first in a Google search is not necessarily the best or most impartial place to get help in a financial crisis.

– ref. Mortgage deferral, rent relief and bankruptcy: what you need to know if you have coronavirus money problems – https://theconversation.com/mortgage-deferral-rent-relief-and-bankruptcy-what-you-need-to-know-if-you-have-coronavirus-money-problems-141274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Boyd, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Southern Cross University

Choosing care for your child when returning to paid work can be challenging, and to the uninitiated the terms can be confusing. One alternative to long day care in a larger child care centre is known as family day care.

Family day care is where a child is educated in a small group in a family style atmosphere at an educator’s home, seeing the same educator or educators each day.

The ratio in family day care is one educator for a maximum of seven children, and there can be no more than four children who are preschool age or under (per educator). The educator’s children must be counted in those seven children if they are under 13 years and not being cared for by another adult at the premises.

Read more: Permanently raising the Child Care Subsidy is an economic opportunity too good to miss

All family day care educators must hold or be “actively working towards” at least an approved certificate III level education and care qualification. (In South Australia, though, a family day care educator must hold at least an approved certificate III level education and care qualification.)

All family day care educators must hold an approved first aid qualification and have undertaken approved training in anaphylaxis management and emergency asthma management.

The approved provider of a family day care service must read — or ensure a nominated supervisor or a person in day-to-day charge of the service has read — a person’s working with children check before the person is engaged or registered as a family day care educator as part of the service. You can see which check applies in your state or territory here.

There’s a clear focus on learning and development based on the principles, practices and learning outcomes of the Early Years Learning Framework. The educator will plan an educational program for each child, share it with families and invite family input.

What’s the difference between family day care and long day care in a child care centre?

The most obvious difference is size.

Child care centres are usually much bigger and busier, with children usually grouped according to age. There are various educator-to-child ratios for each age group and it may be different depending on your state (as you can see here).

Like family day care, child care centre staff are required to have a qualification in early childhood education and care. The qualifications required will depend on their roles and responsibilities.

Routines at long day care centres are usually tailored to the needs of each child, especially for very young children, but may move to routines that are more based around a group dynamic as the child gets older (for example, having lunch time at the same time).

How to choose a family day care provider that’s right for you

If you’re interested in family day care, start by finding out which registered providers are near you. Then, you can organise a visit to the educator’s home.

When judging the quality of the care and educational program, it helps to ask yourself:

• is the care child-focused, or time-focused? (For example, are nap times tailored to each child or grouped at the same time of day?)

• how many children does the educator have each day and what are their ages?

• what learning experiences are available for the children each day and will this suit my child?

• do the children attend a playgroup during the week? For some parents, this represents bonus social interaction opportunities but for others it’s not a priority

• are meals provided and if so, how is the menu determined?

• how does the educator manage supervision of children indoors and outdoors?

• are there other people in the home when family day care is provided and how do you feel about that?

• what ratings did the family day care service achieve under the National Quality Standards (more on that in a minute)?

• does the cost suit your budget?

Family day care services are part-funded by the Australian government, and the costs vary across services and family income.

How the regulator judges quality

Family day care services and long day care services are assessed for quality of education and care under the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority’s National Quality Standard.

Seven quality areas are assessed and rated to determine a quality rating, including the educational program, childrens’ health and safety, the physical environment, staffing, relationships with children and families, governance and leadership.

State and territory regulatory authorities assess and rate family day care services as either “exceeding”, “meeting”, “working towards”, or “significant improvement required” using the National Quality Standard, also known as the NQS.

Here’s how family day care compared with child care centre-based care, according to the regulator’s data as at March 31, 2020:

However, there is great variation across and within each service and centre. Finding out as much as you can about each provider on your shortlist can help inform your decision.

Many families prefer the home-like family environment of family day care for their children, especially when they are young, and then move their children onto long day care when the child is old enough to want friends.

It can be a trade-off between a small intimate family-like atmosphere for a more active, stimulating environment with many more people.

