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

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Debbi Long, Senior Research Fellow, RMIT University

While Australia gradually opens up from COVID-19 lockdown, Victoria is still struggling to contain the outbreak. The Black Lives Matter protest in Melbourne on June 6, which attracted thousands of face-masked and hand-sanitised protesters, did not prove to be the public health nightmare many commentators (particularly politically conservative ones) had predicted. But Melbourne is nevertheless contending with a worrying spike in case numbers arising from infection clusters around staff working in quarantine sites and extended family gatherings.

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we were told two behaviours were crucial to keeping us safe: social distancing and handwashing. The coronavirus crisis has brought the mundane act of washing our hands into public discussion, and the internet is now awash (ahem) with advice, from the practical to the surreal.

If there’s one place where you would expect hand cleanliness to be beyond reproach, it’s hospitals. But this isn’t necessarily the case.

Surprisingly, hand hygiene is a vexing issue in hospitals all over the world. Repeated studies have shown it is common for hospital staff to follow hand hygiene protocols less than 50% of the time. This is as true in Australia and New Zealand-Aotearoa as it is globally. As any infection control nurse will tell you, specialist doctors are often among the worst offenders.

Who teaches hospital staff how to handwash?

Like most Western-style hospitals, all Australian hospitals have infection control experts, typically nurses, whose job is to educate, advise and monitor compliance on infection control protocols among hospital workers. This is lifesaving work, because hospitals are prime breeding grounds for deadly antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains.

Read more: Washing our hands of responsibility for hospital infections

The main line of defence in hospitals against these potentially fatal infections is prevention, hence the strict protocols around hand hygiene, and widespread use of gloves, robes, masks and safety googles.

Proper hospital hand hygiene involves using gloves, hand sanitiser, and frequent handwashing. Protocols dictate that gloves should be used in situations where health workers might expect to come into contact with blood, bodily fluids or other contaminants. Staff should wash or sanitise their hands before and after every patient contact, and in all situations where there has been contact with potentially contaminated material.

Infection control nurses undertake routine hand hygiene audits, and hospital staff can be disciplined if they fail to comply with the protocols.

Three types of handwashers

What makes hospital staff more or less likely to comply? It turns out there are different categories of handwasher, and therefore different ways to help people remember to do it.

While working on a project looking at communication in a multidisciplinary hospital team, infection control education became one of the areas of interest. Part of the study focused on the hand hygiene habits of hospital staff in a ward with particularly high infection risks.

Based on observations, interviews and informal conversations, we discovered nursing staff tended to fall into one of three broad categories: “hero healthworkers”, “family members”, and those who were “working for the whitegoods”.

Overall, most health-care workers practised good hand hygiene most of the time. But when there was time pressure — such as during short-staffed shifts, or when multiple patients were in particular need at the same time — nearly everyone had moments of non-compliance. But, fascinatingly, there were patterns to this non-compliance.

No matter how busy things were, “hero healthworkers” always practised hand hygiene before approaching a patient’s bed. But if time was short, sometimes they did not wash or sanitise their hands on leaving the patient. Nurses (and doctors) who exhibited this behaviour tended to make comments suggesting they valued patients’ health above their own.

“Family members” always practised good hand hygiene when leaving a patient, but sometimes missed out on washing or sanitising before interacting with a new one. In each case, these staff members had vulnerable people in their household – mostly young children, and in a couple of cases older relatives. Interviews and informal discussions revealed deep concern around infection risks and “taking something home”.

The third group was mostly meticulous in their practice when observed by a superior, but much less conscientious when only peers were around. Nurses who fitted this pattern tended to be disparaged by their colleagues as “working for the whitegoods” – treating nursing less as a professional vocation and more as “just” a job to earn money.

These patterns were observed — sometimes with minor variations — in more than a dozen wards over three different hospital sites during subsequent research projects.

How to improve things

None of these behaviours appear to have been conscious, even among the least conscientious “whitegoods” group. Many staff recognised their own behaviour patterns when they were pointed out, but said they had not been explicitly aware of them.

Identifying these characteristic behaviour patterns allowed the infection control educator to target education efforts more effectively. “Hero healthworkers” were educated on the risks to other staff by potentially transmitting infection to work surfaces and other places in the hospital by not handwashing after seeing a patient. “Family members” were reminded of the risks to patients of transmitting infections in the opposite direction. And those who only complied when being directly supervised were counselled on the need to have high standards at all times.

This shift in education strategy was employed along with a number of other infection control interventions, resulting in a significant reduction in multidrug-resistant infections.

Read more: How clean is your hospital room? To reduce the spread of infections, it could probably be cleaner

One insight we can take from this for our day-to-day realities in the middle of COVID-19 is to be reflective about our own handwashing practices. When are we conscientious, and when do we let our standards slip? Is there a pattern in our own behaviours that we can identify, and what are the subconscious beliefs driving those practices? Can we use that knowledge to change our behaviours?

The simple act of handwashing is perhaps more complex than we realise. But it is one of the things that will determine how well we fare in the current pandemic.

– ref. From hospitals to households, we can all be better at remembering to wash our hands – https://theconversation.com/from-hospitals-to-households-we-can-all-be-better-at-remembering-to-wash-our-hands-141271

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Wake, Program Manager, Journalism, RMIT University

At the height of the coronavirus emergency, and on the back of devastating bushfires, Australia’s much awarded and trusted national broadcaster has again been forced to make major cuts to staff, services and programs. It is doing so to offset the latest $84 million budget shortfall as a result of successive cuts from the Coalition government.

In the latest cuts, wrapped up as part of the national broadcaster’s five-year plan,

• 250 staff will lose their jobs

• the major 7:45am news bulletin on local radio has been axed

• ABC Life has lost staff but somehow expanded to become ABC Local

• independent screen production has been cut by $5 million

• ABC News Channel programming is still being reviewed.

Even the travel budget, which allows journalists and storytellers to get to places not accessible by others, has been cut by 25%.

These are just the latest in a long list of axed services, and come off the back of the federal government’s indexation freeze.

Announced in 2018, that freeze reduced the ABC budget by $84 million over three years and resulted in an ongoing reduction of $41 million per annum from 2022.

Read more: The ABC didn’t receive a reprieve in the budget. It’s still facing staggering cuts

The indexation freeze is part of ongoing reductions to ABC funding that total $783 million since 2014. In an email to staff, Managing Director David Anderson said the cut to the ABC in real terms means operational funding will be more than 10% lower in 2021–22 than it was in 2013.

To be fair, the way in which the ABC executive has chosen to execute the latest cuts does make some sense, pivoting more towards digital and on-demand services. Right now, the commuting audience that has long listened to the 7:45am bulletin is clearly changing habits. However, with widespread closures of newspapers across the nation, the need for independent and trusted news in depth, that is not online has never been more important.

ABC Life is a particular loss. It has built an extremely diverse reporting team, reaching new audiences, and winning over many ABC supporters and others who were initially sceptical. The work they produced certainly wasn’t the type commercial operators would create.

Clearly the coronavirus pandemic has slashed Australia’s commercial media advertising revenues. But the problems in the media are a result of years of globalisation, platform convergence and audience fragmentation. In such a situation, Australia’s public broadcasters should be part of the solution for ensuring a diverse, vibrant media sector. Instead, it continues to be subject to ongoing budget cuts.

Moreover, at a time when the public really cannot afford to be getting their news from Facebook or other social media outlets, cutting 250 people who contribute to some of Australia’s most reliable and quality journalism and storytelling – and literally saving lives during the bushfires – appear to be hopelessly shortsighted.

The latest Digital News Report 2020 clearly showed the ABC is the media outlet Australians trust the most.

These latest cuts join a long list of axed services in the past seven years. They include

While not everyone will miss every program or service that has gone, and even with its occasional missteps, there is no doubt the ABC is the envy of the liberal democracies that do not have publicly funded assets, particularly the United States.

Has the ABC’s budget been increased?

Communications Minister Paul Fletcher has continued to suggest the funding cuts are not real, are sustainable without service reductions for Australians, and has claimed the ABC has received “increased funding”.

The minister’s comments are not consistent with data we published last year based on the government’s own annual budget statements and the reality of the ongoing situation for the ABC.

Read more: A tale of two media reports: one poses challenges for digital media; the other gives ABC and SBS a clean bill of health

The government argues base or departmental funding is higher in 2020-21 than it was in 2013-14. The relevant budget papers do show that in 2013-14, the ABC was allocated $865 million for “general operational activities”. The most recent budget statement shows this has increased to $878 million in 2020-21.

So how can it be the ABC budget shows this increase when we have been arguing they are facing an overall cut?

First, we noted last year the complexity of the budget process, which means, for example, the reinstatement of short-term funding can be counted as extra funds, or the ending of such funds, while reducing an agency budget, will not appear as a reduction in allocation.

Second, the 2020-21 ABC budget reflects the inclusion of indexation for increases in CPI-related costs between 2013-14 and 2018-19. This is the funding that is being halted until at least 2021-22.

So despite statements to the contrary, nothing can change the fact the ABC has suffered massive cuts in recent years. The data published last year showed the reality of the ongoing situation for the ABC, with an annual cost to its budget in 2020-21 of $116 million. As the table below shows, taking into account actual budget allocations and adding the items cut, frozen or otherwise reduced, the ABC should have funding of approximately $1.181 billion in 2020-21, not the $1.065 billion it will receive.

It is against this background the latest funding freeze, due to a failure to meet the impact of inflation costs, occurs. While it doesn’t sound like a lot, the three year impact is $84 million, and has resulted in the cuts announced today.

But more importantly, these ongoing cuts represent an attack by the federal government on the broadcaster, its role in democracy, and in keeping Australians safe, informed and entertained.

– ref. Latest $84 million cuts rip the heart out of the ABC, and our democracy – https://theconversation.com/latest-84-million-cuts-rip-the-heart-out-of-the-abc-and-our-democracy-141355

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Principal Fellow (Hon), Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, University of Melbourne

On September 10 1965, Sir Robert Menzies commissioned the National Art Gallery Committee of Inquiry to consider the establishment of a national gallery for Australia.

The resulting Lindsay Report, published in 1966, is an ambitious document, describing an art gallery to serve the nation through the quality and range of its collections and exhibitions.

It emphasised the need to have an all encompassing collection of Australian art. The report recognised, in the second half of the 20th century, it was not possible to acquire a significant collection from European art history and advised a focus on modern art, including from Indigenous Australian artists, south and east Asia, and the Pacific Islands.

James Mollison became the gallery’s first director and began collecting work in 1971, construction began in 1973, and the National Gallery of Australia finally opened in 1982. The Lindsay Report was most recently reviewed in 2017, and is still the guiding document for the gallery’s foundation and continuing collection policies.

Menzies understood a culture that supported the arts and the humanities was essential to Australia’s development. Although his aesthetic taste was conservative, often described as reactionary, he greatly valued the arts.

For many years, his successors showed equal enthusiasm for seeing the National Art Gallery grow into international prominence.

Now, with subsequent efficiency dividends, the gallery is facing a budgetary shortfall and will lose 10% of its staff. The gallery has also recently reduced the number of new acquisitions, leading some to assume a connection to the loss of funding. This is not the case.

A $6 billion collection

In the late 1970s, after the prices paid for American and European art became a political issue, the Fraser government placed restrictions on the price the gallery could pay for international art. Any major purchases would now require permission from parliament.

Read more: Blue poles 45 years on: asset or overvalued drip painting?

As the gallery’s acquisition budget was not otherwise constrained, the gallery redirected its purchases to create an encyclopaedic collection of Australian art. Over the years, the collection has matured into a balance between Australian, American, European, Asian and Pacific art, still keeping the bias towards art of the 20th and 21st centuries as proposed by the Lindsay report

The collection now comprises almost 160,000 works of art valued at A$6 billion – a remarkable achievement for a collection that began only fifty years ago.

Over the last decade, the gallery has added an average of 2,134 items to its collection each year, including 863 new purchases.

In the early years, under James Mollison’s directorship, there was a need to build the collection from a very small base of works that had found their way into the hands of the old Commonwealth Art Advisory Board.

Read more: James Mollison: the public art teacher who brought the Blue Poles to Australia

Collections policy is not governed by numbers of works but by the nature of what is available, and how it relates to other works already in the collection. Once the collection was established, acquisitions could be focused on areas of particular need. Rod Radford expanded the Pacific collection; current director Nick Mitzevich is focused on contemporary art.

The gallery’s significant budget cuts will not impact the acquisitions budget. Gallery director Nick Mitzevich tells The Conversation the $16 million annual spend on buying art will be maintained, and cannot be appropriated for other purposes.

With such a collections base to work from, he says the gallery will focus on the quality, rather than quantity, of works which can be purchased from the same budget: collecting major works, or, as Mitzevich describes, “absolute excellence”.

But while the acquisitions budget is being maintained, other gallery departments are facing serious budget cuts.

With the exception of the Australian War Memorial, which will receive a controversial $500 million expansion, Australia’s national cultural organisations have been hit exceptionally hard by a succession of conservative governments.

Read more: Federal budget 2014: arts and culture experts react

The gallery’s operations budget must comply with the Australian Public Service’s efficiency dividend. This year, operating revenue is reduced by $1.5 million. To counteract this reduction, the gallery will cut 10% of its total staff, beginning with voluntary redundancies.

This will inevitably mean a loss of senior staff, some of those with the greatest expertise.

Shifting worlds

It has been a difficult year for the gallery. Due to smoke from the bushfires on January 5 and 6, the gallery had to close for the safety of its collection, including the major summer blockbuster Picasso and Matisse.

It was the first time the National Gallery of Australia has ever closed for more than one day.

Then, COVID-19 struck. The gallery shut its doors on March 23, not re-opening until June 2. Visitor numbers remain small. Yesterday, only 250 came through the doors. This time last year they were in the thousands.

Mtizevich has yet to calculate the full cost of these dual disasters to the gallery’s revenue. He told The Conversation the act of keeping to budget while keeping faith with the National Gallery’s objectives is “not an easy job, a tightrope”.

He is adamant the collections policy will remain unchanged.

– ref. Staff cuts will hurt the National Gallery of Australia, but it’s not spending less on art. It’s just spending it differently – https://theconversation.com/staff-cuts-will-hurt-the-national-gallery-of-australia-but-its-not-spending-less-on-art-its-just-spending-it-differently-141314

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqui Stol, Senior Experimental Scientist, Ecologist, CSIRO Land and Water, CSIRO

In box gum grassy woodlands, widely spaced eucalypts tower over carpets of wildflowers, lush native grasses and groves of flowering wattles. It’s no wonder some early landscape paintings depicting Australian farm life are inspired by this ecosystem.

But box gum grassy woodlands are critically endangered. These woodlands grow on highly productive agricultural country, from southern Queensland, along inland slopes and tablelands, into Victoria.

Many are degraded or cleared for farming. As a result, less than 5% of the woodlands remain in good condition. What remains often grows on private land such as farms, and public lands such as cemeteries or travelling stock routes.

Read more: Backyard gardeners around the world are helping to save Australia’s deeply ancient Wollemi pine

Very little is protected in public conservation reserves. And the recent drought and record breaking heat caused these woodlands to stop growing and flowering.

But after Queensland’s recent drought-breaking rain earlier this year, we surveyed private farmland and found many dried-out woodlands in the northernmost areas transformed into flower-filled, park-like landscapes.

And landholders even came across rarely seen marsupials, such as the southern spotted-tail quoll.

Huge increase in plant diversity

These surveys were part of the Australian government’s Environmental Stewardship Program, a long-term cooperative conservation model with private landholders. It started in 2007 and will run for 19 years.

We found huge increases in previously declining native wildflowers and grasses on the private farmland. Many trees assumed to be dying began resprouting, such as McKie’s stringybark (Eucalyptus mckieana), which is listed as a vulnerable species.

