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

Scott Morrison will announce a further $1.5 billion for an immediate start on small infrastructure projects in the government’s latest initiative to spur economic activity.

Of this, $1 billion will be provided to priority “shovel-ready” projects, with $500 million targeted specifically to road safety works.

The projects are nominated by the states and territories.

Addressing a Committee for Economic Development of Australia function on Monday Morrison will say this means the government will have brought forward or provided extra funding worth $9.3 billion in infrastructure investment in the past eight months.

“As we come out of the COVID crisis, infrastructure can give us the edge that many countries don’t have,” he will say.

Anthony Albanese, also speaking to CEDA, will stress the need for “productivity renewal”.

“Our post-coronavirus actions must confront the weaknesses in our pre-coronavirus world,” he will say. “And here, productivity stands out”.

A Labor government would have a productivity renewal project to “lift business investment, lift investment in people and lift investment in critical infrastructure.

“Our goal will be to drive growth through productivity and to drive fairness through growth.”

Meanwhile a poll by the Australian National University has found the most popular COVID-specific measure to help fix Australia’s economic problems would be to spend more on trying to find a vaccine and treatment.

The poll, done in May of more than 3200 people, asked about four Covid-related policies: increasing spending on the search for a vaccine and treatment, opening up pubs, clubs and cafes, extending JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments beyond the current six months, and opening Australia’s borders to tourists and international students. (On Friday the national cabinet agreed to work “to return international students on a small, phased scale through a series of controlled pilots”.)

Asked how much they thought the various measures would help fix Australia’s economic problems, greater spending to pursue a vaccine received 75.6% support, followed by easing restrictions on pubs and the like (71.7%).

Some 57.6% said extending JobKeeper and JobSeeker would help, and nearly half believed unlocking the border would assist.

More money to find a vaccine had strongest support among older people, while extending the payments had the greatest backing among young people. Coalition voters were least likely to back extending JobKeeper and JobSeeker.

Asked about several economic policies that would help to fix Australia’s problems, 82.1% agreed more spending on domestic programs like healthcare, education and housing would do so, 76.7% nominated infrastructure, 59.1% said cutting taxes, and 55.9% backed putting more money into the hands of poor people.

The study concluded that “the strongest predictor of support for these policies … was anxiety and worry regarding COVID-19. Those who were anxious and worried were far less likely to support liberalisation measures (on borders and hospitality) but far more likely to support spending measures (on vaccines and the labour market).

This highlighted a tension. “To maintain support for some of the physical distancing measures required to maintain low rates of infection, there needs to be some concern regarding COVID-19 and fear of infection if the virus once again gets out of hand.

“However, in order to implement some policies that will help support economic growth into the future, this concern and perceived risk may need to be reduced”.

– ref. Morrison commits another $1.5 billion for infrastructure – https://theconversation.com/morrison-commits-another-1-5-billion-for-infrastructure-140717

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Langley, Senior Research Fellow, Griffith University

Archaeological excavations deep within the rainforests of Sri Lanka have unearthed the earliest evidence for hunting with bows and arrows outside Africa.

At Fa-Hien Lena, a cave in the heart of Sri Lanka’s wet zone forests, we discovered numerous tools made of stone, bone, and tooth – including a number of small arrow points carved from bone which are about 48,000 years old.

When was the bow and arrow invented?

The invention of the bow and arrow allowed people to hunt prey at a much greater distance. People no longer had to get within “a stone’s throw” of prey which could suddenly bolt and escape. This innovation greatly increased the chances of a successful hunt.

Bows and arrows also made it much safer to hunt dangerous prey. If you don’t have to get too close, you’re less likely to be trampled or mauled by a hurt and angry animal.

The origin of the bow and arrow is one of the great mysteries of human technological innovation. How did it come about? When? Where? And why?

Read more: What a bone arrowhead from South Africa reveals about ancient human cognition

Currently, the oldest evidence for the use of the bow and arrow are small stone points found in Sibudu cave in South Africa, which are some 64,000 years old.

Outside Africa, the oldest finds were previously pieces of bows found in Germany dating back no more than 18,000 years.

Because bows and arrows are mainly made from highly perishable stuff like wood, sinew, and fibres, they don’t leave a lot of evidence behind for archaeologists to find. So the small bone points recovered from Fa-Hien Lena are an important discovery.

The bone points show evidence for having been fixed to a small shaft and shot at high speed into prey – which were apparently mostly small monkeys and giant squirrels, judging by the butchered bones thrown away at the site after meals.

Complex tools, complex minds

The discovery of such ancient bone arrow points is startling in itself. However, we also found other tools which give equally rare insights into the lives of the earliest members of our species currently documented in Sri Lanka.

Particularly interesting are well-preserved knives, scrapers, and awls made from the bones and teeth of monkeys and deer, which were used to work skins or plant materials.

These tools are our only way to learn about the other, more fragile items that may originally have been at the site, because anything made from leather or plant fibre (such as clothing, bags, baskets, mats, or nets) stood no chance of surviving 48,000 years in the humid tropical environment.

One of these artefacts is an unusual implement with carefully spaced notches down each side. It appears to be a shuttle for creating nets of woven fibres. No doubt nets would have been incredibly useful for catching the tree-dwelling prey the people of Fa-Hien Lena hunted, as well as bringing the fish up from the rivers.

These rainforest pioneers also left behind evidence about their social lives in the form of white shell beads and small blocks of mineral pigments in bright colours: red, yellow, and silver.

Each of the pigment nodules show signs they were used to create paints for the body, and three of the bright red nodules were drilled to be strung as beads – something we have not found anywhere else in the world.

The white shell beads, on the other hand, are similar to those found in Africa and Eurasia, but were collected or traded from the coast some 20–30 kilometres away. Apparently, small, shiny, white shell beads never get old.

With these finds, it is becoming more and more clear that we have only just begun to scratch the surface when it comes to understanding the earliest modern human communities.

– ref. 48,000-year-old arrowheads reveal early human innovation in the Sri Lankan rainforest – https://theconversation.com/48-000-year-old-arrowheads-reveal-early-human-innovation-in-the-sri-lankan-rainforest-139989

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

It mightn’t sound much, but it had big consequences. Fifty years ago this week, the Senate voted to set up a system of committees to scrutinise government legislation, activity and spending.

As it has evolved, this network has given teeth to a parliament that in many other ways has declined, even atrophied over the decades.

Question time in the House of Representatives has become a charade (at least, thanks to COVID-19, MPs are now behaving somewhat better during it).

It rarely extracts information. Occasionally – but less often than in earlier years – an opposition can apply the heat to the feet of a minister in trouble. We saw this with the pressure on energy minister Angus Taylor over his use of an apparently doctored document, though he stonewalled and has avoided telling the full story.

The idea that misleading parliament matters has gone out the window long ago.

Outside parliament itself, holding government to account has become more difficult. Freedom of information legislation is of only limited help, with officials and ministers often obstructing rather than fulfilling its spirit. The government has an army of “spinners”, paid for by the taxpayers to manage messages and act as “gatekeepers”. They have bred prolifically.

Public servants, who once were much more accessible to assist journalists on a “background”, non-attributable basis to understand complicated policy, have been locked away from the media by governments anxious to centralise control.

The media itself says more but arguably informs less, despite the 24-hour news cycle. And with the ever-squeezed business models of news organisations as well as around-the-clock filing, journalistic specialisation in particular policy areas has declined while overall work has increased.

While there are significant committees with representation from both houses – the joint committee on intelligence and security is the most important example – in the main it’s the Senate committees that are the real parliamentary watchdogs.

They are where the bureaucrats are regularly grilled, with officials sometimes finding themselves asked to account for what they told their Senate inquisitors previously.

Treasury has just had a particularly searing experience of this. A day after it informed the committee looking at the government’s COVID response that more than six million people were on JobKeeper, it and the Tax Office publicly confessed to a huge error. The latest estimates indicated JobKeeper would only have some 3.5 million recipients and its cost would be $70 billion not $130 billion.

The existence of the COVID committee meant Treasury could be quickly called back for a please explain.

This committee is ranging widely and seeking to interview the main players across the health and economic responses. Predictably, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg declined its invitation – following the convention for lower house ministers – but Finance Minister Mathias Cormann fronted.

The COVID committee has questioned government officials on topics such as fraud being perpetrated on people’s superannuation accounts through the early access to super scheme, the working of the COVIDSafe App, the Ruby Princess debacle, the future of JobKeeper, and much else.

Its presence was especially useful given that at one stage, the parliament was sitting only for the odd single day.

The Senate committees vary in type: permanent or set up to investigate a specific matter, focused on legislation or dealing with more general references in a broad policy area, “estimates” hearings to look at spending.

Estimates hearings, held three times a year, give an opportunity to probe public servants about budgetary items and numbers. A great deal of information, trivial or important, some of it embarrassing to the government of the day, is extracted.

The effectiveness of the estimates committees is reflected in the “estimates test” some public servants are said to apply to their actions: “if we do this, how will it play out at estimates?”

But it’s a two-way game. The government and officials are, according to Labor, pushing back, with public servants increasingly asking to take questions on notice, to be answered later. This gains, at the least, breathing space.

Many public servants look a little jelly-like as they face their senator questioners, but a few mandarins enjoy the challenge. The appearances of the secretary of Home Affairs, Mike Pezzullo, who seems to relish matching wits with the senators, are always keenly anticipated.

Some hearings can be fiery, clashes among senators at times spectacular and unseemly, and reports from inquiries simply statements of partisan positions. But other times, the work can be constructive and cooperative, especially behind the scenes, and the outcomes influential in highlighting wrongs and leading to policy change.

Senate president Scott Ryan this week said Senate committees had produced some 120 reports in the 69 years before the new system and more than 5500 in the 50 years since. Public hearings increased from 500 before the change to more than 7000 since.

Good interrogators make reputations at Senate committees that are remembered long after they leave the parliament. Former Labor senators John Faulkner and Robert Ray operated as a tag team that put the fear of god into witnesses from the public service.

Occasionally a senator can effect more lasting reform through committee work than many of their ministerial colleagues do. Former Nationals senator John “Wacka” Williams pursued malfeasance by the banks and other financial institutions with unrelenting tenacity, and was a major player in having these institutions brought to account.

– ref. View from The Hill: Senate committees are one of the few bright spots in the battle to hold government to account – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-senate-committees-are-one-of-the-few-bright-spots-in-the-battle-to-hold-government-to-account-140641

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Moore, Doctor of Botany, University of Melbourne

If you fondly remember May Gibbs’s Gumnut Baby stories about the adventures of Snugglepot and Cuddlepie, you may also remember the villainous Big Bad Banksia Men (perhaps you’re still having nightmares about them).

But banksias are nothing to be afraid of. They’re a marvellous group of Australian native trees and shrubs, with an ancient heritage and a vital role in Australian plant ecology, colonial history and bushfire regeneration.