Read more: Caught in an intergenerational squeeze, grandparents juggle work and childcare

– ref. What is family day care? And how is it different to long day care in a child care centre? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-family-day-care-and-how-is-it-different-to-long-day-care-in-a-child-care-centre-140847

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

The Morrison government has announced a $250 million package for the entertainment, arts and screen sectors, which have been particularly hard hit by the COVID-19 crisis.

The grants and loans will be rolled out over the next 12 months.

Activity collapsed in these sectors with events quickly cancelled when the pandemic began and gatherings were prohibited. Many people have not been able to access JobKeeper. Getting work started again will be complicated by ongoing social distancing requirements that will make for smaller audiences.

Scott Morrison is anxious to stress the package isn’t just aimed at helping the public faces.

“This package is as much about supporting the tradies who build stage sets or computer specialists who create the latest special effects, as it is about supporting actors and performers in major productions,” he said.

Morrison will seek approval from the national cabinet to give the entertainment industry greater certainty about the timetable for enterprises to be able to re-activate their businesses.

The government says the “creative economy” is worth $112 billion and employs more than 600,000 people.

The measures include:

• $75 million for seed investment to reactivate productions and tours. These competitive grants will provide capital to help production and event businesses to stage new festivals, concerts, tours and events, “including through innovative operating and digital delivery models”. Grants will be between $75,000 and $2 million.

• $90 million for concessional “show starter” loans. They will assist businesses to fund new productions and events. The loans will be delivered through banks, backed by a 100% Commonwealth guarantee.

• $50 million to “kick start” local screen production. It will be administered by Screen Australia and support local film and television producers to secure finance to re-start filming. Filming of new productions has largely stopped as insurers are not providing coverage for COVID-19.

• $35 million direct financial assistance for Commonwealth-funded arts and culture organisations facing threats to their viability due to COVID-19. These may be in theatre, dance, circus, music and other areas. The Government will partner with the Australian Council to deliver this funding.

Morrison said the commercial arts and entertainment sector was one of the first sectors hit by the pandemic and would be one of the last to come out of hibernation.

“We’re delivering the capital these businesses need so they can start working again and support the hundreds of thousands of Australians who make their living in the creative economy,” Morrison said.

“These measures will support a broad range of jobs from performers, artists and roadies, to front of house staff and many who work behind the scenes, while assisting related parts of the broader economy, such as tourism and hospitality.”

He said many in the sector would find a new way to operate while the current social distancing measures remained.

A ministerial taskforce will be set up to partner with the government and the Australia Council to implement the plan for the creative economy.

The government said the package was on top of $100 million a month going into the arts sector through JobKeeper and cashflow support over April and May.

– ref. Government unveils $250 million for ‘creative economy’ – https://theconversation.com/government-unveils-250-million-for-creative-economy-141383

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

Australian supermarket giant Woolworths has announced its single biggest investment in logistics infrastructure, spending A$780 million to replace up to 1,300 workers with robots.

It plans to build one semi-automated and one fully automated distribution centre in south-west Sydney. About 650 jobs will be created at the new centres, to open in 2024. Three existing centres (two in Sydney, one in Melbourne) will close as a result.

Woolworths’ chief supply chain officer, Paul Graham, emphasised the safety benefits of automation:

Cutting-edge automation will build tailored pallets for specific aisles in individual stores – helping us improve on-shelf product availability with faster restocking, reducing congestion in stores, and enabling a safer work environment for our teams with less manual handling.

In these COVID-conscious times that’s the obvious spin.

But it’s true this is a response to the changes being wrought on the retail sector by COVID-19.

The principal change is a matter of pace. COVID-19 has turbocharged the shift to online shopping. Even as social-distancing rules ease, this trend will consolidate. Many bricks-and-mortar shops are in trouble, particularly those in shopping centres.

Retail will also be shaped by how COVID-19 has changed our shopping behaviour, with thrift and value being important.

Shopping online is the new norm

In April, 5.2 million Australians shopped online, according to Australia Post’s 2020 eCommerce Industry Report. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates those sales were worth A$2.7 billion, 11.1% of all physical retail sales, compared with 7.1% in March 2019.