This newfound plant diversity is the result of seeds and tubers (underground storage organs providing energy and nutrients for regrowth) lying dormant in the soil after wildflowers bloomed in earlier seasons. The dormant seeds and tubers were ready to spring into life with the right seasonal conditions.

For example, Queensland Herbarium surveys early last year, during the drought, looked at a 20 metre by 20 metre plot and found only six native grass and wildflower species on one property. After this year’s rain, we found 59 species in the same plot, including many species of perennial grass (three species jumped to 20 species post rain), native bluebells and many species of native daisies.

Read more: Yes, native plants can flourish after bushfire. But there’s only so much hardship they can take

On another property with only 11 recorded species, more than 60 species sprouted after the extensive rains.

In areas where grazing and farming continued as normal (the paired “control” sites), the plots had only around half the number of plant species as areas managed for conservation.

Spotting rare marsupials

Landowners also reported several unusual sightings of animals on their farms after the rains. Stewardship program surveyors later identified them as two species of rare and endangered native carnivorous marsupials: the southern spotted-tailed quoll (mainland Australia’s largest carnivorous marsupial) and the brush-tailed phascogale.

The population status of both these species in southern Queensland is unknown. The brush-tailed phascogale is elusive and rarely detected, while the southern spotted-tailed quolls are listed as endangered under federal legislation.

Until those sightings, there were no recent records of southern spotted-tailed quolls in the local area.

These unusual wildlife sightings are valuable for monitoring and evaluation. They tell us what’s thriving, declining or surviving, compared to the first surveys for the stewardship program ten years ago.

Sightings are also a promising signal for the improving condition of the property and its surrounding landscape.

Changing farm habits

More than 200 farmers signed up to the stewardship program for the conservation and management of nationally threatened ecological communities on private lands. Most have said they’re keen to continue the partnership.

The landholders are funded to manage their farms as part of the stewardship program in ways that will help the woodlands recover, and help reverse declines in biodiversity.

For example, by changing the number of livestock grazing at any one time, and shortening their grazing time, many of the grazing-sensitive wildflowers have a better chance to germinate, grow, flower and produce seeds in the right seasonal conditions.

Read more: ‘Plant blindness’ is obscuring the extinction crisis for non-animal species

They can also manage weeds, and not remove fallen timber or loose rocks (bushrock). Fallen timber and rocks protect grazing-sensitive plants and provide habitat for birds, reptiles and invertebrates foraging on the ground.

Cautious optimism

So can we be optimistic for the future of wildlife and wildflowers of the box gum grassy woodlands? Yes, cautiously so.

Landholders are learning more about how best to manage biodiversity on their farms, but ecological recovery can take time. In any case, we’ve discovered how resilient our flora and fauna can be in the face of severe drought when given the opportunity to grow and flourish.

Climate change is bringing more extreme weather events. Last year was the warmest on record and the nation has been gripped by severe, protracted drought. There’s only so much pressure our iconic wildlife and wildflowers can take before they cross ecological thresholds that are difficult to bounce back from.

More government programs like this, and greater understanding and collaboration between scientists and farmers, create a tremendous opportunity to keep changing that trajectory for the better.

– ref. How drought-breaking rains transformed these critically endangered woodlands into a flower-filled vista – https://theconversation.com/how-drought-breaking-rains-transformed-these-critically-endangered-woodlands-into-a-flower-filled-vista-140638

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Morrison, PhD Candidate, Swinburne University of Technology

The Australian government recently announced plans to establish the country’s first taskforce devoted to fighting disinformation campaigns, under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

Last week, Foreign Minister Marise Payne accused China and Russia of “using the pandemic to undermine liberal democracy” by spreading disinformation to manipulate social media debate.

“Where we see disinformation, whether it’s here, whether it’s in the Pacific, whether it’s in Southeast Asia, where it affects our region’s interests and our values, then we will be shining a light on it,” Payne said.

In her speech to Canberra’s National Security College, she claimed Australia is going through an “infodemic”. But is it really? And if so, what can be done about it?

170,000 accounts removed, but how many missed?

Disinformation campaigns are coordinated attempts to spread false narratives, fake news and conspiracy theories. They’re characterised by repetitive narratives seemingly emanating from a variety of sources. These narratives are made even more believable when republished by trusted friends, family, community figures or political leaders.

Disinformation campaigns exist along a continuum of different cyber warfare techniques, including the massive state-sponsored cyberattacks targeting Australian government institutions and businesses. These sustained attacks reported on Friday were also purportedly emanating from China.

Social media networks such as Twitter and Facebook provide a perfect forum for disinformation campaigns. They’re easily accessible to foreign actors, who can create fake accounts to spread false but seemingly credible stories.

Read more: Meet ‘Sara’, ‘Sharon’ and ‘Mel’: why people spreading coronavirus anxiety on Twitter might actually be bots

Earlier this month, Twitter removed more than 170,000 accounts connected to state-run propaganda operations based in China, Russia and Turkey. Of these, about 150,000 were reportedly “amplifier” accounts boosting content.

According to a report published this month by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), a “persistent, large-scale influence campaign linked to Chinese state actors” has been targeting Chinese-speaking people outside China.

The campaign is allegedly aimed at swaying online debate surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the Hong Kong protests, among other key issues.

Twitter is banned in China, so there would be minimal opportunity for the Chinese government to develop and embed troll accounts into local Twitter networks. Instead, China has likely hacked, stolen or purchased legitimate accounts.

Twitter hasn’t revealed exactly how it detected the state-sponsored accounts, presumably because this would give other states a “how-to” guide on circumventing the platform’s security barriers.

But according to a New York Times report, one giveaway is when a user logs into many different accounts from the same web address. Twitter has also suggested unblocked accounts posting from China may be acting maliciously with government approval.

Information warfare is a growing threat

Australia’s Department of Home Affairs has warned there’s a “realistic prospect” foreign actors could meddle in Australian politics, including in the next federal election – unless steps are taken to prevent this.

The government has warned of this as a future threat. But based on the available evidence, we contend disinformation is already being used to manipulate public debate in Australia.

A University of Oxford report published last year suggested organised social media manipulation campaigns have occurred in 70 countries, including Australia.

Earlier this week, analysts at ASPI reiterated how Islamophobic and nationalist content was intentionally spread online during last year’s election campaign.

Perhaps the most infamous example of a large-scale disinformation campaign came from Russia in 2016, when a coordinated campaign was deployed to meddle with the US presidential election. Like Russia, China now appears to be investing substantial resources into disinformation campaigns.

Australia should expect to see further complex attacks conducted by both foreign and internal agents. These may be foreign state-sponsored campaigns, or dirty tactics used on the electoral campaign trail.

During last summer’s horrific bushfires, a large number of Twitter bot accounts were found posting #ArsonAttack, to perpetuate the idea the fires were largely attributable to arson, rather than climate change. The false claims were taken up by News Corp publications, which then influenced debate surrounding the crisis.

Read more: Bushfires, bots and arson claims: Australia flung in the global disinformation spotlight

Such claims sow confusion among the public. They increase political polarisation, and erode trust in media and political institutions.

The best defence is a collective one

While we can hope Twitter builds on efforts to detect malicious accounts that spread lies, we can’t assume state-sponsored actors will sit back and do nothing in response. Governments have invested too much into such attacks, and campaigns have proven successful.

The most readily available means of defence, as per most contemporary cybercrime, is user education. Social media users of all political persuasions should be aware what they’re seeing online may not be accurate, and should be viewed with a critical eye.

Some of us are better at differentiating between what is real and fake online, and can help filter out content that’s untrustworthy, unverified or plain wrong. Simple ways to do this include stating the facts (without specifically focusing on the myths), and offering explanations that coincide with the other’s preexisting beliefs.

It’s also important to remember how little actions such as “liking” and “retweeting” content can further spread disinformation, regardless of intent.

Also, while the above steps help they’re unlikely to completely insulate Australia from the potentially disastrous effects of future disinformation campaigns. We’ll need new solutions from both government and private industry.

Ideally, we’d like to see government regulation around disinformation. And although this hasn’t happened yet, the announcement of a government-run disinformation taskforce is at least one step in the right direction.

Read more: Coronavirus anti-vaxxers aren’t a huge threat yet. How do we keep it that way?

– ref. China’s disinformation threat is real. We need better defences against state-based cyber campaigns – https://theconversation.com/chinas-disinformation-threat-is-real-we-need-better-defences-against-state-based-cyber-campaigns-141044

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Martin, Associate Professor in Criminology, Swinburne University of Technology

The Australian government recently announced plans to establish the country’s first taskforce devoted to fighting disinformation campaigns, under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).

Last week, Foreign Minister Marise Payne accused China and Russia of “using the pandemic to undermine liberal democracy” by spreading disinformation to manipulate social media debate.

“Where we see disinformation, whether it’s here, whether it’s in the Pacific, whether it’s in Southeast Asia, where it affects our region’s interests and our values, then we will be shining a light on it,” Payne said.

In her speech to Canberra’s National Security College, she claimed Australia is going through an “infodemic”. But is it really? And if so, what can be done about it?

170,000 accounts removed, but how many missed?

Disinformation campaigns are coordinated attempts to spread false narratives, fake news and conspiracy theories. They’re characterised by repetitive narratives seemingly emanating from a variety of sources. These narratives are made even more believable when republished by trusted friends, family, community figures or political leaders.

Disinformation campaigns exist along a continuum of different cyber warfare techniques, including the massive state-sponsored cyberattacks targeting Australian government institutions and businesses. These sustained attacks reported on Friday were also purportedly emanating from China.

Social media networks such as Twitter and Facebook provide a perfect forum for disinformation campaigns. They’re easily accessible to foreign actors, who can create fake accounts to spread false but seemingly credible stories.

Read more: Meet ‘Sara’, ‘Sharon’ and ‘Mel’: why people spreading coronavirus anxiety on Twitter might actually be bots

Earlier this month, Twitter removed more than 170,000 accounts connected to state-run propaganda operations based in China, Russia and Turkey. Of these, about 150,000 were reportedly “amplifier” accounts boosting content.

According to a report published this month by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), a “persistent, large-scale influence campaign linked to Chinese state actors” has been targeting Chinese-speaking people outside China.

The campaign is allegedly aimed at swaying online debate surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the Hong Kong protests, among other key issues.

Twitter is banned in China, so there would be minimal opportunity for the Chinese government to develop and embed troll accounts into local Twitter networks. Instead, China has likely hacked, stolen or purchased legitimate accounts.

Twitter hasn’t revealed exactly how it detected the state-sponsored accounts, presumably because this would give other states a “how-to” guide on circumventing the platform’s security barriers.

But according to a New York Times report, one giveaway is when a user logs into many different accounts from the same web address. Twitter has also suggested unblocked accounts posting from China may be acting maliciously with government approval.

Information warfare is a growing threat

Australia’s Department of Home Affairs has warned there’s a “realistic prospect” foreign actors could meddle in Australian politics, including in the next federal election – unless steps are taken to prevent this.

The government has warned of this as a future threat. But based on the available evidence, we contend disinformation is already being used to manipulate public debate in Australia.

A University of Oxford report published last year suggested organised social media manipulation campaigns have occurred in 70 countries, including Australia.

Earlier this week, analysts at ASPI reiterated how Islamophobic and nationalist content was intentionally spread online during last year’s election campaign.

Perhaps the most infamous example of a large-scale disinformation campaign came from Russia in 2016, when a coordinated campaign was deployed to meddle with the US presidential election. Like Russia, China now appears to be investing substantial resources into disinformation campaigns.

Australia should expect to see further complex attacks conducted by both foreign and internal agents. These may be foreign state-sponsored campaigns, or dirty tactics used on the electoral campaign trail.

During last summer’s horrific bushfires, a large number of Twitter bot accounts were found posting #ArsonAttack, to perpetuate the idea the fires were largely attributable to arson, rather than climate change. The false claims were taken up by News Corp publications, which then influenced debate surrounding the crisis.

Read more: Bushfires, bots and arson claims: Australia flung in the global disinformation spotlight

Such claims sow confusion among the public. They increase political polarisation, and erode trust in media and political institutions.

The best defence is a collective one

While we can hope Twitter builds on efforts to detect malicious accounts that spread lies, we can’t assume state-sponsored actors will sit back and do nothing in response. Governments have invested too much into such attacks, and campaigns have proven successful.

The most readily available means of defence, as per most contemporary cybercrime, is user education. Social media users of all political persuasions should be aware what they’re seeing online may not be accurate, and should be viewed with a critical eye.

Some of us are better at differentiating between what is real and fake online, and can help filter out content that’s untrustworthy, unverified or plain wrong. Simple ways to do this include stating the facts (without specifically focusing on the myths), and offering explanations that coincide with the other’s preexisting beliefs.

It’s also important to remember how little actions such as “liking” and “retweeting” content can further spread disinformation, regardless of intent.

Also, while the above steps help they’re unlikely to completely insulate Australia from the potentially disastrous effects of future disinformation campaigns. We’ll need new solutions from both government and private industry.

Ideally, we’d like to see government regulation around disinformation. And although this hasn’t happened yet, the announcement of a government-run disinformation taskforce is at least one step in the right direction.

Read more: Coronavirus anti-vaxxers aren’t a huge threat yet. How do we keep it that way?

– ref. China’s disinformation campaign is real. We need better defences against state-based cyberattacks – https://theconversation.com/chinas-disinformation-campaign-is-real-we-need-better-defences-against-state-based-cyberattacks-141044

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabrielle Appleby, Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW

As a female legal academic, former practising lawyer, and judge’s associate, I hope the explosive allegations raised by the inquiry into former High Court judge Dyson Heydon will create the Australian legal profession’s #metoo moment. It is my professional culture. I have lived it and observed it. We need a moment to expose, examine and fundamentally change a culture that tolerates sexual predation.

In addition, as a legal academic who has studied the systems for complaints against judges for almost a decade, I also hope that these allegations provide a long-awaited catalyst for fixing the larger accountability vacuum that still yawns over the Australian federal judiciary.

It is a vacuum that has allowed sexist, racist and other troubling conduct to go largely unaddressed.

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

The complaints against Dyson Heydon and the High Court’s response

As Chief Justice of the High Court Susan Kiefel explained in her statement, the complaints against Heydon by his former associates were investigated by an administrative inquiry that had to be specially set up for the task. The inquiry’s six recommendations, all of which the High Court has indicated it will adopt, were tailored to redress the particular position of power held by a judge over an associate.

These changes are needed. The judge-associate relationship is one in which there is a particularly strong power imbalance, held as it is between a senior legal practitioner and someone just entering the profession.

It is both professional and deeply personal. In addition to being their associate’s boss and often their mentor, judges will spend long hours alone with their associate. They often dine and travel together, and there are expectations for the associate to attend social functions with the judge.

The status of judges

However, the further investigations by journalists Kate McClymont and Jacqueline Maley into Heydon’s conduct towards members of the legal profession and the judiciary demonstrate the unique and privileged position of judges extends beyond the judge-associate relationship. It cuts through an entire profession that is based on relationships and hierarchy.

Through his lawyers, Heydon told the SMH he emphatically denies the allegations.

Judges occupy an extraordinary, status-based position within the legal profession. In all contexts – including private ones – deference is accorded to judges by lawyers who may have to appear before them. Deference is displayed to higher court judges from those in lower courts whose judgments might be overturned by them. It is displayed from legal academics, who hope their work might be influential to their legal thinking. And the whole legal profession feels the responsibility for maintaining the idea that judges are of the highest integrity, in order to justify the level of power they wield in public life.

Complaints against judges – the status quo

At the federal level in Australia, there is no independent regulatory mechanism to deal with complaints that are made against judges – be they related to sexual misconduct or other forms of misbehaviour.