The genus Banksia has about 173 native species. It takes its name from botanist Sir Joseph Banks, who collected specimens of four species in 1770 when he arrived in Australia on board Captain Cook’s Endeavour.

Read more: Botany and the colonisation of Australia in 1770

One of the four species he collected was B. integrifolia, the coastal banksia. This can be a small to medium tree about 5m to 15m tall. In the right conditions, it can be quite impressive and grow up to 35m.

It’s found naturally in coastal regions, growing on sand dunes or around coastal marshes from Queensland to Victoria. These can be quite tough environments and, while B. integrifolia tends to grow in slightly protected sites, it still copes well with sandy soils, poor soil nutrition, salt and wind.

From ancient origins

Coastal banksia – like all banksias – belong to the protea family (Proteaceae). But given the spectacular flowering proteas are of African origin, how did our Australian genera get here?

The members of the Proteaceae belong to an ancient group of flowering plants that evolved almost 100 million years ago on the southern supercontinent Gondwana. When Gondwana fragmented more than 80 million years ago, the proteas remained on the African plate, while the Australian genera remained here.

Read more: The firewood banksia is bursting with beauty

The spikes of woody fruits on the Australian banksia, sometimes called cones, are made up of several hundred flowers. The flower spikes are beautiful structures, soft and brush-like. But with B. integrifolia, they are pale green, similar to the foliage, and can be hard to see within the canopy at a distance.

Up close, these fruit spikes can look quite spooky, almost sinister, especially when wasps have caused extensive gall formation. Galls are swellings that develop on plant tissues as a result of fungal and insect damage, a bit like a benign tumour.

Maybe this is what led May Gibbs to cast them as the baddies in her Gumnut Baby stories. While the galls may look unsightly, they rarely do serious harm to banksias.

Indigenous use

Given the fruit spikes of coastal banksia look like brushes, it’s not surprising Indigenous people once used them as paint brushes.

The flowers are very rich in nectar, which attracts insects and birds. If you run your hand along the flower spike you, like generations of Aboriginal people before you, can enjoy the sweet taste if you lick the nectar off your hand. You can also soak the flowers in water and collect a sweet syrup.

In the garden, B. integrifolia is wonderfully attractive to native insects, birds and ringtail possums. It’s easy to establish and, until it grows more than a few metres high, can be successfully moved and transplanted.

Unlike many other banksia species, coastal banksias don’t need fire to release their seed. For many Australian species, the woody fruits remain solid and sealed, and it’s only when fire comes through that they burn, dry, crack open and release their seed.

This can happen with B. integrifolia too, but in a garden setting the fruits will mature, dry and crack open and release the seeds, which germinate readily. This makes propagating coastal banksia easy work.

In touch with its roots

Perhaps one of the more important, but less obvious, attributes of B. integrifolia are its roots. These are a special type of root possessed by members of the protea family.

The roots form a dense, branched cluster, a bit like the head of a toothbrush, that can be 2-5cm across. They greatly increase the absorbing surface area of the roots, as each root possesses thousands of very fine root hairs.

Read more: The black wattle is a boon for Australians (and a pest everywhere else)

Proteoid roots can be very handy in sandy and other poor soils, where water drains quickly and nutrients are scarce.

These roots, also described as cluster roots, are often visible in a garden bed just at the interface of the soil with the humus or mulch layer above it. They’re very light brown, almost white, in colour.

B. integrifolia, like other banksias, also has the ability to take in nitrogen and enrich the soil, which can be very handy in soils low in nitrogen. It’s like a natural living and decorative fertiliser.

Read more: After the bushfires, we helped choose the animals and plants in most need. Here’s how we did it

Proteoid roots are unfortunately very well suited to the presence of Phytophthora cinnamomii (the cinnamon fungus). It causes dieback in many native plant species, but can be particularly virulent for banksias.

But B. Integrifolia is one of the more resistant species to the fungus. Promising experiments have been done on grafting susceptible species onto the roots of B. integrifolia to improve their rates of survival.

This could be important, as banksias have a role in bushfire regeneration in many parts of Australia, so the occurrence of the fungus can compromise fire recovery.

– ref. The coastal banksia has its roots in ancient Gondwana – https://theconversation.com/the-coastal-banksia-has-its-roots-in-ancient-gondwana-138434

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marnie Graham, Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Stockholm Resilience Centre and University of Johannesburg, Stockholm University

The recent Black Lives Matter protests in Australia have highlighted the pressing and continued need for non-Indigenous Australians to take responsibility for reconciliation.

This requires non-Indigenous Australians to educate themselves about Indigenous and shared histories as well as contemporary realities. And taking action to change these realities.

Read more: ‘I can’t breathe!’ Australia must look in the mirror to see our own deaths in custody

At the moment, Australians reading the news or watching the protests might be asking: how can we contribute to this change?

Through our research and teaching, we have learned that spending time with Indigenous people, learning about culture and history and connecting to Country, is an important first step.

And one accessible way to do this is through an Indigenous tour.

What is an Indigenous tour?

Indigenous tourism covers activities such as art exhibitions, artistic and cultural performances, festivals and tours.

Read more: How Indigenous tourism can help bring about reconciliation in Australia

Our research focuses specifically on Indigenous tours, because visitors are able to ask questions and interact with Indigenous people. We have found that many Australians would like to make personal connections with Indigenous peoples, cultures, histories and languages, but don’t know how – who to talk to, how to connect, what actions to take.

Indigenous tour operators are dedicated to making these connections and sharing their knowledge with visitors. Yet many people don’t realise that Indigenous-owned-and-run tour operators are located all over Australia.

Many different types of tours

The types of Indigenous tours available in Australia are diverse, and cover a huge range of experiences. They include, for example, day tours of two or three hours, involving walking together on Country, learning about history, culture, stories and Indigenous relationships to Country.

There are also culinary tours, where visitors learn about Indigenous foods and cooking, cultural cruises aboard Indigenous-owned vessels and activity-oriented tours where visitors can hike, canoe, quad-bike, or paddle board with Indigenous guides.

Other tours are based around learning about Indigenous uses and values attached to flora and fauna, many of which are held on national parks.

Some operators also run longer camps on Country, dedicated to men, women, families or student groups.

What is common to all these experiences is that Indigenous tour operators share with visitors stories of Country, culture, history and connection.

What might visitors expect from the experience?

The Indigenous tour operators we connect with through our work and research conduct their tours with immense openness and generosity. They share aspects of their lives and certain stories with visitors. Tim Selwyn runs tours on the NSW Central Coast. He explains he does this job, “because I have to”.

It’s my responsibility as a human to speak truth, to help educate, to share. I do what I do to create a safe space where everyone is welcome, so we can talk and we can listen. At the moment the government is not listening, they haven’t done so for 250 years. They’re still imposing their structures. We need to listen and talk together … People need to know truth and history, to make an educated decision about our past. We need to look at the past to go forward, because we’re still stuck.

Tourists must treat these tours with respect and sensitivity, because being invited to share these experiences and knowledge is a huge privilege. It is a tourist’s responsibility to listen and learn.

Our research indicates that when visitors do take that first step by going on an Indigenous tour – then they begin to see that their words, actions and learning can make a difference.

We conduct interviews with tour participants to understand what they learn and experience. This is one example of what a non-Indigenous Australian visitor experienced after a day-tour:

I think it really changed me, as a person, because it was the first time that I actually interacted with an Aboriginal person. I loved it. I think it was just the reality of the fact that there was a community living here before the colonial powers came into Australia … I think the whole thing brought history to life for me, and its implications as well. Not just negatively, I mean there’s that aspect but also, just like I felt welcomed in this country.

How can I access a tour?

Our research is based on work with operators in and around Sydney.

But there are many Indigenous tour options all around Australia. You can find them by visiting WelcomeToCountry.com, a not-for-profit website dedicated to putting you directly in touch with Indigenous tourism initiatives. Professor Marcia Langton has also written a hard copy travel guide.

You can follow state-based Indigenous tourism operator councils on social media. And the federal government’s Tourism Australia website Australia.com has options for Indigenous tourism experiences.

What else do I need to know?

In our experience, many independent Indigenous tour operators are also open to providing cultural education sessions in early childhood centres, schools, universities, government organisations, and businesses. As well as for family or friendship groups.

So, start the process, make the connection.

Through listening, and starting to learn and connect, the difficult conversations can occur, and we can begin to make the changes that Australia needs to see.

– ref. Non-Indigenous Australians need to educate themselves. One way to do this is to take an Indigenous tour. – https://theconversation.com/non-indigenous-australians-need-to-educate-themselves-one-way-to-do-this-is-to-take-an-indigenous-tour-140442

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

University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and Assistant Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics including: the protesters advocating police reform, the treatment of indigenous peoples, and to show solidarity with the black lives matter movement, the high rate of incarceration amongst indigenous people, the PM and treasurer Josh Frydenberg calling for all state borders to be opened, the trans tasman bubble, and Prime Minister Scott Morrison apologising for the robodebt scheme.

– ref. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on protests, social-distancing, and domestic borders – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-protests-social-distancing-and-domestic-borders-140630

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Melleuish, Professor, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong

The Conversation is running a series of pieces on key figures in Australian political history, examining how they changed the country and political debate. You can read our articles on Julia Gillard and Henry Parkes here and here.

Bartholomew Augustine (“Bob”) Santamaria is the most significant figure in Australian politics never to have held political office.

Santamaria was a friend of, or associated with, four Australian prime ministers: Robert Menzies, Malcolm Fraser, John Howard and Tony Abbott. But his career was spent outside parliament.

Read more: Book review: Santamaria, A Most Unusual Man

There are two crucial things that need to be understood about Santamaria in order to make sense of his work. One is he was a devout lay Catholic whose career began in church-sponsored organisations. The other is he was both anti-socialist and anti-capitalist.

His ideal society was one composed of small property owners. In the 1940s and 1950s, he dreamed of an Australia dotted with rural villages.

Italian and Irish Catholic influences

Santamaria was born in Melbourne in 1915, the son of Italian migrants. His father ran a greengrocery in Brunswick.

While his background was Italian, his intellectual formation was in the largely Irish Catholic education system. He was bright, studying arts and law at Melbourne University.

After graduating, he did not practise law, but worked instead for the church as a layman for the Australasian National Secretariat of Catholic Action.

Catholic involvement in Australian political culture in the early part of the 20th century had been somewhat marginal; for example, the Federation conventions contained few Catholic participants. But the 1930s saw a flourishing of Catholic intellectual and cultural life in Australia, such as the Campion Society, of which Santamaria was a member.

Moving Catholics towards the centre, fighting communists

What Santamaria achieved was to move Catholics much closer to the centre of Australian politics. He did this both through the force of his intellect and his political actions.

He was an ideas man. From the early 1940s to the mid-1950s, Santamaria drafted most of the social justice statements authorised by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic Church of Australia, many of which had circulations of more than 100,000.

For a long time, he had no public profile. But his major contribution came leading the fight to extinguish communist control of, and influence in, trade unions.