This sharp hike in demand exposed weaknesses in retailers’ online capabilities. For example, crushing online demand meant both Woolworths and major rival Coles temporarily suspended their online shopping services.

More automated fulfilment centres are part of meeting these online demands. Of course, such investments were already on the radar.

In March 2019, Coles announced an exclusive deal to use the “end-to-end online grocery shopping solution” developed by Ocado, a British online supermarket chain that has no stores, only warehouses. Its technology spans the online shopping experience, automated fulfilment and home delivery.

The Coles plan included two new “highly automated” customer fulfilment centres in Melbourne and Sydney, to be ready in 2023. Coles also announced plans for two new automated distribution centres in Queensland and NSW, costing A$700 million, in October 2018.

Woolworths itself has already opened the Melbourne South Regional Distribution Centre, whose automated features are hyped in the following promotional video.

So these latest moves are part of a trend, albeit one unexpectedly accelerated by COVID-19. And once consumers try new channels, studies show, they are likely to stick with them.

The future is dark

At the other end of the supply chain, the shift to online shopping has created demand for “dark stores” – essentially, stores without customers. These smaller, decentralised facilities, located in suburbs rather than industrial parks, are designed to pick and dispatch online orders quickly.

Woolworths opened its first dark store in Sydney in 2014. Coles opened its first in Melbourne in 2016. Existing stores are also being repurposed as dark stores. In April 2020, Australia’s Kmart temporarily converted three stores to use as fulfilment centres.

Such moves may become permanent, as shoppers demand faster delivery times and physical store assets become less viable as “traditional” retail businesses.

Existing stores are also being adapted to respond to customer demands for faster, more efficient online shopping. In January 2020, Woolworths began building its first “eStore” – an automated facility adjoining its supermarket in Carrum Downs, Melbourne.

Fewer, smaller stores

As online shopping increasingly provides greater revenue streams for retailers, more physical store closures are also on the cards.

In May, Kmart’s owner, Wesfarmers, announced it would shut 75 of its Target stores (and convert the rest to Kmart stores). Also looking to downsize are Australian department store icons Myer and David Jones, which have accelerated their plans to reduce floor space 20% by 2025.

Read more: Don’t blame COVID-19: Target’s decline is part of a deeper trend

Footwear giant Accent Group – which owns more than a dozen shoe brands and has more than 500 stores in Australia and New Zealand – is planning to close 28 stores and focus more on online sales.

As online revenues grow, expect more “right-sizing” and closures.

Repurposing shopping centres

All these closures will add to the woes of shopping centres.

Though crowds reportedly surged back to centres when “lockdown” restrictions were eased, growing awareness that the pandemic is not over and social distancing protocols continue to create consumer anxiety.

Read more: Brick-bait: three tricks up retailers’ sleeves to lure you back to physical shops

Until people feel safe shopping, dining and gathering in crowded public places, consumer aversion will remain.

In response to these COVID-conscious times, shopping centres will endeavour to enhance those aspects of the shopping experience, such as sensory elements and entertainment, which the online shopping experience can’t provide.

The retail mix will change: fewer fashion and general merchandise shops, and more services such as medical centres, offices and childcare centres.

Opportunities for smaller retailers

One bright spot may be for local and independent shops.

Smaller retailers can often adapt faster than larger ones. Smaller community pharmacies, for example, implemented social distancing and hygiene measures more easily than larger retailers, due mainly to their smaller size and having less traffic.

Read more: Coronavirus shopping tips to keep you safe at the supermarket

There are opportunities to leverage shoppers’ desire to support local shopkeepers, producers and growers. Locally made goods and services are also less likely to have long supply chains that will impede overseas deliveries while COVID-19 is uncontained.

But they’ll still need to sort out their online shopping experience.

– ref. COVID-19 has changed the future of retail: there’s plenty more automation in store – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-has-changed-the-future-of-retail-theres-plenty-more-automation-in-store-139025