That’s not to say there aren’t many ways in which the judiciary are accountable – including through the appeals process, the principle that judicial proceedings are conducted in public (although the extent to which this has been able to be maintained during the coronavirus crisis has highlighted weaknesses), and of course as individuals through the criminal justice system.

Under the current system, complaints against individual judges must be made either to the attorney-general or the head of jurisdiction (that is, the chief justice or judge) of the relevant court.

If a complaint is made, investigated and found to be substantiated, there is no penalty available short of removal of the judge. Rather, the chief justice might recommend the judge undertake counselling, or training, or reassign them from sitting on certain cases, or from sitting on any cases.

Unlike, for instance, the legal or medical professions, or the public service, these avenues for accountability are not designed to provide an independent, standing institutional response when an individual has a complaint about the conduct of a judge — be that on or off the bench.

Removal of judges

Removal of a judge can only occur if both houses of parliament agree to it. It is an all-or-nothing option subject to partisan influences, political opportunism and argy-bargy. There has never been a federal judge removed in Australia. The closest we got was the inquiries into the removal of Justice Lionel Murphy in response to allegations in the 1980s that he had attempted to pervert the course of justice.

It is an interesting thought experiment to contemplate whether, had Heydon been a sitting High Court judge, the allegations against him would have been enough to have him removed from the bench. Maybe.

But what about if there were a similar suite of allegations against a lower level judge? Would that have been sufficient? It would, I think, depend on the extent of media coverage, the people involved and the general political context at the time the allegations were made. And it shouldn’t.

Misconduct in the judiciary

This is not to say there are pandemic levels of misconduct within the judiciary. But there are sufficient levels to require an institutional response. The allegations against Heydon provide us with but one recent example. There are myriad others.

The allegations of incompetence, rudeness, and bias against federal circuit court judge, Sandy Street, and incompetence, rudeness and unfairness against Judge Salvatore Vasta, that emerged over the course of last year provide us with two others.

For months, there was no institutional response to the conduct of these two judges. This was despite a number of complaints, including from the Law Council of Australia. Finally, the chief judge of the Federal Circuit Court, Will Alstergen, indicated that the judges had agreed to undertake mentoring. He also defended the current Federal Circuit Court complaints procedures.

Also last year, a Northern Territory judge, Greg Borchers, was found to have made comments that contained negative racial stereotypes. It was conduct the then Law Council of Australia President Arthur Moses branded “disparaging, discriminatory and offensive, insulting and humiliating to Indigenous Australians based solely on their race”.

This notwithstanding, Chief Judge Elizabeth Morris said that in the absence of a complaints framework, she could impose no sanctions. In the fallout from this episode, the chief justice of the Northern Territory, Michael Grant, called for an overhaul of the regulatory framework.

Attempts at reforming the status quo

Some states and territories have implemented independent complaints mechanisms to deal with misbehaving judges.

New South Wales was the first to introduce a Judicial Commission in 1987. Under its model, after an investigation, complaints are still either referred to parliament to contemplate removal, or to the chief justice to deal with as an internal issue for the court, according to the traditional process.

South Australia, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have now all adopted their own versions of an independent commission or commissioner, and one is said to be introduced into the Northern Territory this year.

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

In 2012, efforts were made to formalise the mechanism for investigating complaints at the federal level. However, these fell far short of establishing an independent commission. Indeed, they merely formalised the status quo and the responsibility of the chief justice for receiving, investigating and resolving complaints.

Serious complaints are referred to the attorney-general and dealt with by the parliament if they consider the seriousness warrants it. There is a process in place to allow for a parliamentary committee to be established to investigate further if desired.

In any event, the High Court was exempt from the 2012 changes, on the basis that the High Court occupies a “special position”, and that – because the High Court sits at the apex of the judicial system – it may be called on to determine the constitutional validity of any oversight mechanism.

An institutional response

The allegations against Heydon demonstrate a pressing need for a deep cultural change within the Australian legal profession. But they also demonstrate the uniquely privileged status of judges, and the need for an independent, standing complaints mechanism for the federal judiciary. Any oversight mechanism must extend to the High Court, and should also cover the conduct of former judges, who continue to enjoy an elevated status within the legal profession.

A standing, independent complaints body with appropriate powers would ensure there is a place for complaints to be received, the capacity to investigate them properly, and an independent body to impose penalties should misconduct be found. This would address the poor public perception of the judiciary monitoring the judiciary, concerns that the responses of the head of jurisdiction are too soft, not to mention the challenges if the allegations are made against the chief justice himself or herself, which is not without precedent.

It would avoid the accusation, made on Heydon’s behalf by his lawyers, that the process undertaken in his case was “conducted by a public servant and not by a lawyer, judge or a tribunal member”, without “statutory powers of investigation and of administering affirmations or oaths”, and that it may have failed to accord procedural fairness.

Certainly, such a mechanism must preserve judicial independence and be designed with appropriate caution. It must respect the separation of powers between the judiciary, the government and the legislature.

Such a design is not impossible. There are blueprints across the world – in Canada, the United Kingdom and increasingly in the Australian states and territories.

In the face of the allegations and findings of misconduct that have arisen against federal court judges in the last two years alone, the absence of such a mechanism is indefensible.

– ref. Australia urgently needs an independent body to hold powerful judges to account – https://theconversation.com/australia-urgently-needs-an-independent-body-to-hold-powerful-judges-to-account-141272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

In May 2020, with the world still in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic, Margaret MacMillan, an historian at the University of Toronto, wrote an essay in The Economist about the possibilities for life after the pandemic had passed.

On a scale of one to ten, where one was utter despair and ten was cautious hopefulness, it would have rated about six. Her thesis was that the future will be decided by a fundamental choice between reform and calamity.

She saw the world as being at a turning point in history. It had arrived there as a result of the conjunction of two forces: growing unrest at economic inequality, and the crisis induced by the pandemic.

It was at such times, she argued, that societies took stock and were open to change. Such a time, for example, was in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, which resulted in radical reforms to international political and economic frameworks.

She was writing against a backdrop of a larger crisis – the crisis in democracy. The most spectacular symptoms of this were the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States and the Brexit referendum. Both occurred in 2016, and both appealed to populism largely based on issues of race and immigration.

In the four years since, many books have been written on this crisis, among them Cass Sunstein’s #republic, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die, and A. C. Grayling’s Democracy and its Crisis.

Then, somewhat surprisingly, in May 2020 a new spirit of what might be called “economic morality” announced itself.

This came from within the Republican Party of the United States. It happened while Trump, that most amoral of Republican presidents, was in office, and reasserted some of the fundamental values of conservatism.

It took the form of a new organisation, American Compass, https://americancompass.org/, founded by Oren Cass, who was domestic policy adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2008 and 2012 US presidential election campaigns. He is also the author of an acclaimed book on labour markets, The Once and Future Worker: A Vision for the Renewal of Work in America.

American Compass’s mission, as stated on its website, was to:

…restore an economic consensus that emphasises the importance of family, community, and industry to the nation’s liberty and prosperity.

As the coronavirus pandemic wreaked havoc across the United States, Cass described the nation’s response as an indictment of what he called an “economic piety” – a form of ideological purity – that ignored many values that markets do not take into their calculations.

These included the well-being of workers, the security of supply chains, and the running down of America’s self-sufficiency, exemplified by a shortage of medical supplies.

His line of argument was supported by a senior Republican, Senator Marco Rubio, in an article for The New York Times. Rubio’s critique of the failure of American economic policy over two decades was crystallised in one sentence:

Why didn’t we have enough N95 masks or ventilators on hand for a pandemic? Because buffer stocks don’t maximize financial return, and there was no shareholder reward for protecting against risk.

The fact that this significant shift in economic thinking and socio-political priorities was coming out of elements in the Republican Party in the lead-up to the presidential election is perhaps an indication that MacMillan’s thesis has some substance. Perhaps democracies are on the cusp of a change in direction.

How the pandemic contracted the media landscape further

Alongside these developments, the existential crisis facing news media was made worse by the coronavirus pandemic. As business activity was brought to a stop by the lockdown, the need for advertising was drastically reduced.

Coming on top of the haemorrhaging of advertising revenue to social media over the previous 15 years, this proved fatal to some newspapers.

In Australia, the impact of this was worst in regional and rural areas. News Corp announced in May that more than 100 of its regional newspapers would become digital-only or close entirely.

Read more: Digital-only local newspapers will struggle to serve the communities that need them most

In April, Australia’s largest regional newspaper publisher, Australian Community Media (ACM), announced it was suspending the printing of newspapers at four of its printing sites, halting the production of most of its non-daily local newspapers. ACM has about 160 titles.

These developments represented a serious loss to local communities and added to the democratic deficit already apparent over more than a decade as advertising revenue flowed away from traditional media to the global social media platforms.

Defending against the digital onslaught

At a national level, the Australian government took up a recommendation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to force the global platforms, particularly Facebook and Google, to pay for the news it took from Australian media.

The platforms mounted a fierce rearguard action against this proposal, which remains unresolved for now.

If a democratic revival is to occur, however, a strong media will be a necessary part of it. The necessity of a free press has been clear since the germination of modern democracy in the late 17th century, and in the late 18th century it was given powerful recognition in both legal and political terms.

In 1791 it was articulated in the First Amendment to the US Bill of Rights. In 1795, Edmund Burke stood up in the British House of Commons and asserted that the press had become what he called “the fourth estate of the Realm”.

If the media are to play their part in any democratic revival, however, financial and material security will be only a part of what is required.

One factor that has contributed to the present crisis in democracy is polarisation, the opening up of deep divisions between the main political parties of mature democracies. This has been magnified by media partisanship.

There is a lot of research evidence for this. One of the most significant is a 2017 study that showed the link in the United States between people’s television viewing habits and their political affiliations.

A further factor in the crisis has been the emergence of the “fake news” phenomenon. In the resultant swirling mass of information, misinformation and disinformation that constitutes the digital communications universe, people have returned to traditional mass media in the hope that they can trust what they see and hear there.

Read more: Trust in quality news outlets strong during coronavirus pandemic

The Edelman Trust Barometer, an annual global study of public attitudes of trust towards a variety of institutions, including the media, showed that since 2015, public trust in the traditional media as a source of news had increased, and their trust in social media as a source of news had decreased.

Populism and scapegoating

A third factor in the crisis, exacerbated by the first two, is the rise of populism. Its defining characteristics are distrust of elites, negative stereotyping, the creation of a hated “other”, and scapegoating. The hated “other” has usually been defined in terms of race, colour, ethnicity, nationality, religion or some combination of them.

Powerful elements of the news media, most notably Fox News in the United States, Sky News in Australia and the Murdoch tabloids in Britain, have exploited and promoted populist sentiment.

This sentiment is reckoned to have played a significant part in the election of Trump.

It is also considered to have played a part in the outcome of the Brexit referendum.

It follows that if these are contributing factors to the crisis in democracy, then the media has a part in any democratic revival.

To do so, it needs to take four major steps. One is to focus resources on what is called public interest journalism: the reporting of parliament, the executive government, courts, and powerful institutions in which the public places its trust, such as major corporations and political parties. This work needs to include a substantial investigative component.

A second is to recommit to the professional ethical requirements of accuracy, fairness, truth-telling, impartiality, and respect for persons.

The third is to take political partisanship out of news coverage. Media outlets are absolutely entitled to be partisan in their opinions, but when it taints the news coverage, the public trust is betrayed.

The fourth is to recalibrate the relationship between professional mass media and social media.

That recalibration involves taking a far more critical approach to social media content than has commonly been the case until now.

While it is true the early practices of simply regurgitating stuff from social media have largely been abandoned, social media still exerts a disproportionate influence on news values. Just because something goes viral on social media doesn’t make it news unless it concerns a matter of substance.

Social media is where fake news flourishes, so the filter applied by professional mass media to what appears there needs to be strong and close-meshed.

That is the negative side of the recalibration.

The positive side is to further develop the extraordinary symbiosis that has been shown to exist between social and professional mass media.

It was most spectacularly demonstrated by the Black Lives Matter protests that followed the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Social media allowed millions of people all over the world to be eyewitnesses to this gross act of police brutality.

Professional mass media, by applying its standards of verification and corroboration then disseminating the footage on its mass platforms, ensured the killing became known to the community at large, well beyond the confines of echo chambers and filter bubbles.

It also added that element of long-established public trust that respected news brands have to offer.

The world saw how powerful that combination was. A single act of police violence with racist overtones in a relatively obscure American city set off protests not just in the United States but in many countries with a history of police brutality against people of colour: Canada, Britain, Belgium, France, Australia, the Dominican Republic.

And then the same combination exerted a high level of accountability on the police for their further acts of violence against the protesters, which spilled over into police violence against the media covering those protests.

These events show the importance of the community having a common bedrock of reliable information on which to base a common conversation and a common response to an issue of common concern. It is the opposite of the fragmentation that is created by online echo chambers.

If Margaret MacMillan is right, and the world really is at a point where significant economic, political and social change is possible, let’s hope the media might be brave and honest enough to reflect on the contribution they have made to the creation of democracy’s crisis, and be prepared to change in order to help rebuild public trust in democratic institutions.

– ref. Media have helped create a crisis of democracy – now they must play a vital role in its revival – https://theconversation.com/media-have-helped-create-a-crisis-of-democracy-now-they-must-play-a-vital-role-in-its-revival-139653

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

The Lowy Institute’s 2020 “Understanding Australian Attitudes to the World” poll has found “unprecedented shifts” in Australian public opinion, with more people feeling unsafe in the world, optimism about the economy at an historic low, and a precipitate decline in trust in China.

The poll also shows that despite an expectation the bushfires would elevate the climate issue, concern about it has been partially eclipsed by the pandemic and its economic fallout.

The survey was conducted March 16-29 of 2448 people, as the pandemic was hitting Australia (various shutdown measures were imposed midway through the poll period). Lowy earlier released its supplementary COVID poll done in April.

“The global COVID-19 pandemic appears to have taken a heavy toll on Australians’ sense of security,” according to the poll report, authored by Natasha Kassam.

When asked “about world events, how safe do you feel?, only 50% of Australians say they feel safe. This was a record low for the poll, 28 points down on 2018. In contrast, during the global financial crisis, 92% felt safe.

As the world headed to economic crisis, Australians were asked “how optimistic are you about Australia’s economic performance in the world over the next five years?”

“Optimism about the economy has fallen to record lows, although a slight majority (52%) remain optimistic,” the report says, with 48% pessimistic. This is the lowest level the poll has recorded – a 13-point fall from 2019, and 34 points lower than the high point in 2009 and 2010 (86%).

The poll – taken before the latest deterioration in China-Australia relations after the Morrison government called for an inquiry into the origins of COVID – confirms the continuing souring in attitudes.

More than nine in ten favour the government working to find other markets to reduce Australia’s economic dependence on China.

“Trust in China is at its lowest point in the [16 year] history of the poll, with 23% saying they trust China a great deal or somewhat ‘to act responsibly in the world’.

“Only 22% of Australians have some or a lot of confidence in China’s President Xi Jinping to do the right thing in world affairs.

“And feelings towards China on a scale of 0° to 100° have fallen sharply in 2020, to 39°. This represents a drop of 10 degrees in a single year, and the lowest score that China has received in the history of the poll,” the report says.

“More Australians (55%) see China as ‘more of an economic partner’ than the 41% that see China as ‘more of a security threat’ to Australia.” But, “Far fewer Australians see China as an economic partner in 2020, in a 27-point fall from 82% to 55% since 2018.

“In 2018, Australians were asked to weigh up their perception of China as an economic partner versus a military threat, and the balance of opinion tipped far more heavily towards China being an economic partner (82%) rather than a military threat (12%).”