Although communism never had much appeal to the Australian voter, it had considerable influence in a number of unions, especially in the 1940s.

Santamaria mimicked communist techniques, setting up a shadowy organisation that used sometimes dubious tactics to gain union control. Called the Catholic Social Studies Movement, it was simply known as “the Movement” and operated largely in secrecy.

If the communists fought dirty, then Santamaria, as the leader of the Movement, understood the need to engage in tactics like rigging union elections. The ends justified the means.

Labor, the DLP and Santamaria’s undoing

The great prize in all of this, of course, was the Australian Labor Party, with its strong trade union links.

Communism was in decline in Australia by the early 1950s, but the anti-communist movement went from strength to strength. By 1953, there was a federal election in the offing, which Labor seemed guaranteed to win because of the state of the economy. Santamaria’s papers indicate that at this point, he contemplated the possible takeover of the ALP.

It all went terribly wrong. Economic conditions improved and the Menzies-led Coalition won the 1954 election. In the fallout, the ALP’s bitter leader, H.V. “Doc” Evatt, instigated moves that led to a split in the Labor Party, the exit of many Catholics from the ALP and the creation of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP).

Read more: Australian politics explainer: the Labor Party split

Santamaria, who had previously been a somewhat shadowy figure, suddenly emerged into the limelight. This occurred because Evatt denounced the Movement and its role in the Labor Party. It was a personal disaster for Santamaria, because it pushed him out of his political roles with regard to both the Church and the unions.

He desperately wanted to influence public policy in Australia, but the DLP was only a rump party that largely appealed to Catholics. He was now outside the ALP tent and he certainly was not going to be admitted to that of their Liberal opponents.

Reinvention in print and on TV

Essentially, Santamaria then reinvented himself as a commentator on public affairs. That was how he was known until his death in 1998.

His organisation, the National Civic Council, published News Weekly, and later the AD2000 magazine, to propagate his ideas.

He also had a TV program, “Point of View” on Channel 9 that began in 1963 and went for nearly 30 years. Later in life, he had a regular column in The Australian. He no longer played the same active political role that he had earlier in life, but his ideas reached a large audience through the media.

In this later period, Santamaria gravitated towards people who were, or had been, Liberals.

Read more: The traditionalists are restless, so why don’t they have a party of their own in Australia?

He became great friends with Menzies following Menzies’s retirement. In 1992, there was an abortive attempt, involving Santamaria, academics Robert Manne and John Carroll to form a new political party that included Fraser. Howard visited Santamaria on his death bed.

Abbott had connections with Santamaria going back to his student days.

A ‘tragic failure’

Whether Santamaria exercised any influence over these figures is questionable. It does seem that they found him congenial, and he certainly possessed considerable charisma.

In some ways, Santamaria can be seen as a tragic failure. He was an intelligent and passionate man, who desired to create a better world, but whose actions led to conflict and dissension.

He was, perhaps, the victim of his own hubris. That said, it is difficult to find another individual who had such an impact on Australian life for so long. His autobiography, Against the Tide, still repays reading.

– ref. Bob Santamaria, ‘the most significant’ figure in Australian politics never to have been in parliament – https://theconversation.com/bob-santamaria-the-most-significant-figure-in-australian-politics-never-to-have-been-in-parliament-138719

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabriel da Silva, Senior Lecturer in Chemical Engineering, University of Melbourne

In recent weeks, the world has looked on as governments use chemical irritants to control protesters and riots. Whether it’s tear gas, pepper spray, mace or pepper balls, all have one thing in common: they’re chemical weapons.

Chemical warfare agents have been used twice in Sydney in the past week alone. Police pepper-sprayed demonstrators at Central Station, following Saturday’s major Black Lives Matter protest.

The next day, tear gas was used to break up a fight at Long Bay jail, as prison guards filled an exercise yard with tear gas canisters – also impacting nearby residents.

These events followed the deployment of chemical riot control agents – specifically “pepper bombs” – in Washington DC last week. They were used to clear protesters from a public park so President Donald Trump could walk from the White House to a nearby church for a photo opportunity.

US Attorney General William Barr said “there was no tear gas used”, claiming “pepper spray is not a chemical irritant. It’s not chemical.”

I’m a chemical engineer and chemist who studies chemicals in the environment. So I thought I’d clear the air about what makes pepper spray such a powerful chemical irritant, and a chemical weapon.

What’s inside pepper spray?

The active compounds in pepper spray are collectively known as capsaicinoids. They are given the military symbol OC, for “oleoresin capsicum”.

The most important chemical in OC is capsaicin. This is derived from chilli peppers in a chemical process that dissolves and concentrates it into a liquid. Capsaicin is the same compound that makes chillies hot, but in an intense, weaponised form.

Not all capsaicinoids are obtained naturally. One called nonivamide (also known as PAVA or pelargonic acid vanillylamide) is mostly made by humans. PAVA is an intense irritant used in artificial pepper spray.

Is pepper spray a tear gas?

We’ve established pepper spray is a chemical, but is it also a kind of tear gas?

“Tear gas” is an informal term and a bit of a misnomer, because it isn’t a gas. Rather, tear gas refers to any weaponised irritant used to immobilise people.

More specifically, tear gas is often used to describe weapons that disperse their irritants in the air either as liquid aerosol droplets (such as gas canisters), or as a powder (such as pepper balls). This definition distinguishes tear gas from personal self-defence sprays which use foams, gels and liquids.

Read more: What is tear gas?

Tear gas canisters typically contain the irritants 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile (CS) and phenacyl chloride (CN). Both CS and CN are man-made chemicals discovered in a lab, unlike capsaicin (the traditional ingredient in pepper spray).

But despite capsaicin coming from chilli peppers, pepper spray is still a weaponised irritant that can be delivered as an aerosol or powder. It should unequivocally be considered a type of tear gas.

Pepper spray as a weapon

The chemical irritants OC, CS and CN have military symbols because they are chemical weapons. They are termed “less-lethal” because they are less likely to kill than conventional weapons. Their use, however, can still cause fatalities.

Technically, pepper spray and other tear gases are classified as lachrymatory agents. Lachrymatory agents attack mucous membranes in the eyes and respiratory system.

Pepper spray works almost instantly, forcing the eyes to close and flood with tears. Coupled with coughing fits and difficulty breathing, this means the targeted person is effectively blinded and incapacitated. Because lachrymatory agents work on nerve receptors that help us sense heat, they also induce an intense burning sensation.

The combined effects of pepper spray can last anywhere from 15 minutes to more than an hour.

Lachrymatory agents emerged on the battlefields of World War I. Artillery shells were filled with chemicals such as xylyl bromide and chloroacetone and fired at enemy soldiers. Agents that induce choking, blistering and vomiting were added as the chemical arms race escalated.

Read more: Tear gas and pepper spray are chemical weapons. So, why can police use them?

In the 1920s, the Geneva Protocol was enacted to ban the use of indiscriminate and often ineffective chemical weapons on the battlefield. Today, the unjustified use of chemical riot control agents threatens to erode the systems that are meant to protect us from the most dangerous weaponised chemicals.

– ref. What makes pepper spray so intense? And is it a tear gas? A chemical engineer explains – https://theconversation.com/what-makes-pepper-spray-so-intense-and-is-it-a-tear-gas-a-chemical-engineer-explains-140441

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Romilio, Independent Researcher, The University of Queensland

Fossilised footprints and tracks provide a direct record of how ancient animals moved. And some preserved behaviours leave us marvelling in disbelief.

In research published today in Scientific Reports, my international team of colleagues and I detail our discovery of exquisitely preserved crocodile footprints, formed about 120 million years ago in what is now Sacheon, South Korea.

These trace fossils reveal multiple crocodiles undertaking a very curious behaviour: bipedal walking, much like many dinosaurs.

The ancient footprints uncovered resemble those made by humans, as they are long and slender, with a prominent heel impression. But they have additional features, including thick scaly imprints from the sole and toes that are comparatively long with broader impressions.

The shape of these footprints compares very well with crocodile tracks known elsewhere, notably Batrachopus tracks from the Jurassic found in the United States – with “Batrachopus” being the name assigned to the tracks themselves.

However, instead of being made by quadrupedal, cat-sized crocodiles, the Sacheon fossil tracks are large. With footprints that measure around 24 centimetres long, they come from animals with legs the same height as human legs and bodies more than three metres long.

A distant ancestor

Today, crocodiles walk on four legs in a wide, squat stance. The Sacheon crocodile trackways we discovered indicate a different pattern of movement. They do not have “handprints”, and the trackways are exceptionally narrow, as if the animals were making the footprints while balancing on a tightrope.

This suggests these ancient crocodiles had their legs tucked beneath their body, much like a dinosaur, rather than assuming the typical sprawling posture seen in today’s crocodiles.

The tracks could not have been made by dinosaurs. One clear difference between dinosaur and crocodile tracks is that crocodiles walk flat-footed, leaving a clear heel impression. Dinosaurs and their bird descendants walk high on their toes, with the heel off the ground.

The devil is in the detail

Fossil tracks can be found in many different states of preservation, ranging from excellent to comparatively indistinct. This can make it hard to accurately identify the animals that made them.

Often, track sites are either not composed of sediments that help retain the finer features of tracks, or they erode after lengthy exposure to the elements.

We know the Sacheon trackmakers were ancient crocodiles because the tracks have been preserved in extraordinary detail.

This is due in part to fine, muddy sediment around an ancient lake that was able to hold the footprints while covered by sediment-laden water. Also, the site was freshly excavated for a new rural building development and hadn’t been exposed to erosion.

Read more: Fossil track sites tell the story of ancient crocodiles in southern Africa

A helpful reference point

The perfectly preserved Sacheon tracks became our reference to reassess other unusual trackways that had been described in the area, but were more poorly preserved.

Our attention focused on sites at Gain-ri and Adu Island just ten kilometres away from Sacheon, that had eroded trackways within the intertidal zone, between the low and high tide. These narrow trackways with long, slender footprints but no hand prints or tail drag marks echoed the Sacheon crocodile tracks.

A decade earlier, the footprints had been interpreted as made by another ancient animal known as a pterosaur. This ancient winged creature – related to dinosaurs but not officially classified as one – was famed for ruling the skies when dinosaurs ruled the land.

Read more: Humans coexisted with three-tonne marsupials and lizards as long as cars in ancient Australia

Crocodiles and pterosaurs were quite distinct, being predominantly land and air dwellers, respectively. They had very differently shaped hands, but interestingly, the impressions they left with their feet can look very similar.

When pterosaurs were on the ground, they typically walked on all fours, using their back feet and hands to support themselves as they moved, just like today’s crocodiles.

However, as the “pterosaur” Gain-ri and Adu Island trackways lacked hand prints, they indicate bipedal walking. Thus, the tracks were wrongly ascribed to a pterosaur.

When first discovered, pterosaur tracks were known to be very common in South Korea, while crocodile tracks were rare. In the absence of well-preserved footprints, the preferred interpretation was that these tracks were likely evidence of unusual behaviour of the pterosaur, a common trackmaker in the area.