Australians remain unimpressed with President Trump, a feature of previous Lowy polling. Only 30% have confidence in Trump “to do the right thing regarding world affairs”. Nevertheless, this was a five point rise since last year.

People remain committed to the importance of the alliance with the US – 78% said it was very or fairly important to Australia’s security, which was six points higher than last year.

Climate change concern remains high – 59% see it as a critical threat to Australia’s interests.

“However, some concern about climate change may have been overshadowed by the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic uncertainty,” the report says.

“In 2020, 56% of Australians say ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs.’ This is five points lower than in 2019, and 12 points below the peak of concern in 2006 when 68% expressed this view. The level of concern remains 20 points higher than the low point of 36% in 2012,” the report says.

On the issue of international students, which has been highlighted by the pandemic, 52% say the number is about right , while 43% say it is too high. Just 3% think it is too low.

– ref. Australians pessimistic about economic outlook and even more suspicious of China: 2020 Lowy poll – https://theconversation.com/australians-pessimistic-about-economic-outlook-and-even-more-suspicious-of-china-2020-lowy-poll-141223

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

Anthony Albanese has proposed negotiations for a bipartisan agreement on an energy policy framework to create greater certainty for investment.

In a letter to Scott Morrison Albanese says the government’s recent draft technology roadmap “presents a technology transition story that is largely consistent with past Labor policy and expert advice”.

It sees renewable energy at the centre of Australia’s energy and industrial future, which fits Labor’s view, and so “it represents an opportunity” for bipartisanship, the Labor leader writes.

“We have an opportunity to move beyond past partisan approaches to energy policy, to draw on the community’s clear desire for more bipartisan approaches to difficult policy areas, and to finally deliver an enduring, effective and bipartisan energy policy for Australia.”

Albanese says if Morrison agreed to negotiations Labor would not seek a specific model for a bipartisan investment framework. Rather it would seek a framework “scalable” to different emission reduction targets by future governments.

“As you know, the agencies and industry have argued that investor confidence requires enduring bipartisan agreement around investment rules, rather than specific targets,” Albanese says in the letter, released ahead of his latest “vision statement”, this one on science, to be delivered at the National Press Club on Wednesday.

Albanese writes that Labor would support the development and use of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) methodologies for the creation of Australian carbon credit units to be available for Emission Reduction Fund auctions and the offset market. Although the letter does not spell it out, this would cover clean coal technology.

While Labor remains opposed to the fund, as an inappropriate use of taxpayer money, a Labor government would respect all contracts made under it, including any future CCS-related contracts, he says.

Labor would support the government if it set up new funding mechanisms to develop CCS technology, but would remain opposed to the re-direction of Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and Clean Energy Finance Corporation support away from renewables towards CCS.

Albanese also reaffirms Labor opposition to a domestic nuclear power industry.

Albanese says that for any negotiations to have a credible chance of success the government would need to agree to re-fund ARENA so it could in particular help deliver the “technology roadmap”.

Also there would need to be acceptance that agreement on targets was not necessary for an enduring energy policy, but “scalability” was required in the framework.

“As we address the greatest health and economic crisis we have seen for generations, it is only by working together that we can deliver the leadership Australian business and families are rightly crying out for,” Albanese writes.

– ref. Albanese calls on Morrison to negotiate a bipartisan energy framework – https://theconversation.com/albanese-calls-on-morrison-to-negotiate-a-bipartisan-energy-framework-141319

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Borg, Research Fellow at BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University

As COVID-19 restrictions start to ease, we’re unlikely to return to our previous behaviours, from our work-life balance to maintaining good hygiene.

But there are downsides to this new normal, particularly when it comes to hygiene concerns, which have led to an increase in an environmental scourge we were finally starting to get on top of: single-use plastics.

We’ve recently published research based on data collected in mid-2019 (before COVID-19). Our findings showed that not only were people avoiding single-use plastics most of the time, but one of the biggest motivators was knowing others were avoiding them too. Avoidance was becoming normal.

Read more: Using lots of plastic packaging during the coronavirus crisis? You’re not alone

But then COVID-19 changed the game. Since the pandemic started, there has been a significant increase in plastic waste, such as medical waste from protective equipment such as masks, gloves and gowns, and increased purchases of sanitary products such as disposable wipes and liquid soap.

The good news is we can return to our plastic-avoiding habits. It just might look a little a different.

Avoidance was more normal than we realised

In our representative survey of 1,001 Victorians, we asked people about their behaviours and beliefs around four single-use plastic items: bags, straws, coffee cups and take-away containers.

We found people’s beliefs about how often others were avoiding these items was one of the strongest predictors of their own intentions.

Other influences that predicted intentions included personal confidence, the perceived self and environmental benefits and financial costs associated with avoidance, and whether others would approve or disapprove of the behaviour.

Read more: Coles says these toys promote healthy eating. I say they’re rubbish

While beliefs about other peoples’ behaviour was one of the strongest predictors of intentions, there was still a gap between these beliefs and reported behaviour.

On average, 70% of our sample reported avoiding single-use plastics most of the time. But only 30% believed others were avoiding them as often.

Thankfully, our findings suggest we can encourage more people to avoid single-use plastics more often by sharing the news that most people are doing it already. The bad news is that COVID-19 has increased our reliance on single-use items.

Some single-use is necessary during a pandemic

Just when avoidance was becoming normal, the pandemic brought single-use plastics back into favour.

Despite the fact the virus survives longer on plastic compared to other surfaces and a lack of evidence that disposable items are any safer than reusable ones, many businesses are refusing to accept reusable containers, such as coffee cups.

Overseas and in Australia, some government departments delayed upcoming bans on single-use plastics and others overturned existing single-use plastic bag bans.

So even if consumers want to avoid single-use plastics, it’s not as easy as it used to be.

Avoiding plastic can still be part of the new normal

It is still possible to avoid unnecessary single-use plastic right now. We just need to get creative and focus on items within our control.

We can still pack shopping in reusable bags, make a coffee at home in a reusable cup, carry reusable straws when we go out – just make sure to wash reusables between each use.

Read more: How recycling is actually sorted, and why Australia is quite bad at it

Many Victorians can even order delivery take-away food in reusable containers, thanks to the partnership between Deliveroo and Returnr, the reusable packaging scheme. Boomerang Alliance also produced guidelines for sustainable take-away options, including practical tips for contactless transfer of food.

Our research focused on public single-use plastic avoidance behaviours, but now is a good time to look at private ones too.

There are plenty of single-use plastics in the home: cling wrap, coffee pods, shampoo and conditioner bottles, disposable razors and liquid soap dispensers to name a few.

But you can find reusable alternatives for almost everything: beeswax or silicone wraps, reusable coffee pods, shampoo and conditioner bars, reusable safety razors and bars of soap, rather than liquid soap.

Buying cleaning products in bulk can also reduce plastic packaging and keeping glass jars or hard plastic containers are great for storing leftovers.

Read more: There are some single-use plastics we truly need. The rest we can live without

Just because we’re in a period of change, doesn’t mean we have to lose momentum. Single-use plastics are a huge environmental problem that we can continue to address by changing our behaviours.

Many are calling on governments, businesses and individuals to use the pandemic as an opportunity to look at how we used to do things and ask – is there a better way?

When it comes to single use plastics during COVID-19, we can’t control everything. But our actions can help shape what the new normal looks like.

– ref. Avoiding single-use plastic was becoming normal, until coronavirus. Here’s how we can return to good habits – https://theconversation.com/avoiding-single-use-plastic-was-becoming-normal-until-coronavirus-heres-how-we-can-return-to-good-habits-140555

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Revell, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Physics, University of Canterbury

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

This week, Climate Explained answers two similar questions.

If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today, compared to the 1800s before industrialisation?

and

My question is what happens when all the greenhouse gases are eliminated? What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?

Earth’s atmosphere is a remarkably thin layer of gases that sustain life.

The diameter of Earth is 12,742km and the atmosphere is about 100km thick. If you took a model globe and wrapped it up, a single sheet of tissue paper would represent the thickness of the atmosphere.

The gases that make up Earth’s atmosphere are mostly nitrogen and oxygen, and small quantities of trace gases such as argon, neon, helium, the protective ozone layer and various greenhouse gases – so named because they trap heat emitted by Earth.

The most abundant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere is water vapour – and it is this gas that provides the natural greenhouse effect. Without this and the naturally occurring quantities of other greenhouse gases, Earth would be about 33℃ colder and uninhabitable to life as we know it.

Changing Earth’s atmosphere

Since pre-industrial times, human activities have led to the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen from about 280 parts per million (ppm) before the first industrial revolution some 250 years ago, to a new high since records began of just over 417ppm. As a result of continued increases, the global average temperature has climbed by just over 1℃ since pre-industrial times.

Read more: Climate explained: why carbon dioxide has such outsized influence on Earth’s climate

While these long-lived greenhouse gases have raised Earth’s average surface temperature, human activities have altered atmospheric composition in other ways as well. Particulate matter in the atmosphere, such as soot and dust, can cause health problems and degrades air quality in many industrialised and urban regions.

Particulate matter can partially offset greenhouse gas warming, but its climate effects depend on its composition and geographical distribution. Climate in the southern hemisphere has also been affected by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which led to the development of the Antarctic ozone hole.

If people had not altered the composition of the atmosphere at all through emitting greenhouse gases, particulate matter and ozone-destroying CFCs, we would expect the global average temperature today to be similar to the pre-industrial period – although some short-term variation associated with the Sun, volcanic eruptions and internal variability would still have occurred.

Read more: What is a pre-industrial climate and why does it matter?

In a world that is about 1℃ warmer than during pre-industrial times, New Zealand is already facing the environmental and economic costs associated with climate change. The former head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Christiana Figueres, argues that with trillions of dollars being spent around the world in economic stimulus packages following the COVID-19 pandemic, we need strong commitments to a low-carbon future if the world is to limit warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.

What needs to happen

Greenhouse gases have long lifetimes – about a decade for methane and hundreds to thousands of years for carbon dioxide. We will need to reduce emissions aggressively over a sustained period, until their abundance in the atmosphere starts to decline.

When New Zealand entered the Level 4 coronavirus lockdown in March 2020, almost two weeks passed (the incubation period of the virus) before the number of new cases started to decline. Waiting for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to decrease, even while we reduce emissions, will be similar, except we’ll be waiting for decades.

It is very unlikely that we could ever reduce greenhouse gas concentrations to the point that it becomes dangerous for life as we know it. Doing so would involve overcoming the natural greenhouse effect.

Recent research into greenhouse gas emission scenarios provides guidance on what will need to happen to stabilise Earth’s temperature at 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels. A rapid transition away from fossil fuels toward low-carbon energy is imperative; some form of carbon dioxide capture to remove it from the atmosphere may also be necessary.

Short-term and scattered climate policy will not be sufficient to support the transitions we need, and achieving 1.5℃ will not be possible as long as global inequalities remain high.

– ref. Climate Explained: what Earth would be like if we hadn’t pumped greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-earth-would-be-like-if-we-hadnt-pumped-greenhouse-gases-into-the-atmosphere-141194

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Lorrey, Principal Scientist & Programme Leader of Climate Observations and Processes, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Brewster Glacier in New Zealand’s Southern Alps lost 13 million cubic metres of ice between March 2016 and March 2019 – almost the equivalent of the basic drinking water needs of all New Zealanders during that time.

Simultaneously, seasonal extremes for Auckland – New Zealand’s largest city – swung from the wettest autumn on record to one of the most severe multi-season droughts.

Water is arguably the most precious resource in New Zealand. These contrasting extreme events in two very different regions highlight the critical importance of long-term observations as we confront water security challenges.

Water extremes

2017 became the wettest autumn on record for Auckland when an “atmospheric river” drenched the city for several days. Within a month, ex-tropical cyclones dumped even more extreme rainfall.

Exceptionally high autumn rainfall (more than 200% higher than normal for many sites) during 2017 saturated soils and produced numerous slips. Sediment hampered water treatment for regional reservoirs that provide about 75% of the city’s water supply.

Fast forward to 2019, when one of the most significant multi-season droughts since the early 20th century started unfolding. Four Auckland sites we monitor show it was the driest summer in recent memory. The drought has continued, and water restrictions are currently in place.

The big wet versus the big dry in Auckland only three years apart gives us a taste of New Zealand’s water future – a higher likelihood of more frequent water extremes with stronger impacts.

Shrinking ice

The Southern Alps tell a different story arising from climate extremes, where recent changes have been rapid, widespread and exceptional. The National Institute of Water and Atmosphere end-of-summer snowline mission – which has run nearly unbroken since the 1970s – provides valuable “time capsules” of glaciers and snowlines through a changing climate.

Read more: A bird’s eye view of New Zealand’s changing glaciers

The long-term permanent snowline – the boundary between exposed glacial ice and recent snow – must sit below the mountain top for a glacier to exist. The 2018 Tasman Sea marine heatwave drove snowlines off the top of many peaks. Then, 2019 produced a second marine heatwave around northern New Zealand. Some small glaciers sustained so much damage during these extreme years that they are now on a path to extinction.

As if this wasn’t enough, ash and dust from Australian bushfires blanketed Southern Alps glaciers during the 2020 summer and increased the potential for seasonal melt.

New photogrammetry techniques that produce digital elevation models with annual glacier photos help to define the impacts from extreme years like the last three. We are extending these techniques to our historic image archive to construct a 4D vision of ice volume, which brings us closer to quantifying water volume loss and gain for individual glaciers.

The recent ice loss from Brewster Glacier is only a small part of the frozen water volume stored in New Zealand’s Southern Alps. Since the first New Zealand glacier survey in the late 1970s, there’s been a long-term trend of glacial retreat through climate warming.

Southern Alps glaciers are estimated to have lost more than 30% of their volume – about 16 billion cubic metres of ice, or the equivalent of about 200 litres a day for each New Zealander over 40 years.

Read more: New Zealand’s Southern Alps have lost a third of their ice

While water loss from vanishing glaciers is deeply troubling, it is a reminder that more severe and immediate concerns can arise from long and intense seasonal droughts and changes to rivers in a warming world.

Past and present observations help prepare for the future

Long-term environmental observations help to inform national water security policy and water resource management. Our observations also underpin weather forecasts, seasonal climate predictions and climate change projections that cover a spectrum of advance warnings for extreme weather and climate impacts.

We need to grow environmental observations, but making and archiving them can be costly and difficult. Global support for their long-term stewardship once they are gathered is also at risk. As a result, small countries like New Zealand confront hard choices about which observations to make, what sites they come from, and how they are continued.

Amid the many COVID-19 announcements was an increase in funding for nationally significant databases and collections. This boost is a welcome signal for maintaining valuable scientific resources, including environmental observations, for future generations.

But ongoing support is needed to reduce attrition of our comprehensive evidence base. It would be even more risky to abandon long-term water and climate observations, and simply fly blind into an uncertain future.

– ref. Why long-term environmental observations are crucial for New Zealand’s water security challenges – https://theconversation.com/why-long-term-environmental-observations-are-crucial-for-new-zealands-water-security-challenges-141123

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Marshman, Honorary Principal Fellow, Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne

One objective of the government’s recently announced funding changes for universities is to increase the number of graduates in areas of expected employment growth – such as teaching, nursing, agriculture, STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) and IT.

The education minister said student fees in these degrees would drop. But what he didn’t say is universities would also receive less funding for these degrees, because the government had assessed they are currently over-funded.

We have modelled the shortfall in guaranteed base funding to universities for degrees in areas of employment growth, and others, using the latest 2018 domestic student enrolment data.

To educate 584,346 domestic full-time bachelor students, the government will save A$769 million per year. Students will be charged an extra A$476 million per year and universities will have reduced funding of A$293 million per year.