With the new evidence from the Sacheon site, it became possible to reevaluate the Gain-ri and Adu Island trackways too, which we now suspect were made by the same crocodile trackmakers strolling around Sacheon 120 million years ago.

– ref. 120 million years ago, giant crocodiles walked on two legs in what is now South Korea – https://theconversation.com/120-million-years-ago-giant-crocodiles-walked-on-two-legs-in-what-is-now-south-korea-140335

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shireen Daft, Lecturer, Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University

In the ongoing protests over the killing of George Floyd and the broader issue of racial injustice, we have been bombarded with images of demonstrators being hit with tear gas and pepper spray.

In the US state of Ohio, a 22-year-old protester died two days after being exposed to tear gas and pepper spray. Police also used tear gas to break up a demonstration near the White House to clear the way for President Donald Trump’s photo op outside a church – a move that prompted a federal lawsuit to be filed by the DC chapter of Black Lives Matter.

Read more: Trump’s photo op with church and Bible was offensive, but not new

The use of riot control agents against protesters is nothing new. Tear gas has been used repeatedly against protesters in Hong Kong, the Arab Springs protests and the Occupy protests, just to name a few major examples.

But now the debate over their use in law enforcement has been reignited. And the fact that toxic chemicals are banned in warfare, but permitted for use against protesters, is at the centre of that debate.

A group of Democratic lawmakers in the US is now trying to prohibit police from using tear gas in such situations, introducing a bill to Congress this week.

What are riot control agents?

Tear gas and pepper spray both fall under the wider banner of “riot control agents”. Tear gas usually refers to the chemical compounds known as chloroacetophenone (CN) and chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile (CS). Pepper spray (or oleoresin capsicum) is a weaponised form of the chemical that adds heat to chilli peppers.

Both are toxic chemicals intended to produce a rapid sensory irritation or disabling physical effect, which disappears within a short time.

Read more: What is tear gas?

It is telling the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has described these agents as “poison”. Medical experts have also raised concerns they may increase the spread of COVID-19.

So are they chemical weapons?

The Chemical Weapons Convention, which came into force in 1997 and currently has 193 state parties, places a comprehensive ban of the use of toxic chemicals as a weapon, “for the sake of humankind”.

It explicitly prohibits the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare.

One significant concern with the use of chemical weapons is they cause unnecessary suffering.

Indeed, in a profile of the head of the US Chemical Warfare Service in the 1920s, writer Theo Knappen described the suffering caused by tear gas as a selling point for the weapon:

The tear gases appear to be admirably suited to the purpose of isolating the individual from the mob spirit … he is thrown into a condition in which he can think of nothing but relieving his own distress. Under such conditions an army disintegrates and a mob ceases to be; it becomes a blind stampede to get away from the source of torture.

Another major concern with chemical weapons dispersed as gases and sprays is they are indiscriminate. The nature of the weapon means it is difficult to target and the effects can be widespread and uncontrolled.

In wartime, tear gas and other agents can result in an escalation in the use of chemical weapons. In the fog of war, a military might believe they are under attack from lethal chemical weapons, and retaliate in kind. It can also be very difficult in wartime to collect evidence of what chemicals were used.

If they are banned in war, how can they be used by police?

The Chemical Weapons Convention only restricts the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare. The convention includes an express exception for law enforcement, including domestic riot control purposes.

This exception reflects the history and development of the convention.

It was unclear whether riot control agents were prohibited under an earlier chemical and biological weapons treaty, the Geneva Protocol of 1925. The vast majority of nations were of the opinion the Geneva Protocol applied to all toxic weapons.

However, the US was loud in its opposition to this interpretation, stating the law did not apply to chemical weapons with a temporary effect – in other words, riot control agents.

In the 1960s and 70s, the US used riot control agents (among other chemical weapons) in the Vietnam War, and also used riot control agents against Americans protesting the war at home. A small number of other nations, including Australia and the UK, then changed their opinion on riot control agents, conforming to the US position.

Read more: Why do protests turn violent? It’s not just because people are desperate

By this time, riot control agents had become a standard part of the law enforcement arsenal across the globe.

As a result, when the Chemical Weapons Convention was being negotiated, a compromise was made: riot control agents would be banned during warfare, but exceptions would be carved out for law enforcement use.

Riot control agents have been promoted as a less-lethal alternative to firearms when police are responding to riots and violent protests.

However, opponents argue they are instead being used as a substitute for non-violent crowd-control methods.

Are there any restrictions on the use by police?

This is not to say there are no restrictions on the use of riot control agents in law enforcement under international law.

Any use of force by the police must be legal, necessary and proportionate under the UN’s Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and its Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. Police must also offer immediate medical and psychological treatment for any injuries caused by riot control agents.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia famously asserted in the 1990s that it is contrary to the basic principles of humanity and commonsense to prohibit weapons in international conflict but not in civil wars. What is inhumane in one, the tribunal said, must be inhumane in the other.

The question, then, is how we can continue to draw a distinction for the use of riot control agents by police, especially when these weapons are being used not to stop violent criminals, but against people exercising their fundamental human right to protest.

– ref. Tear gas and pepper spray are chemical weapons. So, why can police use them? – https://theconversation.com/tear-gas-and-pepper-spray-are-chemical-weapons-so-why-can-police-use-them-140364

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Breen, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Too many New Zealand children are born into a state of crisis, as two recent and damning reports have shown.

The Māori Inquiry into Oranga Tamariki (Ministry for Children) was one of five inquiries launched after a media investigation into the attempted “uplift” of a newborn baby from its mother at a maternity ward in May 2019. The inquiry report stated:

The event … not only sparked national outrage from Māori, but disclosed a controversial and decades old state policy and practice that has had devastating intergenerational impacts that have left our communities with deep emotional scars.

Another report from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner details the experiences of Māori mothers of newborns involved with Oranga Tamariki. Children’s Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft wrote:

These personal stories … are a silent testimony to the long-term inequities that Māori have suffered under Aotearoa New Zealand’s care and protection system.

Oranga Tamariki chief executive Grainne Moss hit back by saying the children’s commissioner’s report was ignoring the interests of babies.

The current storm rages, in part, around the protection of children and their rights. With the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care due to deliver its own interim report this year, we need to ask: what are those rights, and might a better understanding of them provide a way out of this impasse?

Children’s rights are linked to parents’ rights

Part of the answer can be found in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. Aotearoa-New Zealand accepted this treaty in 1993 and it informs the work of the children’s commissioner. For tamariki Māori, the convention is important because it was the first global human rights treaty to refer to the rights of indigenous children.

Read more: Kindness doesn’t begin at home: Jacinda Ardern’s support for beneficiaries lags well behind Australia’s

Perhaps controversially, the convention requires states to respect parents’ rights and responsibilities – and, where relevant, the extended family or community. This counters a common criticism that by focusing on children’s rights we diminish the rights of parents and families.

As far as possible, children have the right to know and be cared for by their parents. It is parents who have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their children.

The convention also states that the family is “the fundamental group of society” and the child should grow up in a family environment. Cultural values are important for “the protection and harmonious development of the child”.

Most importantly in the current debate, the convention provides clear guidance on the removal of children from their families:

Each of these considerations is subject to four guiding principles:

Read more: Australia needs to confront its history of white privilege to provide a level playing field for all

The forcible removal of children is covered by the UN

Alongside the children’s rights convention lies the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, which Aotearoa-New Zealand endorsed in 2010. This specifically recognises the rights of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing and well-being of their children. The exercise of that responsibility is to be consistent with the rights of the child.

The declaration also prohibits the forcible removal of children from one group to another. While this has tended to relate to historic state policies to remove indigenous children from their communities, it clearly resonates with recent events.

The declaration also states that the economic and social conditions of children must be improved. Notably, states must protect children from all forms of violence and discrimination. These considerations overlap with the declaration’s wider objectives, such as the right to self-determination, the right to self-government and the importance of free, prior and informed consent on matters that affect indigenous people.

At the heart of these documents is a simple message: children have rights. The best interests of the child must inform any decision that affects those rights. And the decision must be made in an impartial and transparent manner.

Future reports will inevitably catalogue further violations of children’s rights. Identifying these violations is one thing; strategies to ensure they do not happen again are another. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must play a central role.

– ref. The state removal of Māori children from their families is a wound that won’t heal – but there is a way forward – https://theconversation.com/the-state-removal-of-maori-children-from-their-families-is-a-wound-that-wont-heal-but-there-is-a-way-forward-140243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, La Trobe University

As restrictions ease, many Australians will be wondering if it’s worth wearing a mask on the bus, train or tram to reduce their risk of being infected with coronavirus.

When Deputy Chief Medical Officer Nick Coatsworth was asked about this earlier this week, he said:

If you are a vulnerable person and you have no other means of getting to work or around, it would be a very reasonable thing to do. We don’t think that general, healthy members of the community need to be considering wearing masks in that context.

Earlier, Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy said wearing masks on public transport “is not an unreasonable thing to do”.

But the National Cabinet has stopped short of making wearing masks on public transport compulsory. No wonder it can all seem a bit confusing.

So what does fresh evidence say about the benefits of healthy people wearing masks in public? And how do you use this to decide what to do?

Read more: As coronavirus restrictions ease, here’s how you can navigate public transport as safely as possible

Yes, wearing a mask does reduce your risk

Until now, the evidence about whether wearing a mask out and about if you’re healthy reduces your risk of coronavirus infection has been uncertain.

But a recent review in The Lancet changes that. As expected, the researchers found wearing masks protected health-care workers against coronavirus infection. But they also found wearing masks protects healthy people in the community, although possibly to a lesser degree.

The researchers said the difference in the protective effect was largely because health workers are more likely to use N95 masks, which were found to offer greater protection than the disposable surgical masks we generally see people wearing out in the community.

Read more: To limit coronavirus risks on public transport, here’s what we can learn from efforts overseas

So, the take-home message is that masks, while not offering perfect protection, reduce your risk of coronavirus infection while you’re out and about.

In light of this study, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has updated its advice to recommend healthy people wear masks in public where there is widespread transmission and where physical distancing is difficult, such as on public transport.

But how is this different to what I’ve heard before?

What this Lancet study adds is the best evidence we have so far that healthy people who wear a mask out and about can reduce their chance of infection.

It’s important to stress, the evidence is quite clear that if you’re sick, wearing a mask reduces your risk of transmitting the coronavirus to others.

If you’re sick or have been diagnosed with COVID-19 the clear advice is still to stay home and self-isolate. You shouldn’t be on public transport anyway!

Masks also protect others

But how about the other possible benefit of wearing masks on public transport – minimising the risk of you unwittingly transmitting the virus to others if you don’t have symptoms?

Despite some confusing messages from WHO earlier this week, we know “asymptomatic transmission” does occur, although we are yet to pin down its exact role.

For instance, a recent review suggests as many as 40-45% of coronavirus infections are asymptomatic and they may transmit the virus to others for an extended period.

So, preventing asymptomatic transmission is another reason you may choose to wear a mask. That is, rather than wearing a mask to protect yourself, you could wear a mask to protect others.

Read more: Do homemade masks work? Sometimes. But leave the design to the experts

So, what should I do?

Given masks reduce your risk of infection and reduce the risk of you unwittingly passing on the virus to others, you could certainly make a case for routinely wearing a mask on public transport while we have coronavirus in the community.

This case is even stronger if you are at risk of severe illness, for example if you are over 65 years old or have an underlying medical condition such as high blood pressure, heart disease or diabetes.

Read more: Why are older people more at risk of coronavirus?

Alternatively, if you are travelling on a short trip on a train and you have plenty of room to social distance, then you may decide wearing a mask may not be essential given the level of risk on that journey.

However, if you are on a longer commute and the train is crowded and social distancing is difficult, then wearing a mask could well be sensible.

If you do decide to wear a mask, then it’s important to make sure you know how to put it on and take it off correctly. And as no mask offers complete protection, you still need to physically distance where possible and wash your hands.

Read more: Are you wearing gloves or a mask to the shops? You might be doing it wrong

– ref. Should I wear a mask on public transport? – https://theconversation.com/should-i-wear-a-mask-on-public-transport-139981

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Longden, Research Fellow, Crawford School, Australian National University

The COVID-19 recession is coming, and federal and state governments are expected to spend more money to stimulate economic growth. Done well, this can make Australia’s economy more productive, improve quality of life and help the low-carbon transition.

In a paper released today, we’ve developed criteria to help get this investment right. The idea is to stimulate the economy in a way that creates lasting economic value, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and brings broader social benefits.

An Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) outlook report released this week predicts an economic slump this year in Australia and globally.

Governments will be called on to invest. In this article, we investigate how stimulus spending on infrastructure can simultaneously achieve environmental, economic and social goals.

Best practice

Europe has already embraced a “green stimulus”. For example, Germany plans to spend almost one-third of its €130 billion stimulus package on renewable power, public transport, building renovations and developing the hydrogen and electric car industries.

In response to the pandemic, New South Wales and Victoria produced criteria for priority stimulus projects which include environmental considerations.

Whether the federal government will follow suit is unclear.

Read more: HomeBuilder misses a chance to make our homes perform better for us and the planet

Most federal stimulus spending has been on short-term JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments, plus the HomeBuilder scheme that will largely benefit the construction industry and those who can afford home improvements.

So how should governments decide what to prioritise in a COVID-19 stimulus package?

Our criteria

We developed a set of criteria to guide stimulus spending. We did this by comparing ten proposals and studies, including current proposals by international organisations and think tanks, and research papers on fiscal stimulus spending after the 2008 global financial crisis. Synthesising this work, we identified nine criteria and assessment factors, shown below.

Before the pandemic hit, Infrastructure Australia and other organisations had already identified projects and programs that were strong candidates for further funding.

We applied our criteria to a range of program/project categories to compare how well they perform in terms of achieving economic, social and environmental goals. We did not assess particular programs and projects.

The four most promising categories for public investment are shown in this table, and further analysed below.

1. Renewable energy and transmission

The electricity system of the future will be based on wind and solar power – now the cheapest way of producing energy from new installations. Australia’s renewables investment boom may be tailing off, and governments could step in.

The Australian Energy Market Operator, in its 2018 Integrated System Plan, assessed 34 candidate sites for Renewable Energy Zones – which are places with great wind and solar potential, suitable land and access to the grid.

Read more: Really Australia, it’s not that hard: 10 reasons why renewable energy is the future

The NSW government has committed to three such zones. These could be fast-tracked, and other states could do the same.

Investment in power transmission lines is needed to better connect these zones to the grid. It’s clear where they should go. Governments could shortcut the normally lengthy approval, planning and commercial processes to get these projects started while the economy is weak.

2. Energy efficiency in buildings

There’s a strong economic, social and environmental case for investment in retrofitting public buildings to improve their energy efficiency. Schools, hospitals and social housing are good candidates.

Building improvement programs are quick to start up, opportunities exist everywhere and they provide local jobs and business support. And better energy efficiency means lower energy bills, as well as reduced carbon emissions.

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

One existing program is showing the way. Under the Queensland government’s Advancing Clean Energy Schools program, which involves solar installation and energy-saving measures, 80 state schools have been brought forward to the project’s first phase as part of COVID-19 stimulus.

A focus on public buildings will bring long-lasting benefits to the community, including low-income households. This would bring far greater public benefit than programs such as HomeBuilder.

3. Environmental improvements

Stimulus initiatives also provide an opportunity to boost our response to last summer’s bushfires. While the federal government has announced A$150 million of funding for recovery projects and conservation, more could be done.

The ACT has shown how. As part of COVID-19 stimulus, 26 people who’d recently lost their jobs were employed to help nature reserves recover after the fires. Such programs could be greatly scaled up.

In New Zealand, the government is spending NZ$1.1 billion on creating 11,000 “nature jobs” across a range of regional environmental projects.

4. Transport projects

Several transport projects on the Infrastructure Australia priority list are well developed, and some could be fast-tracked.

Smaller, local projects such as building or refurbishing footpaths and cycle paths, and improving existing transport infrastructure, can be easily achieved. The NSW government is already encouraging councils to undertake such projects.

Sound analysis and transparency is needed

Our analysis is illustrative only. A full analysis needs to consider the specifics of each project or program. It must also consider the goals and needs in particular regions or sectors – including speed of implementation, ensuring employment opportunities are spread equally, and social and environmental priorities.

This is the job of governments and agencies. It should be done diligently and transparently. Australian governments should lay out which objectives their stimulus investments are pursuing, the expected benefits, and why one investment option is chosen over another.

This should improve public confidence, and taxpayers’ acceptance of stimulus measures. This is good practice for governments to follow at any time. It’s even more important when they’re spending billions at the drop of a hat.

– ref. Putting stimulus spending to the test: 4 ways a smart government can create jobs and cut emissions – https://theconversation.com/putting-stimulus-spending-to-the-test-4-ways-a-smart-government-can-create-jobs-and-cut-emissions-140339

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eva Plaganyi, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO

Prawns are a staple of many Australian barbecues, and we’re fortunate to have wild-caught prawns from sustainably-managed fisheries that boast best management practice.

You’ve probably heard of the tiger and white banana prawns caught in the Gulf of Carpentaria. But west of Darwin, there’s a fishery in the remote Joseph Bonaparte Gulf that focuses on a different species of prawn with red legs: redleg banana prawns.

But the combination of their complex life-cycle, extreme tides in their breeding grounds and the projected increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events creates challenges for the little crustaceans and their management.

Our new research found an El Niño event was associated with the lowest ever catch in redlegs, and outlines what fisheries across Australia can learn from this experience.

Changes in major weather patterns can have profound ecological, social and economic consequences for food production systems. It’s vital we develop adaptation solutions.

Changing tides

The El Niño causes warming of ocean temperatures and reduced ocean upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific – in areas such as off the coast of California and Peru. These oceanographic events stretch across the ocean. Temperature and pressure differences in the water and atmosphere cause the sea level to rise in the east and fall in the western Pacific.

The lowest part of the sea across the Pacific Ocean equatorial band wraps around the top end of Indonesia. This leads to changes in currents and tides in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf and top end of Australia, where prawn fisheries are located.

El Niños are a natural event, but researchers have predicted they’ll occur more frequently and severely as a result of climate change. What’s more, changing weather patterns may also make these events harder to predict.

Read more: El Niño has rapidly become stronger and stranger, according to coral records

Australian farmers and fishers are all too familiar with the changes in rainfall that accompany alternating El Niño or La Niña cycles. But impacts on the marine environment of northern Australia are only recently becoming better understood.

Less known is how El Niño-driven sea level changes – which can cause changes in tides and currents – affect fisheries. This is where our research comes in.

Breakdown of the redleg highway

Like many prawns, redlegs have a complex life-cycle because they depend on both marine and coastal river (estuary) habitats. They use tides, currents and river flows as their mode of travel.

The large gulf they call home has some of the strongest tides in the country, and the prawns rely on these tidal highways to fast-track their movements.

Redlegs use these water highways to move back and forth from the nursery on the coast to the deep gulf waters. Juveniles move offshore to become adults, and then larvae return to continue the life cycle.

But the strong El Niño event in 2015-16 likely caused these tidal highways to break down, and fishers reported the lowest-ever catches of redleg banana prawns.

In such remote country, it’s no simple feat to rush north with scientific measuring equipment to test links between the fishery and tides. So we relied on observations from space using satellite measurements of changes in sea surface height (altimetry).

The images we saw for this period were astounding. The average sea level had temporarily dropped by up to 18 centimetres, compared with usual levels.

Read more: The rise and rise of the 2015 El Niño

On top of this, regional rainfall had been below average, leading to a drop in freshwater river flows that would usually play a role in connecting estuarine and marine habitats.

Climate-proofing fisheries

So how can fisheries respond? Understanding environmental drivers is important to help plan ahead and safeguard a resource, whether prawns or other fish.

Getting a heads-up on an impending bad year is helpful for the redleg fishery. Fishers must travel long distances from Darwin, with fishing restricted to moderate neap tides – when the difference between low and high tide are not as extreme.

Fisheries can prepare for more extreme environmental drivers by modifying the rules for when and how much to fish, so they’re aligned with environmental signals. For example, in low abundance years, it may be necessary to reduce catch or fishing season to ensure prawns aren’t overfished.

It’s also a good idea for fishers to be flexible, and able to switch between species they catch. In this case, tiger prawns were booming in the Gulf of Carpentaria at the same time redleg banana prawns were scarce.

Read more: As the coronavirus interrupts global supply chains, people have an alternative – make it at home

Extreme events can negatively impact supply chains – the routes and markets fishers rely on to get their product to consumers. Planning ahead can help maintain these flows. We need only look to COVID-19 to see how economic consequences can blow out from disruptions to supply chains.

We can maintain Australia’s proud history of sustainable management. But to continue to thrive, research must translate into changes in practice at fisheries.

– ref. An El Niño hit this banana prawn fishery hard. Here’s what we can learn from their experience – https://theconversation.com/an-el-nino-hit-this-banana-prawn-fishery-hard-heres-what-we-can-learn-from-their-experience-139852

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angela Lehmann, Honorary Lecturer, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

A recent statement from China’s education bureau warned Chinese students about studying in Australia due to “racist incidents” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Such statements, and further moves from China’s education agents threatening to redirect students towards international competitors such as the United Kingdom, can negatively affect Australia as a study destination. Australia’s universities are already reeling from the loss of international students due to COVID-19.

There have been reports some international students from China have defended Australia as a study destination. I have been conducting in-depth interviews with ten international students in Australia about their experiences and concerns throughout COVID-19.

They too have, mostly, positive things to say.

Here are three things they believe Australia should know as we plan our recovery.