The reduced rate of funding to universities (of up to 17%), per place, for national priority courses sends perverse messages to universities. They will be receiving a lower rate of funding when they are expected to expand domestic enrolments.

It’s not as it seems

The basis for the government’s funding decisions is a Deloitte Access Economics report on transparency in higher education spending.

The reform package sees substantial reductions for student fees in certain national priority degrees – 21% for science and engineering to 62% for agriculture and mathematics.

As the table below shows, the government contribution for four of these courses (teaching, nursing, agriculture and mathematics) has increased.

But universities won’t be fully compensated for the student fee reduction for any of these courses.

The funding reductions for universities, per place, of between 6-17% will be a barrier to the minister’s objective of seeing more enrolments in these courses.

In sharp contrast to the STEM courses, humanities and social sciences students (except those in languages and English) will have to contribute much more of the cost, and the government significantly less.

As the below tables shows, universities can expect to receive increased funding, from 15%-55% for courses in languages, English, humanities and social sciences, law, economics, management and commerce.

But the government’s pricing signals are designed to redirect students from humanities and social sciences to courses of national priority. If these signals succeed – meaning fewer students will be studying humanities, and therefore paying the fees – overall university levels of funding for humanities will decline.

Does the government now expect universities to subsidise STEM subjects from humanities and social science domestic student fees in the same way they have cross-subsidised research and research training from international student fees?

As part of the reform package, the table below shows university funding, per place, for ten fields of study (including engineering, nursing and teaching) will reduce, and increase for 11 (including health, creative arts, and society and culture).

The level of funding reductions for national priority places, and in environmental studies (with a decrease of nearly $10,000 per place), are most significant.

What signal does the government seek to send about the importance of the environment for Australia’s future social well-being?

The government’s package indicates much of government savings ($769 million per year) will be redirected to rural, regional and Indigenous programs. This outcome will be of marginal benefit to metropolitan universities.

Issues for universities

The focus on national priority courses in government’s reform package raises some important issues for universities.

Overall, universities will receive less funding per student place than they currently do. This is at a time when universities are experiencing a massive shortfall in the billions in international student fee revenue.

Universities could, within their internal budget allocation models, restore funding for national priority courses by redirecting income from humanities and social science programs. But this would be counter-productive, divisive and inefficient for universities, as it involves budgetary opaqueness and removes incentives for revenue growth.

The reform package encourages universities to reallocate places across disciplines to reflect changes in student demand. If universities respond to desired changes in student demand by increasing places in national priority courses through reallocation from other disciplines, a fixed level of government funding will result in fewer places becoming available. For example, a student in engineering ($16,500) will attract 15 times the level of government funding than a humanities student ($1,100).

An issue for government will be whether the discipline-based changes in funding places will lead to gaming by universities, which may seek to redefine subjects to secure higher funding rates.

In humanities, the incentive will be to have subjects coded as English and languages. Environmental studies will receive increased funding if coded as agriculture. Legal studies may be presented as education. Costs will increase if this occurs.

Thirty two universities participated in the 2019 data collection for the Deloitte report the government’s funding decisions is based on. Of these, 13 universities were unable to supply detailed activity-based costing data.

The validity of the new discipline-based funding model will depend on whether the Deloitte report reflects true costs of university teaching.

Universities are already predicted to lose billions of dollars in international fee revenue in 2021 and beyond. A further financial impost would severely affect their capacity to maintain high quality teaching programs and undertake internationally competitive research.

– ref. The government is making ‘job-ready’ degrees cheaper for students – but cutting funding to the same courses – https://theconversation.com/the-government-is-making-job-ready-degrees-cheaper-for-students-but-cutting-funding-to-the-same-courses-141280

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dennis Altman, Professorial Fellow in Human Security, La Trobe University

When Disney releases a film version of the musical Hamilton on July 3, it will be 11 years since Lin-Manuel Miranda performed an early number at a White House evening hosted by the Obamas.

Watching the musical in the fourth year of the Trump administration is to be jolted back to a very different America. The optimism that accompanied the election of the first black president has given way to the grief and anger of Black Lives Matter.

Hamilton is a musical drama built around the story of Alexander Hamilton, one of the founders of the American Constitution. Sung in a mix of hip hop, rap and pop, it has won 11 Tony Awards, a Grammy and a Pulitzer. Disney reportedly paid US$75 million (A$108 million) for the rights to screen it.

From the White House to Broadway, [Hamilton] is a musical entwined with politics. This seems radical, but is true to the tradition of the American musical, namely an interrogation of the American Dream.

Rap and opera

Like opera, [Hamilton] is sung throughout, rather than being constructed around detachable songs intended to live as popular hits. The use of rap means Hamilton is more information dense than most musicals, spinning seamlessly across several stories which lead to Hamilton’s dying acknowledgement of “America, you great unfinished symphony”.

Miranda not only wrote the lyrics and music, he starred in the original production, which was marked by the casting of non-white actors to play icons of the American Revolution. Shortly after the election of Donald Trump, Vice President-elect Mike Pence attended a performance of the show. Miranda addressed him directly during the final curtain calls, which Trump later labelled as “rude”:

We, sir — we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights … We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.

A musical tradition

Cole Porter’s first attempt at a musical in 1916 was called See America First. The 1927 Kern and Hammerstein musical Show Boat made racial conflict central to its story.

Throughout the 20th century, the musical was a form that aired politically difficult subjects. In 1937 Mark Blitzstein’s The Cradle Will Rock was a Brechtian expose of corruption and corporate greed. In 1949, Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein spotlighted American racism in South Pacific.

Hammerstein also wrote the lyrics and book for 1943’s Carmen Jones, which transposed Bizet’s opera to an African American setting.

Like Gershwin before him, Hammerstein was Jewish, and Jewish themes run through several well-known musicals including Fiddler on the Roof, Cabaret and The Producers.

Nor are Washington politics unusual in the American musical. There is a precursor to Hamilton in Sherman Edwards’ 1969 musical 1776, an account of the Continental Congress that declared independence from Britain. The show won the Tony Award for the best musical, beating the more subversively political Hair.

Read more: Hollywood onstage: why are so many musicals adapted from movies?

The dream

If Hamilton is innovative in its music and staging, its politics are in line with the dominant American myth that anyone can find success.

Alexander Hamilton was a poor orphan from the West Indies who became George Washington’s right-hand man, a co-author of the Federalist Papers that inspired the US Constitution, the first Secretary of the Treasury and the leading exponent of a strong national economy. In 1804, he was killed in a duel with then Vice President Aaron Burr.

For Miranda, the attraction of Hamilton was the capacity of the outsider to make it in the United States: “Just like my country” sings Hamilton “I’m young, scrappy and hungry”.

On slavery

In his 1973 novel Burr, Gore Vidal describes Hamilton as “a strange wild little boy thrust by his bastardy outside society, forced to rely on his beauty and wit to get himself what he wanted, usually from older duller men”.

Vidal distrusted Hamilton, just as he distrusted his nemesis Thomas Jefferson, for their vision of an American Empire. While Hamilton was opposed to slavery, he accepted its continuation as the price of union.

Through its musical styles and casting, Hamilton claims the American Dream for those who were excluded, just like Martin Luther King or indeed Frederick Douglas in his famous 1846 speech:

Americans! Your republican politics are flagrantly inconsistent. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie.

But there are no words as pointed in Hamilton and it has come under fire from critics and historians.

Read more: From Louisiana to Queensland: how American slave owners started again in Australia

The greatest?

In making politics the theme of musical theatre, there will inevitably be omissions and distortions.

Evita is hardly a definitive picture of Argentina under Peron, nor is Les Misérables a reliable guide to the Parisian revolts of 1832.

The hype around Hamilton is as much a product of the American belief system as it is of the extraordinary mix of words, music and story. One Washington critic claimed it as the greatest musical ever written, because it recognises

the American Revolution … is ongoing even today, and there are Founders of America being born even as we speak.

Australian audiences, watching from home with stages empty and streets full of protesters, may respond with slightly less desperation to believe in this American origin story.

– ref. Watching Hamilton today – musical drama can be radical, just don’t believe all the hype – https://theconversation.com/watching-hamilton-today-musical-drama-can-be-radical-just-dont-believe-all-the-hype-139322

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

The July 4 byelection in the highly marginal NSW Labor seat of Eden-Monaro is shaping up to be “very close”, according to participants in focus group research conducted by the University of Canberra.

Climate change, job creation, the federal government’s response to the bushfires, and health care were most frequently nominated when people were asked to choose, from a list of 13, the issue that would be extremely or very important in informing how they would vote.

Climate change was nominated by six of the 16, with job creation chosen by three, followed by the government’s response on bushfires and health care (each nominated by two people). The government’s response to COVID-19, support for tourism and action on the high cost of living received one nomination each.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Labor Party’s dirty linen on display at bad time for Anthony Albanese

Most participants believed the summer fires would have a negative impact for the Coalition, and that this might make a difference in a close election.

On Tuesday Scott Morrison campaigned in Bega, with a $86 million package for the forestry industry, wine producers and apple growers hit by the bushfires and the effects of COVID-19. While the money is not confined to Eden-Monaro, its target is winning votes there. Anthony Albanese visited the pre-poll booth in Queanbeyan.

The three online focus groups, totalling 16 participants, were conducted by Mark Evans and Max Halupka of the university’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis. People were drawn from various parts of what is a very diverse electorate. Two group were done last week and the other on Monday. Participants included Coalition, Labor and Green supporters, with a mix of firmly aligned and swinging voters.

Participants were asked their voting intentions and their responses suggested a Labor victory. Swinging voters seemed to have moved to Labor but hard Coalition and Labor voters are remaining loyal.

But it should be stressed focus groups are not predictive of the result, but rather tap into attitudes at a point in the campaign.

Asked about management of the COVID-19 crisis, NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian was seen as the best performer, followed by Morrison and the Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, who were equally regarded.

Albanese – who has campaigned extensively in Eden-Monaro – was seen as having a low profile throughout the pandemic crisis. In the words of one Labor swinging voter this was attributable to “his lack of a platform”. As another participant observed, “Crises are a great advantage for government”. Participants were luke warm about how good a job Albanese was doing in holding Morrison to account over the management of the COVID-19 crisis.

When asked who they listened to most when looking for guidance on COVID-19, people pointed to Norman Swan and the ABC.

Participants’ trust in Morrison has marginally increased as a result of his handling of COVID-19, but from a low level following the bushfire crisis. One man, a strong Coalition supporter, said the PM “needed to learn and has learned”.

A female Coalition swinging voter attributed Morrison’s improvement to “the national cabinet. He was given some good lessons in leadership and the group kept his tendencies under control.”

Discussing issues, people thought the federal government’s handling of the bushfire crisis suffered from poor federal leadership, inadequate preparation, and insufficient collaboration between federal and state governments.

Critics of the Morrison government’s handling of the fires included most of the hard Coalition voters – although it was not enough to change their vote.

There was also a perception the federal government had lost interest in the bushfire recovery process. “It makes sense to tackle the problem in front of you and that’s the virus,” said a Coalition supporter.

In the discussion, most participants saw a link between the bushfire crisis and the need for action on climate, and said their views on the importance of the climate issue had sharpened significantly over the past six months. There were some exceptions: “Older people don’t go with the mantra of climate change, though they know something is going on,” said a middle aged male Coalition voter.

Coalition voters were more focused on local issues – economic issues, better infrastructure and improved access to health care, education and transport. “The Coalition has the track record to get the economy back on track,” said one man.

People generally thought Australia was more resilient than most other countries to bounce back from the COVID-19 crisis. But they were worried about Australia’s economic vulnerability, particularly its dependence on China.

Participants wanted politicians to be more collaborative and less adversarial in a post-COVID-19 world and for experts to have a greater say in decision making. An older female Labor supporter said, “We need politicians to behave better and take community issues more seriously”, while a male Coalition voter opined, “we need more adult politics as the national cabinet has shown us”.

Read more: Coalition gains Newspoll lead as Labor ahead in Eden-Monaro; Trump’s ratings recover

There was some concern the old politics would resume. “[The national cabinet] started well but it already seems to be falling apart,” said a hard-Labor voter.

In a field of 14 candidates, this is a Labor-Liberal battle, and both major parties are running female candidates with good local credentials. The Liberals’ Fiona Kotvojs, who pushed the former MP Mike Kelly close at the 2019 election, has a background in teaching, science, farming and small business; Labor’s Kristy McBain has most recently been mayor of Bega.

The focus group participants thought the two women were strong on credentials but low on having high constituency-wide profiles, suggesting voters would be likely to vote on party lines rather than for personalities.

But some participants noted the Liberals were spending a lot on Kotvojs’ campaign and predicted this was likely to increase in the time remaining.

– ref. Eden-Monaro byelection will be “very close”, according to participants in focus group research – https://theconversation.com/eden-monaro-byelection-will-be-very-close-according-to-participants-in-focus-group-research-141307

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darren O’Donovan, Senior Lecturer in Administrative Law, La Trobe University

Public pressure is growing for a royal commission into the controversial robodebt scheme.

After calls from the Greens this week, Labor also demanded an inquiry.

As Opposition leader Anthony Albanese said: “how can we ensure that a debacle like this never happens again?”

Read more: Government to repay 470,000 unlawful robodebts in what might be Australia’s biggest-ever financial backdown

But Prime Minister Scott Morrison quickly shot down the idea, telling reporters it wasn’t necessary, “because we’re fixing the problem”.

The tide has turned on robodebt

In the past few months, the campaign against robodebt has enjoyed a series of unprecedented wins.

Last November, the Federal Court declared the robodebt of Melbourne woman Deanna Amato was “not validly made”.

Then last month, the Morrison government announced it would repay $721 million worth of robodebts. Earlier this month, Morrison also told parliament

I would apologise for any hurt or harm in the way that the government has dealt with that [robodebt] issue.

Meanwhile, a class action, seeking interest and damages on behalf of about 600,000 Australians, is scheduled for trial on September 21.

Given all that is happening, however, we still need the power of a royal commission.

Unanswered questions

As an administrative law researcher, myself and my colleauges have watched the robodebt scandal play out for four years now.

In this time, we have seen blocked freedom of information requests and unanswered questions. I have sat with some of my own students devastated by life-changing, inaccurate debts.

Only a royal commission can bring real change to Centrelink, as it could ensure every unlawful debt is accounted for and fixed.

Read more: From robodebt to racism: what can go wrong when governments let algorithms make the decisions

Importantly, any potential class action settlement may not account for everyone who had an unlawful debt. For one thing, we know debts prior to June 2015 are excluded from the class action due to legal time limits on suing for damages.

Despite claims it is “fixing the problem”, the federal government is so far refusing to take any practical action to find, refund or compensate this unknown number of people.

We have also yet to see due diligence applied to debts raised solely from people’s bank statements.

These debts are raised by turning net received income amounts into gross fortnightly earnings. This is a complex process, which raises further legal questions. Again, a royal commission is needed to ensure everyone who was harmed by defective administration is recognised and compensated.

History cannot repeat

A royal commission is also needed because it has the capacity to make sure robodebt never happens again.

Robodebt is an unprecedented failure of governance in an institution – Centrelink – that potentially touches the lives of every Australian.

At the institutional level, what has been done to people and the federal budget and since the scheme began cannot go uninvestigated.

For example, we do not know when the government first learned that the scheme was unlawful.

It is also not clear why it did not challenge multiple adverse Administrative Appeal Tribunal decisions about the robodebt scheme.

Questions about budgetary processes

Robodebt also raises troubling questions about Australian government budget processes.

In early 2015, the government proposed removing existing compliance safeguards, telling Centrelink staff to stop gathering payslips directly from employers before raising debts.