1. Australians must be more welcoming

Negative experiences of international students are more dangerous to long-term recovery than border closures and flight restrictions. At a time of increased unemployment and pessimistic economic forecasts, we risk anti-foreigner sentiment growing.

Students I spoke with reported this was already happening. One student from Peru said he had “had quite racist comments like ‘go back to your country’”. Another, from India, spoke at length about part-time jobs now being “offered only to Australian citizens. I was told not to even bring in a CV”.

Read more: COVID-19 increases risk to international students’ mental health. Australia urgently needs to step up

On April 4, the prime minister called for temporary visa holders to “go home” if they couldn’t support themselves.

Each student I spoke with said this was the point in time when they went from feeling a part of their community, to feeling unwelcome.

One Indian student told me:

I have seen a rise in anti-Chinese sentiment and anti-Asian sentiment. I have seen my Japanese flatmate have abuse yelled at her on the street. Calling her a “filthy Asian” and things like this.

Another student spoke about Labor Senator Kristina Kenneally’s call to “reset” Australia’s temporary migration intake and give Australians a “fair go”.

She said:

Definitely, there is a growing anti-immigrant sentiment here. The talk from people in the Australian government that we should be “getting our jobs back for Australians” is constructed in a way to inherently disadvantage people like me, or immigrants. Because it is government policy it will infiltrate across the country and it’s hard to tackle that on an individual level.

Each student suggested Australia’s reputation as a welcoming, safe and diverse place was what was going to shape how parents and prospective students made decisions about where to study after the crisis.

2. International students are integrated in Australian society

The students I spoke with are looking to integrate in local communities as a central part of their overseas experience. They felt they contributed to various parts of Australian society – as tourists and volunteers.

And many played an active role in promoting Australia and their city internationally.

Daniel, from Peru, is based at a regional Queensland university. He volunteers with a local men’s mental health organisation. He’s taken over the weekly Spanish language program on the local radio station and, until the shutdown, worked part time at a bar and volunteered with a research program measuring local water quality.

He said:

Something I have learned here is about a sense of community, about being kind to others. I love Australia and the people I have met so far. Once all this is over, I will go back to my home country and teach them about what I have learned here.

3. The government needs to signal its support through clear policy

International students want clear policy responses and acknowledgement of the valuable role they play in Australia.

Australia’s flattened curve undoubtably works in our favour, giving us an advantage over the United States and the UK.

However, the government’s support and welfare may shape how parents and prospective students make future decisions.

Clear policy responses matter now. They offer a signal to students – current and future – that Australia recognises the importance of international students, and they are a welcome and supported part of our communities.

An example is Australia’s reluctance to guarantee international students will not be penalised from being eligible for a Temporary Graduate Visa if studying online. This visa allows graduates of Australian universities to stay on and work, and is essential to attracting students. Currently students are restricted around the amount of offshore study they can do to be eligible.

Read more: 90,000 foreign graduates are stuck in Australia without financial support: it’s a humanitarian and economic crisis in the making

Canada made such an adjustment early on, announcing international students could complete 50% of their study online without it impacting their eligibility to eventually apply for a post-study work permit.

One Indian student told me:

I don’t think Indian students will be deterred from their goal to study abroad and to better their lives. But a lot of where they decide to do this depends on how the government reacts and responds. A lot of students are probably going to start looking at Europe and Canada as a better destination because of the policies they have. Canada has been doing a really great job at protecting its international student community.

International students value human connection and their expectations and contributions extend beyond the lecture hall. They are looking for responses and a recovery strategy that acknowledges this.

– ref. ‘I love Australia’: 3 things international students want Australians to know – https://theconversation.com/i-love-australia-3-things-international-students-want-australians-to-know-139857

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Bell, Senior Lecturer and Co-Director of Studies for Construction Law, University of Melbourne

Three years have passed since a cladding-fuelled fire claimed 72 lives in Grenfell Tower, London, on June 14 2017. The construction industry and its regulators around the world are still grappling with how to create effective regulations to ensure dwellings are built to keep their occupants safe.

The New South Wales Parliament passed two important bills last week: the Design and Building Practitioners Bill 2020 and the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Bill 2020. This put in place two important pieces of the “jigsaw puzzle”, as NSW Better Regulation Minister Kevin Anderson put it.

Read more: NSW building certification bill still lets developers off the hook

The Residential Apartment Buildings Bill in particular could be a game changer and is the focus of this article. The law is expected to take effect on September 1 2020.

New powers to order serious defects be fixed

The centrepiece of the legislation is an ability for the Secretary of the Department of Customer Service to order the correction of “serious defects” in residential apartment buildings. In practice, the NSW building commissioner and his staff will apply these orders, according to the bill’s second reading speech. Developers can be ordered to rectify building work “if the secretary has a reasonable belief that building work was or is being carried out in a manner that could result in a serious defect”.

The “was” is significant here. These powers of intervention can be used up to ten years after an occupation certificate is issued.

And, to make sure defects are fixed before residents take possession of their apartment, the secretary can issue a “prohibition order” to delay an occupation certificate.

The definition of “serious defect” includes:

• failure to comply with performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia

• defects likely to deny habitability or use of the building for its intended purpose

• use of banned building products.

Read more: Cladding fires expose gaps in building material safety checks. Here’s a solution

Other states and territories have in place various provisions to order rectification. However, none of these are as extensive as the new regime in NSW.

In particular, the express power to order rectification after apartments are completed addresses the issue that frustrated the Victorian Building Authority’s 2017 attempt to have the builder rectify non-compliant cladding at the Lacrosse Building in Melbourne. So, the rectification powers are likely, along with the statutory duty of care in the Design and Building Practitioners Bill – also a NSW innovation – to attract interest across the country.

How much will the industry push back?

These measures to rectify defects go to the heart of the commercial drivers that underpin our largely privately delivered apartment stock in Australia. Without an occupation certificate, developers can’t settle the sale of the apartments (usually off-plan). Likewise, their building contractors will typically remain “on the hook” for a raft of obligations under their contracts.

By making defects correction a precondition for issuing the occupation certificate, the new law embraces the “prevention is better than cure” mantra that underpins reforms in Australia and beyond.

Read more: Housing with buyer protection and no serious faults – is that too much to ask of builders and regulators?

To what extent will the industry support this shift? Time will tell.

What can be said is that the reforms add a high level of intervention in the commercial drivers of apartment construction when the industry is already operating under the shadow of COVID-19 and its gathering recession. So it is something of a “wildcard” in an already fraught commercial landscape.

This means developers who do not have adequate measures in place to pass the costs of rectification and delayed occupation down the contractual chain are likely to resort to the extensive appeal measures in the legislation. Likewise, when contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers do “carry the can” for such liability, they will look hard at the relief provisions in their contracts.

The disputes and delays that inevitably result can leave apartment owners and renters in limbo, despite the intent of the legislation to protect them.

Read more: It’s not just the building cracks or cladding – sometimes uncertainty does even more harm

Regulators need adequate resources

Another crucial “time will tell” aspect is whether the regulator will have enough resources to inspect buildings – and issue prohibition and rectification orders when needed – in a timely manner across the industry.

The legislation largely leaves it to the Department of Customer Service to appoint “authorised officers”. The minister has indicated these officers will be the building commissioner and his staff.

The commissioner was reported in February to be recruiting up to 60 construction professionals as “auditors” for a scheme that looks similar to what is now enshrined in legislation. They will need to move rapidly to have it ready for the extensive interventions that the legislation anticipates.

Read more: Lack of information on apartment defects leaves whole market on shaky footings

A game changer?

Ever since the Grenfell tragedy, politicians around the world have at least paid lip service to the aspiration that “occupants of buildings deserve to feel safe and secure within their walls”. In saying this to the NSW parliament last week, Anderson was able credibly to put forward the Residential Apartment Buildings Bill as a vital piece in the regulatory “puzzle” to achieve that goal.

The issues discussed here are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg as the industry absorbs the implications of the new law (and its forthcoming detail by way of regulations). But recent activity by NSW lawmakers suggests there is at last strong impetus to achieve meaningful and comprehensive reform.

– ref. New NSW building law could be a game changer for apartment safety – https://theconversation.com/new-nsw-building-law-could-be-a-game-changer-for-apartment-safety-140432

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

There is no shortage of repugnant and dangerous ideas in the world. An age old question is whether free speech will see good ideas win out over bad.

The proposition that good ideas eventually triumph in “the marketplace for ideas” dates at least to 1644, when John Milton wrote in his anti-censorship tract Areopagitica:

Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?

But it was perhaps first explicitly stated by United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919, in his dissent to a 7–2 ruling in the Abrams v United States case involving the first amendment right to freedom of speech.

Holmes wrote:

the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

Old though this question may be, it is one that confronts us time and again. Is it more dangerous to stifle expression of a seemingly dangerous idea, or to let it be freely expressed?

It is central to the controversy over the New York Times publishing on June 3 an idea many found repugnant.

That idea was “an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers” as a response to widespread Black Lives Matter demonstrations and isolated outbreaks of violence and looting. It was advocated in an op-ed piece by a US senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton.

Read more: In publishing Tom Cotton, the New York Times has made a terrible error of judgment

Editorial page editor James Bennet resigned as part of the paper’s mea culpa. A champion of the “marketplace of ideas” might argue the New York Times did the right thing, or at least nothing wrong.

So what would an economist, whose job is to understand market behaviour, say?

Economists and markets

Now economists generally like markets.

The most celebrated result in all of economics – the “First Welfare Theorem” formalised by Nobel laureates Kenneth Arrow and Gerard Debreu – states that with the right conditions competitive markets will allocate resources with maximum efficiency.

Yet economists – especially and including Arrow and Debreu – are all too aware that markets don’t always function well in reality. Information is often “asymmetric”, such as a seller knowing more about a product’s quality than the buyer. There are “externalities”, costs incurred by third parties, such as environmental harms not factored into market prices. Plenty of markets are not sufficiently competitive.

The failure of markets for insurance, used cars and many other things has been well-documented.

Why, then, why should we have faith in the marketplace for ideas?

Ideas are not products

Over the past two decades economists have been developing formal models that can speak to competition in ideas.

The stepping-off point is to note the nature of competition in an ideas market is fundamentally different from competition in a product market.

With products, sellers compete for customers by setting the price for their products. As the economists Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro put it:

Two firms compete [in the product market] if their products are substitutes from the perspective of consumers. A change in the price of one affects the purchasing behaviour of the other’s customers. This kind of competition is important because it limits firms’ ability to raise price above marginal cost.

Ideas differ in the following way:

Two firms compete in [an information market] if 1) they cover the same events and 2) at least some consumers will learn the facts reported by both. A change in the set of facts one reports affects the information of the other’s customers. This kind of competition limits firms’ ability to control consumers’ beliefs.

A form of prisoner’s dilemma

The cleanest formal model of competition between parties trying to control people’s beliefs comes from a 2017 paper by Matthew Gentzkow and Emir Kamenica (a former classmate and University of Chicago colleague of mine).

The “marketplace for ideas” notion holds that when there are more senders of information, more information will be communicated to consumers.

Gentzkow and Kamenica showed this is not necessarily so. It all depends on the nature of the strategic interaction between the senders of information.

Senders might be caught in a kind of Prisoner’s Dilemma, the game theory concept made famous by the movie A Beautiful Mind. It would be socially productive for more information to be revealed, but the private incentives of the senders lead to less revelation.

Read more: The legacy of John Nash and his equilibrium theory

For example, consider two pharmaceuticals makers with drugs only they know the effectiveness of. One half of their market is customers who will only buy pharmaceuticals they believe likely to work well. The other half wants their drugs to work too, but they’ll also buy if it might only partially work.

In this case each maker has an incentive to withhold information about the efficacy of their product, even though they and the consumers would be better off if they and the rival revealed more information. It’s just like the consequences of unilateral action as shown in A Beautiful Mind.

If strategic interaction in the marketplace for ideas takes this form then competition does not lead to good arguments winning out.

Gentzkow and Kamenica show the crucial condition for competition to lead to more information being revealed is this: each sender must be able to unilaterally deviate to some outcome more informative for consumers. In the drug example, this would be each maker disclosing the efficacy of their own drug and that of their competitor.

Whether this happens in practice depends on important details about the nature of the ideas being discussed, what types of information are permissible by law, and of course whether those receiving information are rational.

In short, the answer to whether the marketplace for ideas leads good ideas to win out is: it depends.

Open discussion is not enough

Just because the marketplace for ideas doesn’t always work doesn’t mean it never works. There are deeply important non-economic reasons to value freedom of speech that extend beyond how much information gets revealed.

But modern economics teaches us that competition in the marketplace for ideas is different than competition in the market for ordinary goods and services. We should not always conclude that odious ideas will be consigned to the dustbin of history simply through open discussion.

– ref. Vital Signs: why ‘the marketplace for ideas’ can fail – from an economist’s perspective – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-why-the-marketplace-for-ideas-can-fail-from-an-economists-perspective-140429

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Carlson, Professor, Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University

As the Black Lives Matter protests raged across the world, I was sent a post on Facebook that read,

Donald J Trump now lives at 1600 Black Lives Matter Plaza, NW, Washington, DC 20500.

The post referred to the mural painted in front of Lafayette Square. In bright yellow paint, the words “Black Lives Matter” stretched from sidewalk to sidewalk over two city blocks. The work was commissioned by DC’s mayor Muriel Bowser, who also renamed the area Black Lives Matter Plaza.

The artwork is a powerful symbol, made even more so because of its visibility and prominence in a public space – and local government endorsement. It will serve to remind everyone of this moment in history, including the violence perpetrated against protesters by police to clear the streets for a presidential photo opportunity in front of a church.

Contemporary art can be transformative, especially when located in public spaces. Historical monuments have the same kind of power. They are a physical reminder created to commemorate a person or event who is deemed worth remembering.

Now is the time to ask which monuments can withstand introspection and revision. Artists are opening those conversations – creatively and sometimes hilariously.

Tearing down history

Around the world, we have seen colonial monuments attracting the rage of protestors who don’t want to see the continual memorialising of men known for their violent and oppressive actions.

In Bristol in the UK, the statue of Edward Colston, a 17th century slave trader, was torn down, dragged through the streets, and thrown into the harbour. Colston was a member of the Royal African Company and responsible for enslaving approximately 80,000 men, women and children and forcibly removing them from Africa to the Americas. His statue is a tangible reminder their lives were considered insignificant.

In the US, statues of Christopher Columbus have been beheaded. Columbus, once celebrated for “discovering” the US, has in recent times been reviled for his brutality toward Native American people, with many states and cities replacing the annual Columbus Day with Indigenous People’s Day.

In the US, most of the targeted statues have been of Confederate memorials in cities across the south. The statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee will be removed from its prominent position in the centre of the town of Richmond, Virginia, with Governor Ralph Northam pledging the state will no longer preach a “false version of history”.

Australians are also questioning whether colonial monuments – standing prominently in towns and cities – should remain. The same question is being asked of past film and television productions. This week, Netflix removed four Chris Lilley programs from its library, some of which originally aired on the ABC, in which the comedian used “brown face” makeup and racial stereotypes to depict characters of colour.

Read more: Ten Twitter accounts you should be following if you want to listen to Indigenous Australians and learn

Yesterday, Today show journalist and Gamilaroi/Gomeroi woman Brooke Boney broke down the tension behind the issue to her Channel 9 audience:

Does going through the archives and tearing down art that’s been made in the past really help us move forward? If I have children, I don’t want them to see and think that is how they fit into the world. But I’d also like to be able to show them how poorly our people were thought of and treated in the past.

Can we contemplate a horizon whereby narratives of nation are represented by less harmful and more truthful physical constructions? Their presence is not neutral. They masquerade as benign signifiers of nation building when, in fact, they are inscribed with a violent history that reminds Indigenous people of their dispossession and enduring trauma.

Swinging through

Enter Tony Albert, a politically-minded artist provoked by stereotypical representations of Aboriginal people, and hailed as one of our most exciting contemporary Australian artists. His previous works have used drawing, painting, photography and installation. He’s also incorporated a collection of “Aboriginalia” – retro and household kitsch objects depicting Aboriginal people and their culture.

His new artwork, titled You Wreck Me, is a video that invokes the mythology of the trickster, here to relay important moral and life lessons. The work brings to the fore the ongoing discussions about memorialisation and nationalism through the lens of parody.

In the video, Tony Albert is painted up for ceremony while straddling an exercise ball in a comedic representation of Miley Cyrus’s infamous video clip, Wrecking Ball. Singing (badly) and swinging, he shatters statues of Captain James Cook.

Artists like Albert are asserting their existence in contemporary Australia in myriad ways, including using humour to challenge the continual idolisation of the legacies of colonialism littering our public spaces.

Albert’s work comes at a time as many Indigenous and non-Indigenous people across Australia are calling for the removal of colonial monuments. There is a growing movement towards a more equitable and fair society.

Gamilaroi/Darug multimedia artist Travis De Vries presciently captured this in his 2019 digital print Cook Falling, Tear it Down. It showed a scene in Hyde Park, Sydney, with a group of Aboriginal people using a rope to pull down a statue of Captain Cook by the neck.

Truth telling has been the focus of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relationships for some time as noted by the 2019 NAIDOC theme: VOICE. TREATY. TRUTH.

The colonial monuments speak to the erasure of our histories as noted by Stan Grant in 2017 when he said:

the monument of Captain Cook speaks to the emptiness, it speaks to our invisibility; it says that nothing truly mattered, nothing truly counted until a white sailor first walked on these shores.

Read more: Monumental errors: how Australia can fix its racist colonial statues

Deeper than monuments

I personally do not care if the colonial monuments are torn down. What I do know is that while this would be symbolically important, their removal will not remove the attitudes and institutional racism behind their creation.

The reason these debates are raging and the reactions from many non-Indigenous people are so vehement, is because their legacies still endure. Removing the statues will not automatically end the legacy.

I am also aware their removal would allow another kind of amnesia where the trauma and violence experienced by Aboriginal people could be “forgotten”. Other options are being debated – removing monuments and housing them in museums, creating parks where they can stand and be used for educational purposes.

Some have pointed to artworks like the huge yellow slogan in Washington DC and demanded more from leaders. “It’s not enough to have a pretty painting in the middle of the street; we need politics,” Mckayla Wilkes, an activist for criminal justice reform, told The New Yorker.

Just ignoring the issue is not an option, because it also ignores who has the right to determine which histories are able to be displayed in public spaces and continues to privilege one version of history while erasing the presence of Aboriginal people.

– ref. Friday essay: taking a wrecking ball to monuments – contemporary art can ask what really needs tearing down – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-taking-a-wrecking-ball-to-monuments-contemporary-art-can-ask-what-really-needs-tearing-down-140437

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

Paradoxically, but perhaps inevitably, as things are getting better in the wake of the COVID crisis tempers – including, it would seem, that of Scott Morrison – are becoming more frayed.

The Black Lives Matter demonstrations of last weekend marked a new stage in this strange and unpredictable journey coronavirus has taken us on.

The fallout from the murder of an unarmed black man, George Floyd, in the United States dramatically changed the COVID conversation in this country.

The protests exposed limits to the ability of leaders and health experts to persuade people to modify their behaviour.

They unleashed a backlash on the grounds of double standards, with critics contrasting how police had chased minor infringements. Those who’d always claimed the restrictions were too strict became louder in their demands they be lifted more quickly and comprehensively.

The tone of Morrison changed and sharpened, as the government struggles with its exit strategy.

Morrison says if protesters are on the streets in coming days, they should be charged. But the picture is confusing and potentially volatile.

In the Northern Territory, the demonstrators have an official OK. In NSW the police have been actively resisting more protests and are threatening fines and arrests. On Thursday night they succeeded in having the NSW Supreme Court ban a proposed rally organised by refugee advocates.

Read more: Australia needs to confront its history of white privilege to provide a level playing field for all

On another front, Morrison’s frustration with those premiers who are keeping their borders shut has ramped up.

Having managed the crisis very effectively so far, and received extensive praise for his efforts (this week’s Essential poll had 70% rating the federal government’s response as good), Morrison can see the danger of things going awry, either through fresh outbreaks of the virus or the reopening not proceeding fast enough.

On Thursday he was suggesting, for example, the protesters were slowing an increase in the numbers allowed at funerals (a highly emotive issue). Asked on 2GB about the NSW situation on funerals he said “the rally last weekend is the only legitimate real block to this at the moment, because we actually don’t know right now whether those rallies on the weekend may have caused outbreaks”.

But the government is sending conflicting messages, on one hand indicating the protests could hold back action while on the other hand saying action must go ahead.

Thus Morrison is insisting premiers nominate a date in July when their borders would be open (a date is important so tourist arrangements can be made).

Although there are multiple states with closed borders, Queensland is primarily in the sights of the federal government and other critics. Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, facing an election in October, knows she has to choose the right moment to scrap the border restriction, before her hard line loses favour with her electors. She is now saying July (previously there was talk of later) and declaring she’s on the same page as the PM.

One man who attended the Melbourne rally has tested positive for COVID-19. But it will be more than another week before it becomes clear whether last weekend’s protests have triggered a health problem. And that timeline will be dragged out by protests to come. On the flip side, if there aren’t more cases, this will be a green light to accelerate progress – an unsanctioned large scale trial.

The protests have put new pressures on the opposition.

Knowing there’d be strong support for them among some in Labor’s ranks and base, Anthony Albanese stepped carefully on boggy ground, advising people to listen to the health advice.

Four federal Labor parliamentarians – Graham Perrett and Anika Wells from Queensland, and Warren Snowdon and Malarndirri McCarthy from the Northern Territory – attended rallies. There was a bit of a flurry when they got to parliament so they went for COVID tests (which didn’t mean much given the incubation period).