Just four months later, more than one billion dollars in estimated savings had already made its way into the federal budget. The program eventually grew to a projected $3.7 billion.

It may now result in a net cost to the taxpayer. On any objective measure, that requires an independent inquiry.

Centrelink needs to learn by listening

Robodebt is a reminder for academics, the media and the public that where we focus our attention is a form of power.

A royal commission would give a platform to people who are frequently talked over, talked about or placed on hold by those in government.

Read more: After Robodebt, it’s time to address ParentsNext

It’s not just consultants and politicians who have ideas about the government, everyday Australians have ideas, too. For four years, the people who knew the truth about robodebt were not listened to.

When they hear the word “robodebt”, Australians should not see politicians or even court victories. We need to reshape the system around the working mum or dad, on the phone, two kids at their feet – who tried to accurately report their earnings to the government, only to be told they owed a crudely averaged debt.

No wonder an estimated 55% of Australians already support the idea of a royal commission into robodebt.

– ref. The ‘problem’ is not ‘fixed’. Why we need a royal commission into robodebt – https://theconversation.com/the-problem-is-not-fixed-why-we-need-a-royal-commission-into-robodebt-141273

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

Joel Schumacher, who has died aged 80 in New York, never won an Oscar.

He began drinking aged nine and spent the last years of his life apologising for having made Batman and Robin (1997). He was once described in The Village Voice as a “well-oiled toxic-waste machine”.

And yet Schumacher’s body of work is profound, and his influence on contemporary Hollywood cinema indelible.

Hitmaker

A glance at his back catalogue is testament to his talent, range, and his innate ability to spot a hit movie.

In Flawless (1999), he coaxed mighty performances from Robert de Niro and Philip Seymour Hoffman. He introduced the world to Matthew McConaughey in A Time to Kill (1996), Colin Farrell in Tigerland (2000) and Joaquin Phoenix (previously credited as Leaf Phoenix) in 8mm (1999).

Cate Blanchett has rarely been better in Veronica Guerin (2003), nor Julia Roberts in Flatliners (1990) and Dying Young (1991).

To understand Schumacher’s vast contribution, we need to go back to the start of his extraordinarily eclectic career, and his costume designs for Woody Allen’s Sleeper (1973).

Read more: Seams, dreams: the hands behind classic Hollywood costumes

A sci-fi caper, in which Allen’s character awakens 200 years in the future and gets involved in bringing down a police state, is now largely overlooked, but Schumacher’s costumes remain unforgettable: inflatable onesies, the tuxedos topped with metal hats.

Here was someone with a sense of humour, sensitive to the camp excesses of genre cinema, and to how films might subvert and entertain in equal measure. This touch would serve Schumacher well – he went on to tap into longstanding entertainment trends like 70s disco, 80s Brat Pack and 90s “event” films.

Talent spotter

He shifted to screenwriting, penning the blue-collar musical Car Wash (1976) and The Wiz (1978), Sidney Lumet’s raucous Motown update of The Wizard of Oz, with Michael Jackson as the Scarecrow and Diana Ross as Dorothy.

It wasn’t long before he moved behind the camera, debuting The Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981) with Lily Tomlin. It received a rave review from critic Roger Ebert, and kickstarted a two-decade string of commercial success.

1985’s St Elmo’s Fire set down the template for American coming-of-age dramas, full of characters struggling to adapt to post-college lives of responsibility and conformity.

Schumacher tweaked that formula two years’ later in The Lost Boys, another coming-of-age tale, only this time with vampires in sunny California. It is easy to forget the film’s immense cultural impact: it brought vampires into the Hollywood mainstream years before Buffy and the Twilight series.

The cast for the two hit films included Demi Moore, Emilio Estevez, Corey Feldman and Corey Haim. One of Schumacher’s most important contributions will remain his extraordinary ability to spot talent.

In the crowded early-80s film scene, stars were discovered via TV roles or moved westward from New York theatre and Schumacher’s casting nous was exemplary. Names like Keifer Sutherland, Ally Sheedy and Rob Lowe form the Rosetta Stone of 1980s American movie culture, and Schumacher fought hard to cast them all.

And then there was Batman

Film history is full of directors who shuttled across assignments, content not to leave any discernable authorial “mark”, but simply just to work, to pay bills, to collaborate with fresh-faced actors, to explore new forms. Schumacher is part of that exalted company.

Tigerland was shot in less than four weeks, and is now regarded as one of the most searing depictions of the Vietnam War. Schumacher’s adaptations of John Grisham’s The Client (1994) and A Time to Kill (1996) are benchmarks of novel-to-film transitions and foregrounded his ability to weave complex, multi-character stories in a brisk, non-ostentatious manner.

Even later films, such as The Phantom of the Opera (2004) and the Jim Carrey vehicle The Number 23 (2007) blend showmanship, schlock and glitz-and-glamour. Schumacher thus fits neatly alongside contemporaries such as Ivan Reitman and Rob Reiner. He flitted nimble from genre to genre, but he was no hack.

And then there is Batman. To look at Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997) now is like peering through a cracked kaleidoscope. What were they thinking?

Nowadays, Batman is Christian Bale, broodingly directed by Christopher Nolan, weighed down with existential angst. But Schumacher’s versions – both enormous box-office hits at the time, despite the critical brickbats – arguably do something with the Batman extended universe that neither Tim Burton before, nor Nolan and Zack Snyder afterwards, were prepared to countenance: make them fun.

These are garish, hyperactive superhero films, full of fridge-magnet colour schemes and camp villains (Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze, Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face). Schumacher replicates the kapow-shazam goofiness of the 1960s Batman TV series in a knowing way.

Realising he had been hired by Warner Brothers to shift the franchise in a more child-friendly direction, Schumacher duly obliged, and spent the rest of his career issuing mea culpas.

Read more: The Joker’s origin story comes at a perfect moment: clowns define our times

Roll credits

There was the inevitable tailing off, as there always is with directors who become unwell, or who find themselves out of step with the financial demands of billionaire studio conglomerates. But still he kept working.

Phone Booth (2002) was as high-concept as anything Hollywood commissioned at the time – what would you do if you were trapped in a street-corner telephone booth, with an assassin’s gun trained on you?

Perhaps it’s most fitting to remember him by reflecting on Falling Down (1993), with Michael Douglas as a recently fired defence worker who becomes a one-man vigilante after escaping a Los Angeles traffic jam. The film feels both of its time (Schumacher began filming the day the LA Riots broke out) and overwhelmingly modern.

Schumacher once said:

It’s very hard to realise you have a calling and realise you’re not gifted. I wanted to be a director all my life, and when I finally got the chance, I was so miserably untalented.

When we reflect on his contribution to modern cinema, we see how wrong he was.

– ref. Vale Joel Schumacher – the Hollywood legend who brought us brat packs, teen vampires and Falling Down – https://theconversation.com/vale-joel-schumacher-the-hollywood-legend-who-brought-us-brat-packs-teen-vampires-and-falling-down-141278

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ross Hendy, Lecturer in Criminology, Monash University

The recent killing of a police officer and the wounding of his colleague in West Auckland will inevitably change police attitudes to their jobs.

Firstly, it will affect how they interact with the public. Such tragedies offer a direct challenge to the democratic conventions of policing in New Zealand, particularly the important idea of policing by consent.

Secondly, the death of Constable Matthew Hunt will inevitably lead to a reexamination of police firearm policies.

And finally, the incident will change the way police officers perceive risk and read risk factors during routine vehicle stops.

Renewed calls for routine arming

As ever when an officer is killed in the line of duty, the debate over permanently arming front-line police resurfaces. While patrol vehicles carry firearms in New Zealand, these are not routinely worn by officers.

Surprisingly, though, there is little international research comparing the nature of routinely armed and routinely unarmed policing.

One study of the temporary arming of Norwegian police suggested there is genuine mental strain associated with not carrying firearms. Officers reported being worried about the risks of unexpectedly confronting dangerous situations. They also said this negatively affected their ability to formulate effective tactical plans.

This doesn’t necessarily represent a universal desire to be armed, however. During my earlier research into the Norwegian Police in 2011, one officer told me he preferred to remain routinely unarmed due to a previous encounter with an armed offender. His life had been spared, he suggested, precisely because he was not carrying a firearm.

This perspective was shared by many of my colleagues during my time on the front-line. But recent officer surveys have shown an increasing preference over time for routine arming. This latest death will not alter that.

Read more: Defunding the police could bring positive change in Australia. These communities are showing the way

Would Armed Response Teams have made a difference?

The death of Constable Matthew Hunt came only weeks after the Armed Response Team (ART) trial was abandoned, so it is reasonable to ask whether this would have made a difference.

Given the Auckland incident has been described as a routine vehicle stop, however, and unless it had been an ART unit that made the original stop, it seems unlikely such a deployment would have changed anything.

Until more detail is available it is impossible to estimate whether the deployment of an ART vehicle would have reduced callout times compared with the conventional Armed Offender Squad units that did respond.

Trust in the public will decline

As a former constable and sergeant with New Zealand Police, I know firsthand how police fatalities shape one’s behaviour. The 2002 shooting of Detective Constable Duncan Taylor changed my awareness of personal safety and was always in the back of my mind during my operational policing career.

The deaths of another three officers in 2008 and 2009 markedly affected my risk perception. When my colleague Sergeant Derek Wootton was killed it raised my awareness of the risks of deploying road spikes when apprehending fleeing drivers. And the deaths of Senior Constable Len Snee and Sergeant Don Wilkinson reinforced the need for adequate firearms on police operations.

These deaths not only shaped my perception of risk, they affected the trust I had in others when assessing my own safety.

Perception of risk will change

Beyond questions of trust, the Auckland incident will shape both formal and informal practice and policy. Police training will include lessons from the incident. Just as importantly, individual officers’ subjective perception of risk and how it affects their decisions will change.

Read more: Black Lives Matter outrage must drive police reform in Aotearoa-New Zealand too

Research confirms it is the perceived level of threat that informs decision making. Studies of officer risk assessment during police vehicle stops show the importance of environmental and social factors.

Unarmed English officers treated traffic stops quite differently to those from Venezuela – perhaps not surprisingly, since the latter were accustomed to having grenades thrown in their direction.

In short, officers perceive risk based on their personal experience and exposure to resistance.

Read more: 5 reasons police officers should have college degrees

Apprehension and arrest are inherently dangerous

The Auckland incident again highlights the difficulty associated with one of the most dangerous aspects of police work.

My research into front-line policing in New Zealand and South Australia revealed the real danger for officers during the live investigation phase of police encounters, such as responding to family violence incidents or stopping vehicles.

Apprehending someone involves the most frequent use (and longest duration) of physical control behaviours. Officers can employ verbal control techniques – questioning, directions or commands – but there is no getting away from the fact that arrest requires the physical custody of a person.

While police might expect resistance, they trust that citizens will ultimately consent to their actions and that their lives will not be placed in jeopardy.

This latest police death will naturally cause many in the police to question that trust. The challenge for policy makers will be to balance the desirable elements of New Zealand policing with the practical need to ensure officer safety.

– ref. Trust, risk and routine arming: the killing of a frontline officer challenges New Zealand police practice – https://theconversation.com/trust-risk-and-routine-arming-the-killing-of-a-frontline-officer-challenges-new-zealand-police-practice-141191

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics and Vice Chancellor’s Fellow, La Trobe University

Two small studies published recently suggested most men hospitalised with COVID-19 are bald, generating headlines around the world.

While this may sound strange, science does offer a plausible explanation.

Male pattern baldness is associated with high levels of male sex hormones called androgens. And androgens seem to play an important role in the entry of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, into cells.

So it’s possible high levels of androgens might increase the risk of severe infection and death from COVID-19.

This hypothesis is important to identify people at risk and raises the possibility of new treatment strategies for COVID-19.

Read more: Why do more men die from coronavirus than women?

Men suffer more than women from COVID-19

It’s been obvious from early in the pandemic. Men are at greater risk of severe infection and death from COVID-19 than women.

There are several possible factors at play here. For one, men are more likely to suffer from chronic conditions known to pose a higher risk of serious illness from COVID-19. These include heart disease and diabetes.

Another is that men’s immune systems are not as good as women’s at warding off the severe effects of viral infections.

These factors are indirectly influenced by sex hormones. Now it seems sex hormones might also have a direct effect on SARS-CoV-2’s ability to enter our cells and establish infection.

Baldness and COVID-19

In one study of 122 male COVID-19 patients admitted to hospitals in Madrid, 79% were bald — about double the population frequency.

Another small study in Spain observed a similar overrepresentaton of baldness among men hospitalised with COVID-19.

Read more: Starting to thin out? Hair loss doesn’t have to lead to baldness

Male pattern baldness is strongly associated with a higher level of dihydrotestosterone (DHT), a more active derivative of testosterone, and one of the androgen family of male sex hormones.

Confirming this correlation between baldness and susceptibility to COVID-19 with larger samples, controlling for age and other conditions, would be significant. It would suggest a higher DHT level could be a risk factor for severe COVID-19.

How does this link make biological sense?

SARS-CoV-2 enters human lung cells when a protein on the virus’ surface (the spike protein) latches onto protein receptors (ACE2 receptors) embedded in the cells’ surfaces.

How does this work? Recently scientists discovered that an enzyme called TMPRSS2 cleaves the SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein, enabling it to bind to the ACE2 receptor. This allows the virus to enter the cell.

The gene that encodes TMPRSS2 is activated when male hormones, particularly DHT, bind to the androgen receptor (a protein on the surface of cells, including hair cells and lung cells).

So the more male hormone, the more androgen receptor binding, the more TMPRSS2 is present, and the easier it is for virus to get in.

A preliminary, non-peer-reviewed study which correlated the androgen levels of hundreds of people in the UK with COVID-19 severity supports this theory. Higher androgen level was associated with susceptibility to and severity of COVID-19 in men (but not women, who have much lower androgen levels in their blood).

The same researchers showed that inhibiting androgen receptors reduced the ability of SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein to bind to ACE2 receptors on stem cells in culture.

Androgen disruptions are linked to different diseases

Over- or underproduction of androgens in the body causes a variety of conditions in both men and women.

For instance, men with benign prostate enlargement overproduce androgen, as do women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Many such conditions are treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which inhibits the production or effect of androgens. For instance, prostate cancer, in which cancer cell growth is fuelled by androgens, is routinely treated with ADT.

Conversely, some people have low androgen production, or mutations that affect the binding and action of androgens — such as women with androgen insensitivity syndrome caused by mutations of the androgen receptor.

It will be important to find out whether, as the androgen hypothesis predicts, patients with over- or under-production of male hormones are at greater — or lesser — risk of COVID-19.

Read more: How can I treat myself if I’ve got – or think I’ve got – coronavirus?

A potential treatment option?

If the androgen link holds up, this would encourage exploration of anti-androgens as a way to prevent and treat COVID-19.

Many anti-androgens are already approved for the treatment of other conditions. Some, like baldness treatments, have been used safely for years or decades. Some, like cancer treatments, can be tolerated for months.

A study which looked at men hospitalised with COVID-19 in Italy showed the rate of infection was four times lower in prostate cancer patients on ADT than in untreated cancer patients.

Perhaps a single dose given to someone who tests positive to SARS-CoV-2, or has just been exposed, would suffice to lower the chance of the virus taking hold.

But we need research to confirm this. Several androgen-suppressing drugs are now undergoing clinical trials to determine whether they reduce complications among men with COVID-19.

It will be important to verify that anti-androgen treatment works in the lungs as well as the prostate, and is effective in cancer-free patients. We’d also need to find out what dose is effective, and when it should be administered.

Anti-androgen treatments have several side effects in men, including breast enlargement and sexual dysfunction, so medical oversight is a must.

A promising new direction in COVID-19 research

The androgen link could go a long way to explaining why men are more susceptible to COVID-19 than women. It also may explain why children younger than ten seem very resistant to COVID-19 because, until puberty, boys as well as girls make little androgen.

The more we know about who is at heightened risk from COVID-19, the better we can target information.

The androgen link also opens up an avenue for the discovery of drugs which might mitigate some of the impact of COVID-19 as it continues to sweep the globe.

Read more: COVID-19’s deadliness for men is revealing why researchers should have been studying immune system sex differences years ago

– ref. Coronavirus and sex hormones — baldness may be a risk factor and anti-androgens a treatment – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-sex-hormones-baldness-may-be-a-risk-factor-and-anti-androgens-a-treatment-140340

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sean Williams, Senior Lecturer, Flinders University

Writing is a pastime best conducted on your own — or so common wisdom would have it. Yet writing teams exist, and in many realms they are expected. Take television, where the writers’ room is the norm. Or the academy: one physics paper has 5,154 authors.

In literature, collaborations are more common than you might realise. For every superstar Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett team-up (Good Omens), there might be an F. Scott Fitzgerald and his uncredited wife Zelda, or a “James S. A. Corey” (The Expanse) being the pseudonym for Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck.

Although new writers such as the Brontë siblings may collaborate, the practice seems to fall away with age, perhaps because writing relationships can be as fraught as familial ones, with as many pitfalls to navigate.

Add to this a collaboration nearly always proves to take as long as a solo work and any monies might have to be divided among the contributors. Why would anyone willingly share their art with someone else for little to no benefit?

Read more: 10½ commandments of writing

In my experience, collaborating can be creatively stimulating, educative, motivating, productive, and revitalising. Plus, it’s great to have a friend to keep you company on a publicity tour.

Here are six techniques to help would-be co-writers take their first steps in this direction.

1. The chain

This is the simplest method, one of two that require first settling on what your story will be and then breaking the writing of it into bits completed separately, in chronological order.

There are many ways to serially tackle the discrete tasks that will combine to form a glorious whole. Some teams might choose to write alternate scenes, chapters or sections; others might alternate whole drafts, giving each participant long stretches of time to work on solo projects.

Whichever way you tear it down, every member of the team has a professional obligation to deliver. Break one link in the chain and it falls apart.

2. Parallel processing

The second way to devolve an outline requires trust and communication beyond that required of ordinary collaborative relationships.

In parallel processing, you divide characters among authors, so one provides the voice of X, another Y, and so on. Each arc is written separately, then edited together when complete. If X or Y diverge too much from their expected paths, plotting and structural problems can arise, but the powerful juxtaposition of distinct voices can outweigh the risk.

3. The hothouse

An extreme version of serial collaboration, this method used to require being physically in the same room as your writing partner(s). One starts writing and keeps writing until they get stuck. They then tag in the next writer, who takes over. Repeat until done. Food and sleep are optional.

The benefit of this method is the words are guaranteed to keep coming.

These days the “in person” requirement is greatly relaxed. Google Docs is just one platform allowing writers to work on the same document at the same time, no matter where they are.

4. The undertakers

Brainstorming what a story will contain is, for many collaborators, the fun part — providing they can agree on a final project.

One method of achieving this agreement is by giving one of the co-writers a veto to be exercised when consensus can’t be reached.

Another method requires every element of the final project must be agreed to by every collaborator. This can be time-consuming to achieve but avoids any lingering resentment if someone is outvoted or overruled.

More generally, every shared undertaking should have a binding agreement in place before serious work commences, covering issues such as whose name goes first, which agent will sell the work, how any resulting IP will be divided, and so on.

It is much better to have these agreements in place and not need them than the other way around.

5. The Marxist Manifesto

Collaborators should have common ambitions but complementary skills, otherwise you might as well work alone. The way roles are divided in the working relationship can reflect those skill sets – which might, of course, lie in non-writerly areas such as business or marketing.

To some, the perfect collaboration is one in which every participant’s weaknesses are covered by strengths in their fellows. Everyone contributes and everyone learns by example.

6. Resurrection of the dead

Finally, the easiest and safest way to audition a potential co-writer is to give them a failed draft and see what they accomplish with it. If it’s a success, great: the original author gains a new collaborator and a finished work.

Should this (or any of these methods fail) the author is no worse off.

They can just revert to writing alone – for some their natural habitat.

– ref. Collaboration made easy: 6 ways to build a writing relationship – https://theconversation.com/collaboration-made-easy-6-ways-to-build-a-writing-relationship-132348

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Kemp, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, UNSW, and Academic Lead, UNSW Grand Challenge on Trust, UNSW

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has expressed concern about Google’s proposed acquisition of fitness tracker company Fitbit.

The acquisition will let Google add years’ worth of Fitbit users’ data to its already unequalled consumer data collection. This could reduce competition in certain health services and other markets in Australia.

Google revealed its plans to acquire Fitbit Inc. for US$2.1 billion last November. But the deal will only go ahead if it gets clearance from competition regulators around the world.

While the ACCC is the first regulator globally to announce its concerns, the European Commission and US Department of Justice are also evaluating the deal. Both will likely take an interest in the ACCC’s views, for which submissions are being accepted.

Collective concern is called for

With more than 28 million people using Fitbit wearable devices, many have raised concerns about Google adding Fitbit’s sensitive data to its already extensive tracking of consumers.

Google has left many questions unanswered about how it would use the data. Consumers have reason to be sceptical about Google’s privacy promises, and the competitive effects of the merger.

Sharing your intimate details

Fitbit collects highly personal information, including sleep patterns, heart rate, active minutes, height and weight, date of birth, food logs, mobile number, biography and precise location data.

For those using Fitbit’s live coaching services, it also collects wellness plans and goals, calendar events, and communications with a coach. If you’re a woman using “female health tracking”, data can also include your periods, fertile times, ovulation days and health symptoms.

The ACCC regards Fitbit data as having “unique attributes”, noting that datasets from other wearable devices are “not as voluminous, reliable or broad”.

Read more: The ACCC is suing Google over tracking users. Here’s why it matters

Google’s privacy reassurances are not binding

Last November, Google and Fitbit were quick to reassure consumers that “Fitbit health and wellness data will not be used for Google ads”. A Google spokesperson told The Conversation:

Similar to our other products, with wearables, we will be transparent about the data we collect and why. And we do not sell personal information to anyone.

However, the ACCC points out Google is not bound by its commitment to not use the data in its advertising businesses. As the competition watchdog’s Chair Rod Sims said:

It is a stretch to believe any commitment Google makes in relation to Fitbit users’ data will still be in place five years from now.

When Google acquired online advertising business DoubleClick, it reassured users it would only combine personal data from the two businesses if users opted into this combination. Eight years later, Google simply deleted this promise from its privacy policy.

It’s also worth noting Google has not promised to refrain from using Fitbit data in its non-advertising businesses. This could include health services or, in future, health or life insurance. Google would not need to “sell” your data to use it for these commercial purposes.

Google’s huge data advantage

Google already has the most extensive collection of consumer data on the planet. This includes data from Google search, YouTube, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Nest, Android and Google devices – as well as consumer data collected from millions of third-party websites using Google’s services such as Google Analytics, Google Ads and reCAPTCHA.

The ACCC acknowledges Google already uses its pervasive data collection to create unique profiles of individual users. It points out acquiring Fitbit would give Google “one of the largest and most detailed existing fitness and health datasets, as well as another avenue through which it can continue to gather consumer data”.

The ACCC is particularly concerned the proposed acquisition could substantially reduce competition between Fitbit, Google and others in “data-dependent health services” such as those supplying:

• tailored digital advice based on individual health signals to users of Fitbit and other wearables on how to improve their health or manage a medical condition
• insights to insurance companies or employers wishing to compile risk profiles, reduce costs or enhance productivity
• diagnostic tools for medical institutions and doctors to determine early indicators of chronic disease and
• insights or raw data for health researchers.

If Google acquires Fitbit’s user data, it could gain a significant advantage over other suppliers of these services and prevent them from accessing the dataset.

According to the ACCC, it could also have an incentive hinder rivals such as Apple, Samsung and Garmin, by removing their access to Google Maps, Google Play Store and Wear OS (a Google operating system for wearables).

Read more: Amazon, Facebook and Google don’t need to spy on your conversations to know what you’re talking about

Entrenching Google’s power in digital advertising

Google makes most of its annual revenue (more than US$100 billion) from online advertising services. Privacy advocates have criticised the ad tech industry, including dominant players like Google and Facebook, for creating a “data free for all” where consumers’ intimate information is exchanged between hundreds of companies engaged in targeted advertising.

The ACCC says it is concerned that by acquiring Fitbit’s datasets, Google could entrench its market power in certain ad tech markets. For example, it could “even more effectively target advertising to consumers with health-related issues”.

What can the ACCC actually do about it?

The ACCC plans to announce its final stance by mid-August on whether Google’s merger with Fitbit would contravene Australia’s competition legislation. If it decides the merger is likely to substantially lessen competition, it could seek orders from the Federal Court to prevent the merger.

But practically speaking, regulators will likely try to coordinate their response internationally, with the overall outcome decided in larger markets such as the United States and European Union.

The European Commission is expected to release its ruling in July. And past events indicate the commission could impose conditions, or prevent the merger going ahead internationally – even if the US Department of Justice gives it the green light.

– ref. Every step you take: why Google’s plan to buy Fitbit has the ACCC’s pulse racing – https://theconversation.com/every-step-you-take-why-googles-plan-to-buy-fitbit-has-the-acccs-pulse-racing-141052

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Saddler, Honorary Associate Professor, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National University

Amid the urgent need to slow climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency makes sense. But as Australia’s chief scientist Alan Finkel last week warned, we’re not “anywhere close to having that nailed”.

Energy efficiency means using less energy to achieve the same outcomes. It’s the cheapest way to cut greenhouse gas emissions and achieve our climate goals. Improving energy efficiency is also vital to achieving so-called “energy productivity” – getting more economic output, using the same or less energy.

But Australia’s national energy productivity plan, agreed by the nation’s energy ministers in 2015, has gone nowhere.

It set a goal of a 40% improvement in energy productivity by 2030. But my analysis, based on the most recent official data, shows that in the three years to 2017-18, energy productivity increased by a mere 1.1%.

Clearly, there is much work to do. So let’s take a look at the problem and the potential solutions.

Energy efficiency: a low-hanging fruit

Better energy efficiency lowers electricity bills, makes businesses more competitive and helps manage energy demand. Of course, it also means less greenhouse gas emissions, because fewer fossil fuels are burnt for energy.

Business, unions and green groups recognise the benefits. Last month they joined forces to call for a sustainable COVID-19 economic recovery, with energy efficiency at the core, saying:

In Australia, a major drive to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and industry could deliver over 120,000 job-years of employment […] Useful upgrades could be made across Australia’s private and public housing; commercial, community and government buildings; and industrial facilities.

The group said improvements could include:

• more efficient and controllable appliances and equipment, especially for heating and cooling
• improved shading and thermal envelopes (improving the way a building’s walls, ceiling and floors prevent heat transfer)
• smart meters to measure energy use
• distributed energy generation and storage, such as wind and solar backed by batteries
• fuel switching (replacing inefficient fuels with cleaner and economical alternatives)
• equipment, training and advice for better energy management.

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

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has suggested other measures for industry and manufacturing, such as:

• installing more efficient electric motors
• switching from gas to electric heat pumps
• more waste and material recycling.

And in transport, the IEA suggests incentives to get older, less efficient cars off the roads and encourage the uptake of electric vehicles.

Governments’ sleight of hand

In 2018 the IEA observed:

the power sector will be at the heart of Australia’s energy system transformation […] International best practice suggests that both energy efficiency and renewable energy are key drivers of the energy transition.

Since then, renewable energy’s share of the electricity mix has increased. But energy productivity has stalled.

To understand how, we must define a few key terms.

Primary energy refers to energy extracted from the environment, such as coal, crude oil, and electrical energy collected by a wind turbine or solar panel.

Final energy is the energy supplied to a consumer, such as electricity delivered to homes or fuel pumped at a petrol station.

Read more: Coronavirus is a ‘sliding doors’ moment. What we do now could change Earth’s trajectory

A lot of energy is lost in the process of turning extracted primary fuels into ready-to-use fuels for consumers. For example at coal-fired power stations, on average, one-third of the energy supplied by burning coal is converted to electricity. The remainder is lost as waste heat.

Until 2015, Australia and most other countries used final energy as a measure of how rapidly energy efficiency was improving. But the national productivity plan instead set goals around primary energy productivity – aiming to increase it by 40% between 2015 and 2030.

This has made it possible for governments to hide how badly Australia is travelling on improving energy efficiency. I analysed national accounts figures and energy statistics, to produce the below table. It reveals the governments’ sleight of hand.

Over the three years from 2014-15 to 2017-18, final energy productivity increased by only 1.1%, whereas primary energy productivity increased by 3.5%.

The reduced primary energy consumption is mostly due to a large increase in wind and solar generation. The efficiency of energy used by final consumers has scarcely changed.

A sustainable future

The lack of progress on energy productivity is not surprising, given governments have shown very little interest in the issue.

As Finkel noted in his address, Australia’s energy productivity plan is absent from the list of national climate and energy policies. The plan’s 2019 annual report has not been released. And those released since 2015 have not monitored progress in energy productivity.

What’s more, the plan makes no mention of previous similar agreements, in 2004 and 2009, to accelerate energy efficiency with regulation and financial incentives. Since 2013, almost all Commonwealth programs supporting those agreements have been de-funded or abolished, and many state programs have also been cut back.

Read more: Switch off your engine, it’s not hard: how to cut your fuel bill, clear the air and reduce emissions

The IEA’s sustainable recovery plan, released last week, outlined what a sustainable global economic recovery might look like. In particular, it said better energy efficiency and switching to more efficient electric technologies will deliver triple benefits: increased employment, a more productive economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

In this carbon-constrained world, relatively easy and cheap opportunities such as energy efficiency must be seized. And as Australia spends to get its post-pandemic economy back on track, now is the time to act.

– ref. Australia has failed miserably on energy efficiency – and government figures hide the truth – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-failed-miserably-on-energy-efficiency-and-government-figures-hide-the-truth-123176

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Fischetti, Professor, Pro Vice Chancellor of the Faculty of Education and Arts; Dean/Head of School of Education, University of Newcastle

Federal education minister Dan Tehan in recent days announced an overhaul of the fee structures for undergraduate degrees – and the courses based in those degrees – to direct students towards ones it believes are more likely to get them a job.

Student contributions for degrees in teaching, nursing, clinical psychology, English and languages will fall by 46%; agriculture and maths by 62%; and science, health, architecture, environmental science, IT and engineering by 20%.

But the student contributions for law and commerce will increase by 28%, while for the humanities, they will more than double (up by 113%).

Read more: Fee cuts for nursing and teaching but big hikes for law and humanities in package expanding university places

Universities exist to expand knowledge and create a civil society. They allow us to understand, challenge, collaborate, inquire, discover, create, design, confront and imagine.

The implications of the government’s announcement are about more than incentivising the career trajectories of students. They are a direct assault on the premise of universities.

What’s a university for?

The first modern university in the West was founded in Bologna, Italy, in 1088. It became a widely respected school of canon and civil law.

It also became a model for other universities such as the University of Paris and Oxford. The initial faculties were of theology, law, medicine and the liberal arts.

The University of Sydney, founded in 1850, is the oldest university in Australia. William Charles Wentworth is noted as proposing the idea of Australia’s first university, imagining “the opportunity for the child of every class to become great and useful in the destinies of this country”.

The university’s motto is a beacon – Sidere mens eadem mutato – which translated means “the stars change, the mind remains the same”. The broad evolving mind remains the raison-d’etre for universities, more than the fad of the day.

The evolution of the modern university, funded increasingly over time by governments, moved the focus from promulgating religious tenets to values that are civic-minded, and centred on knowledge transmission accessible to all citizens – not just the wealthy.

Read more: Universities have gone from being a place of privilege to a competitive market. What will they be after coronavirus?

Of course, work still needs to be done to improve diversity. But the overarching purpose of the university was to advance human discovery, promote diversity of thinking and enhance the common good.

The library – solemn with books – was the hub of a university education. As knowledge evolved, libraries grew into subject departments.

The physical library and its virtual equivalent still form the foundation of the student academic experience.

The government is overstepping the mark

Government support for public universities was intended to come with few strings. If we agree the purpose of universities is to disseminate knowledge and advance society, we cannot allow a political agenda to diminish academic freedom and equitable student choice.

And yet, the trend in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia is for conservative-leaning governments to see their role as shaping universities to match their agendas.

This is counter to long-held beliefs universities should operate independently to shape knowledge. Public engagement and social impact are the overall goals for higher education.

In stating its plan expands job preparation and promotes economic growth, the government is overstepping its charge, undermining the notion of choice and opportunity for all.

These fee changes will have most effect on working class families. Wealthy families who are not price sensitive will be able to choose across the current array of offerings without financial worries.

This inequity may price some Australians out of their dreams of a liberal arts education because they can no longer afford it.

What is the danger in that?

Degrees in humanities, society and culture, and communications are singled out as not preparing graduates for the jobs of the future.

Yet the skills fostered in these degrees are in high demand. Critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, strong writing prowess and people skills are valued as future-focused “human” skills that translate across the employment sector.

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

With many people getting their information from an increasingly narrow bandwidth of social media influences, the role of a university education is even more important. It’s there to teach students to question, seek evidence and think independently.

A university education promotes open mindedness and the pursuit of knowledge across a diverse set of disciplines, especially those that have now been marginalised.

Students across all disciplines need these attributes to help advance humanity and address the global challenges we face.

It remains to be seen whether the plan minister Tehan has put forward to steer undergraduate students into certain degrees will be successful in promoting “jobs and growth”.

What is clear is this move oversteps the government’s role and function by dictating to Australians and their universities what the priorities should be for building a fair, civil and just society.

The government proposes we engineer our way to the future, rather than think, collaborate and imagine our way forward.

– ref. The government’s funding changes are meddling with the purpose of universities – https://theconversation.com/the-governments-funding-changes-are-meddling-with-the-purpose-of-universities-141133

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

As we emerge from the lockdown phase of the pandemic, there are many lessons to learn. One is that when given credible warning of an existential threat, it is better to act early and risk doing too much than to delay acting and face a much bigger and harder to solve problem when the warnings turn out to be correct.

While the pandemic will pass, one way or another, the problem of global heating, and its many consequences, is going to be with us for the rest of our lives, and those of our children and grandchildren.

Already the world has had decades of warnings, and has done little to heed them.

To hold the increase in global temperatures to 2⁰C, the world needs to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 25% over the next decades, and cut them to zero by 2050.

Read more: To get out of this well we are going to have to think like central planners

Current commitments are inadequate to achieve this.

In Australia’s case, the unjustified use of “carryover credits” means the government is actually proposing an increase in emissions over the next decade, with even larger increases likely in the future.

Quite simply, there is no way of prevent catastrophic climate change unless we stop burning coal to generate electricity, and do it sooner rather than later.

We need to switch 20-25,000 jobs

As of 2020, coal-fired electricity generation is the only major use of carbon-based fuels for which we have a well-developed and affordable alternatives.

For most other uses of carbon-based fuels, alternatives rely on using electricity, as in the case of electric vehicles and “green” hydrogen.

These alternatives are helpful only if the electricity that powers them is coal-free.

Read more: Australia listened to the science on coronavirus. Imagine if we did the same for coal mining

But in Australia, any move to break with thermal coal runs up against the claim that jobs in coal mining and coal-fired power are essential for workers and for communities.

It is a claim I examine in a new report published by the Australia Institute entitled Getting off coal: Economic and social policies to manage the phase-out of thermal coal in Australia.

It finds that a transition from thermal coal mining could be managed fairly, without significant job losses and while protecting coal-dependent regions.

25,000 is not a big number

Contrary to widespread perceptions, thermal coal mining is not a major employer, and most workers in the industry are not miners in the ordinary understanding of the term.

According to the latest Labour Force Survey, in February 2020 coal mining employed about 43 300 people, down from a peak of 60 000 in 2012.

Since Australia’s coal output is roughly evenly divided between coking and thermal coal, it seems likely that about 20-25,000 are employed producing the thermal coal that is used for heating and electricity generation.

This compares with a Bureau of Statistics estimate of about 26,850 in renewable energy. A successful transition to a decarbonised electricity sector would require at least a doubling of the current growth rate of renewables, implying more than 26 000 new jobs.

Many of the jobs are transferable

Many of the people employed in coal mining in February 2020 were not miners in the ordinary sense of the term. About 14% worked in white collar (managerial, professional and clerical) jobs.

A large portion of the remainder, such as carpenters, truck drivers and labourers, worked in trades not tied to mining.

The exception is the category known as Drillers, Miners and Shot Firers, which accounts for about 20% of total mining employment. If the same proportion applies in coal mining, there would be around 5,000 specialist drillers, miners and shot firers in producing thermal coal.

A transition program for these workers could be funded for less than the government’s recently announced HomeBuilder.

The wages high, but the conditions are bad

Advocates of coal mining point out that coal mining generally pays higher wages than other industries, including the renewable energy industry. This partly reflects high levels of unionisation, which could be encouraged more broadly.

More significant is probably its reliance on socially destructive fly-in, fly-out working arrangements, which necessitate high wages to offset family separations.

An indication that the wages earned by workers in the mining industry represent compensation for poor conditions can be derived from evidence on workforce turnover.

The mining industry is characterised by annual turnover of 20% to 30%, substantially higher than that for the labour market as a whole.

And much of the employment isn’t local

Largely because of fly-in, fly-out, the number of communities that depend on coal as the primary source of their local employment is small.

Moreover, in many cases, these communities, such as those of the Bowen Basin, are well endowed with solar and wind resources.

With appropriate planning (instead of the current chaos in electricity policy) these communities could be given priority in the development of utility-scale solar and wind generation, along with the necessary transmission links.

The result might be be a net gain in local employment.

Read more: Interactive: Everything you need to know about Adani – from cost, environmental impact and jobs to its possible future

On Monday the Minerals Council of Australia announced a Climate Action Plan, proclaiming the need for action to reduce the risks of human-induced climate change and expressing support for “world-wide decarbonisation”.

What it did not do was suggest that the 25,000 or so Australians who work in coal mining could be switched to other industries.

That has been the conventional wisdom for some time – that a switch of 25,000 jobs from one industry to another would be too much for Australia to handle.

Yet when the coronavirus hit, we shut down industries employing three million Australians overnight, and dealt with the economic consequences impressively.

We have demonstrated our capacity to do the same for the much more dangerous, if less immediate, risk of catastrophic climate change.

– ref. If we could design JobKeeper within weeks, we can exit coal by 2030. Here’s how to do it – https://theconversation.com/if-we-could-design-jobkeeper-within-weeks-we-can-exit-coal-by-2030-heres-how-to-do-it-141178

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Frances O’Dowd, Independent Scholar, Ethical Citizenship & Racism Studies, CQUniversity Australia

Colonisation is invasion: a group of people taking over the land and imposing their own culture on Indigenous people.

Modern colonisation dates back to the Age of Discovery in the 15th century, as European nations sought to expand their influence and wealth. In the process, representatives of these countries claimed the land, ignoring the Indigenous people and erasing Indigenous sovereignty.

Laws and policing were significant tools of dispossession and oppression. Indigenous people were brutalised, exploited and often positioned as subhuman. As Jean-Paul Sartre described colonisation:

[…] you begin by occupying the country, then you take the land and exploit the former owners at starvation rates […] you finish up taking from the natives their very right to work.

Colonisation is more than physical. It is also cultural and psychological in determining whose knowledge is privileged. In this, colonisation not only impacts the first generation colonised but creates enduring issues.

Decolonisation seeks to reverse and remedy this through direct action and listening to the voices of First Nations people.

Seeking independence

The word “decolonisation” was first coined by the German economist Moritz Julius Bonn in the 1930s to describe former colonies that achieved self-governance.

Many struggles for independence were armed and bloody. The Algerian War of Independence (1954- 1962) against the French was particularly brutal.

Read more: What Mandela and Fanon learned from Algeria’s revolution in the 1950s

Other struggles involved political negotiations and passive resistance.

While the exiting of the British from India in 1947 is largely remembered as nonviolent resistance under Gandhi’s pacifist ethic, the campaign started in 1857 and was not without bloodshed.

The quest for independence is rarely peaceful.

Justice

Decolonisation is now used to talk about restorative justice through cultural, psychological and economic freedom.

In most countries where colonisers remain, Indigenous people still don’t hold significant positions of power or self-determination. These nations are termed “settler-colonial” countries – a term made popular in the 1990s by academic Patrick Wolfe, who said “invasion is a structure not an event”.

Another word that is useful in understanding decolonisation is “neocolonial”. It was coined by Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first president, in the early 1960s to refer to the continuity of the former coloniser’s power through economic, political, educational and other informal means.

In these neocolonial or settler-colonial countries, advocacy for the rights of Indigenous people is not always matched by action. The voices of Indigenous people for treaty and truth in culture, politics, law and education resound while practice lags.

Read more: It will take critical, thorough scrutiny to truly decolonise knowledge

True decolonisation seeks to challenge and change White superiority, nationalistic history and “truth”.

The Rights of Indigenous people was adopted by the United Nations in 2007. It says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

It lists several important rights in the process of decolonisation, including:

• the right to autonomy and self-government, including financing for these autonomous functions
• freedom from forced removal of children
• protection of archaeological and historical sites, and repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains
• the right to provide education in their own language
• state-owned media should reflect Indigenous cultural diversity
• legal recognition of traditional lands, territories and resources.

Read more: Who owns the bones? Human fossils shouldn’t just belong to whoever digs them up

Ways to support decolonisation

Decolonisation must involve challenging both conscious and subconscious racism. Non-Indigenous people in settler-colonial societies can start by asking:

• whose Country do I live on – what nation?
• if my land was stolen, my culture and sovereignty denied, what rights would I want, need and expect?
• who on Country must I listen to and work with?

To engage with decolonisation you can:

• value Indigenous knowledge and scholarship. In Australia, this can mean listening to Indigenous people on their knowledge about bushfire management
• encourage and insist on teaching about Indigenous people and cultures in schools
• support restitution efforts, such as programs which are revitalising Indigenous languages
• call on institutions – including across education, the arts, media and politics – to hire Indigenous people throughout the organisation and in positions of leadership
• look for ways people in your workplace might face discrimination and unconscious bias, and speak up against these structures
• fight for justice arising from Indigenous guidance, by walking alongside Indigenous people at rallies and placing their voices front-and-centre at events.

Read more: Explainer: what is systemic racism and institutional racism?

Racism injures, chokes and kills unless challenged.

Racist structures make the victim the problem.

We might kneel to remember those murdered. But we need to call on institutions to enact required reforms for decolonisation. We need to support people in organisations who speak out against racism. We need to question whether colonisation taught us to stand, in institutional uniforms of the mind, and passively watch the choking.

– ref. Explainer: what is decolonisation? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-decolonisation-131455

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

An investigation commissioned by the High Court of Australia has found six former court staff members who were judges’ associates were sexually harassed by former High Court Justice Dyson Heydon.

In a strongly worded statement, Chief Justice Susan Kiefel said that the findings were of extreme concern to her and other members of the court, and they were “ashamed that this could have happened at the High Court of Australia”.

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

Importantly, Kiefel offered a personal apology to the young women and stated in clear terms that the women had been believed. She further acknowledged the difficulties the women would have had in coming forward:

We have made a sincere apology to the six women whose complaints were borne out. We know it would have been difficult to come forward. Their accounts of their experiences at the time have been believed. I have appreciated the opportunity to talk with a number of the women about their experiences and to apologise to them in person. I have also valued their insights and suggestions for change that they have shared with the Court.

An investigation by the Sydney Morning Herald uncovered further allegations of Heydon’s predatory behaviour, including an allegation from a judge who claims that he indecently assaulted her.

In a statement through his lawyers to the SMH, Heydon denied any allegations of predatory behaviour or breaches of the law. The statement also said

our client says that if any conduct of his has caused offence, that result was inadvertent and unintended, and he apologises for any offence caused.

In response to the inquiry commissioned by the High Court, his lawyers have further emphasised this process was an internal administrative inquiry conducted by a public servant and not by a lawyer, judge or a tribunal member.

Sexual harassment is endemic within law

The inquiry’s finding that a retired High Court judge sexual harassed judges’ associates certainly reflects poorly on the court, and the legal profession more broadly.

It reinforces wider and ongoing concerns about the effectiveness of legal responses to sexual harassment. These concerns point to systemic issues within the profession that are significant beyond individual behaviour. This is not to diminish the experiences of the young women complainants. Rather, their experiences speak to the wider consequences of feeling unsafe at work — one complainant left the profession and another abandoned plans of becoming a barrister.

Working in law, particularly in the courts, is a prestigious and hierarchical profession. In fact, the kind of power imbalances that shape working relationships in law create additional hurdles in holding people to account for their actions.

The International Bar Association’s Us Too? Report provided confirmation about the extent to which bullying and sexual harassment are rife in the profession, finding that one in three female respondents and one in 14 male respondents had been sexually harassed in a workplace context.

Closer to home, the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Respect@Work Sexual Harassment Inquiry confirmed that 33% of people who had been in the workforce (not just in law) in the previous five years said they had experienced workplace sexual harassment.

The report noted that hierarchical workplace structure, such as the legal profession, can increase the risk of sexual harassment. Workplaces that were (or are) dominated by men also tend to see a greater prevalence of sexual harassment.

Might this be the tipping point?

That the chief justice acknowledged the difficulties that victims of sexual harassment have in coming forward is significant. There are all kinds of disincentives in bringing a formal complaint in sexual harassment, and these have been examined in the numerous reports and inquiries interrogating the deficiencies in the current legal framework, and devising strategies for reform. Fear of not being believed. Fear of being branded a troublemaker. Limiting career and employment prospects.

Most recently, the 2020 Respect@Work inquiry identified significant deficiencies in the Australian legal framework for combating sexual harassment.

Legally, sexual harassment is an unwelcome sexual advance, unwelcome request for sexual favours, or other unwelcome conduct of sexual nature in the circumstances that the person who was harassed would be offended, humiliated and/or intimidated.

Noting that most people who experience sexual harassment do not report it, the Human Rights Commission in its report identified the need for a new approach. This would be based not on individual victims bearing the onus of bringing a complaint, but on imposing duties on employers to create safe places of work free from sexual harassment.

Read more: Workplace sexual harassment is a public health issue and should be treated as such

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 does not currently impose a positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment. The Respect@Work inquiry recommended that a positive duty be imposed on employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation, as far as possible.

Sexual harassment can happen in any workplace. The High Court’s response, including setting out the steps it has taken to create a safer place of work, is a move in the right direction.

Yet, the fact sexual harassment has been able to go largely unchecked for so long, speaks to the need for more widespread change. One important shift is holding employers to account through the imposition of a positive duty, rather than placing the onus on the very individuals who have been subjected to it.

– ref. Dyson Heydon finding may spark a #MeToo moment for the legal profession – https://theconversation.com/dyson-heydon-finding-may-spark-a-metoo-moment-for-the-legal-profession-141212