Despite parliament sitting this week, the opposition is still having a hard time achieving any positive cut-through. It struggles for traction with its attacks on inadequacies it identifies in government’s programs and decisions relating to COVID.

The political climate might change as the months go on; depending on the result, the July 4 Eden-Monaro byelection could affect the atmospherics of the wider debate. But at the moment people still seem turned off by political conflict, or by politics generally.

This week brought updated numbers, from the OECD, on Australia’s way out of the virus crisis. The OECD produced two scenarios, for a “single hit” and a “double hit” of the virus.

It estimated Australia’s GDP would fall 5% in 2020 in the single-hit scenario, which is hopefully the one we remain in.

But the report said: “Should widespread contagion resume, with a return of lockdowns, confidence would suffer and cash-flow would be strained. In that double-hit scenario, GDP could fall by 6.3% in 2020”.

The single hit would see recovery at 4.1% growth in 2021, but if there were a double hit the growth would be only an estimated 1%.

The OECD also says further policy measures would help the recovery, and notes there is plenty of fiscal room to provide them.

It’s interesting to compare New Zealand, which had a goal of “eliminating” COVID and a draconian lockdown.

The OECD predicts New Zealand GDP will shrink by 8.9% in 2020 under the single-hit scenario – but grow by 6.6% in 2021. If there were a double hit, this year’s GDP fall would be 10% and next year’s growth would be an estimated 3.6%.

New Zealand this week announced it was now COVID-free (while accepting, realistically, there’ll almost certainly be some future cases). Restrictions are now fully lifted, apart from the still-closed border.

The Morrison government from the start rejected “elimination” in favour of containment (although in some areas elimination has effectively been the result of successful containment).

Read more: Voices, hearts and hands – how the powerful sounds of protest have changed over time

So with the shutdown more limited in Australia than in New Zealand but the reopening more gradual, on the OECD figures the economy’s dive is forecast to be shallower here but the bounce back weaker than across the Tasman.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she “did a little dance” when her country became COVID-free.

Morrison isn’t dancing just yet. While compared with many countries Australia’s record has been enviable, the way forward carries a new, and unexpected, element of uncertainty, together with those we knew about already.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Protests add new element of uncertainty to COVID exit – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-protests-add-new-element-of-uncertainty-to-covid-exit-140559

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abbas Mohajerani, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, RMIT University

Every year, treated wastewater sludge called “biosolids” is recycled and spread over agricultural land. My recent research discovered this practice dumps thousands of tonnes of microplastics into farmlands around the world. In Australia, we estimate this amount as at least 1,241 tonnes per year.

Microplastics in soils can threaten land, freshwater and marine ecosystems by changing what they eat and their habitats. This causes some organisms to lose weight and have higher death rates.

But this is only the beginning of the problem. Microplastics are good at absorbing other pollutants – such as cadmium, lead and nickel – and can transfer these heavy metals to soils.

And while microplastics alone is an enormous issue, other contaminants have also been found in biosolids used for agriculture. This includes pharmaceutical chemicals, personal care products, pesticides and herbicides, surfactants (chemicals used in detergents) and flame retardants.

We must stop using biosolids for farmlands immediately, especially when alternative ways to recycle wastewater sludge already exist.

Where do the microplastics come from?

Biosolids are mainly a mix of water and organic materials.

But many household items that contain microplastics – such as lotions, soaps, facial and body washes, and toothpaste – end up in wastewater, too. Other major sources of microplastics in wastewater are synthetic fibres from clothing, plastics in the manufacturing and processing industries, and the breakdown of larger plastic debris.

Before they’re taken to farmlands, wastewater collection systems carry all, or most, of these microplastics and other chemicals from residential, commercial and industrial sources to wastewater treatment plants.

To determine the weight of microplastics in Australia and other countries, my data analysis used the average minimum and maximum numbers of microplastics particles, per kilogram of biosolids samples, found in Germany, Ireland and the USA.

Read more: We have no idea how much microplastic is in Australia’s soil (but it could be a lot)

Australia produced 371,000 tonnes of biosolids in 2019. And globally, we estimate between 50 to more than 100 million tonnes of biosolids are produced each year.

Why microplastics are harmful

Microplastics in soil can accumulate in the food web. This happens when organisms consume more microplastics than they lose. This means heavy metals attached to the microplastics in soil organisms can progress further up the food chain, increasing the risk of human exposure to toxic heavy metals.

When microplastics accumulate heavy metals, they transfer these contaminants to plants and crops, such as rice and grains, as biosolids are spread over farmland.

Read more: After a storm, microplastics in Sydney’s Cooks River increased 40 fold

Over time, microplastics break down and become even tinier, creating nanoplastics. Crops have also been shown to absorb nanoplastics and move them to different plant tissues.

Our research results also show that after the wastewater treatment process, the absorption potential of microplastics for metals increases.

The metal cadmium, for example, is particularly susceptible to microplastics in biosolids and can be transported to plant cells. Research from 2018 showed microplastics in biosolids can absorb cadmium ten times more than virgin microplastics (new microplastics that haven’t gone through wastewater treatment).

Biosolids have a cocktail of nasty chemicals

It’s not just plastic – many industrial additives and chemicals have been found in wastewater and biosolids.

This means they may accumulate in soils and affect the equilibrium of biological systems, with negative effects on plant growth. For example, researchers have found pharmaceutical chemicals in particular can reduce plant growth and inhibit root elongation.

Read more: Sustainable shopping: how to stop your bathers flooding the oceans with plastic

Other chemical contaminants – such as PFCs, PFAS and BPA – have likewise been detected in biosolids.

The effects these chemicals have on plants may lead to problems further down the food chain, such as humans and other animals inadvertently consuming pharmaceuticals and harmful chemicals.

What can we do about it?

Given the cocktail of toxic chemicals, heavy metals and microplastics, using biosolids in agricultural soils must be stopped without delay.

The good news is there’s another way we can recycle the world’s biosolids: turning them into sustainable fired-clay bricks, called “bio-bricks”.

My team’s research from last year found bio-bricks a sustainable solution for both the wastewater treatment and brick manufacturing industries.

If 7% of all fired-clay bricks were biosolids, it would redirect all biosolids produced and stockpiled worldwide annually, including the millions of tonnes that currently end up in farmland each year.

Read more: You’re eating microplastics in ways you don’t even realise

We also found they’d be more energy efficient. The properties of these bio-bricks are very similar to standard bricks, but generally requires 12.5% less energy to make.

And generally, comprehensive life-cycle assessment has shown biosolid bricks are more environmentally friendly than conventional bricks. These bricks will reduce or eliminate a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions from biosolids stockpiles and will save some virgin resources, such as clay soil and water, for the brick industry.

Now, it’s up to the agriculture, wastewater and brick industries, and governments to make this important transition.

– ref. More than 1,200 tonnes of microplastics are dumped into Aussie farmland every year from wastewater sludge – https://theconversation.com/more-than-1-200-tonnes-of-microplastics-are-dumped-into-aussie-farmland-every-year-from-wastewater-sludge-137278

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thalia Anthony, Professor of Law, University of Technology Sydney

Prime Minister Scott Morrison asserted in a radio interview that “there was no slavery in Australia”.

This is a common misunderstanding which often obscures our nation’s history of exploitation of First Nations people and Pacific Islanders.

Morrison followed up with “I’ve always said we’ve got to be honest about our history”. Unfortunately, his statement is at odds with the historical record.

This history was widely and publicly documented, among other sources, in the 2006 Australian Senate report Unfinished Business: Indigenous Stolen Wages.

What is slavery?

Australia was not a “slave state” like the American South. However, slavery is a broader concept. As Article 1 of the United Nations Slavery Convention says:

Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.

These powers might include non-payment of wages, physical or sexual abuse, controls over freedom of movement, or selling a person like a piece of property. In the words of slavery historian Orlando Patterson, slavery is a form of “social death”.

Slavery has been illegal in the (former) British Empire since the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade of 1807, and certainly since 1833.

Slavery practices emerged in Australia in the 19th century and in some places endured until the 1950s.

Early coverage of slavery in Australia

As early as the 1860s, anti-slavery campaigners began to invoke “charges of chattel bondage and slavery” to describe north Australian conditions for Aboriginal labour.

In 1891 a “Slave Map of Modern Australia” was printed in the British Anti-Slavery Reporter, a journal that documented slavery around the world and campaigned against it.

Reprinted from English journalist Arthur Vogan’s account of frontier relations in Queensland, it showed large areas where:

…the traffic in Aboriginal labour, both children and adults, had descended into slavery conditions.

Seeds of slavery in Australia

Some 62,000 Melanesian people were brought to Australia and enslaved to work in Queensland’s sugar plantations between 1863 and 1904. First Nations Australians had a more enduring experience of slavery, especially in the cattle industry.

In the pastoral industry, employers exercised a high degree of control over “their” Aboriginal workers. Aboriginal workers were bought and sold as chattels, particularly where they “went with” the property upon sale. There were restrictions on their freedom of choice and movement. There was cruel treatment and abuse, control of sexuality, and forced labour.

A stock worker at Meda Station in the Kimberley, Jimmy Bird, recalled:

…whitefellas would pull their gun out and kill any Aborigines who stood up to them. And there was none of this taking your time to pull up your boots either. No fear!

Aboriginal woman Ruby de Satge, who worked on a Queensland station, described the Queensland Protection Act as meaning:

if you are sitting down minding your own business, a station manager can come up to you and say, “I want a couple of blackfellows” … Just like picking up a cat or a dog.

Through their roles under the legislation, police, Aboriginal protectors and pastoral managers were complicit in this force.

Slavery was sanctioned by Australian law

Legislation facilitated the enslavement of Aboriginal people across the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. Under the South Australian Aborigines Act 1911, the government empowered police to “inspect workers and their conditions” but not to uphold basic working conditions or enforce payment. The Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (Cth) allowed the forced recruitment of Indigenous workers in the Northern Territory, and legalised the non-payment of wages.

In Queensland, the licence system was effectively a blank cheque to recruit Aboriginal people into employment without their consent. Amendments to the Aboriginal Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 gave powers to the Protector or police officer to “expend” their wages or invest them in a trust fund – which was never paid out.

Officials were well aware that “slavery” was a public relations problem. The Chief Protector in the Northern Territory noted in 1927 that pastoral workers:

…are kept in a servitude that is nothing short of slavery.

In the early 1930s, Chief Protector Dr Cecil Cook pointed out Australia was in breach of its obligations under the League of Nations Slavery Convention.

‘… it certainly exists here in its worst form’

Accusations of slavery continued into the 1930s, including through the British Commonwealth League.

In 1932 the North Australian Workers’ Union (NAWU) characterised Aboriginal workers as “slaves without the advantage of slavery”. Unionist Owen Rowe argued:

If there is no slavery in the British Empire then the NT is not part of the British Empire; for it certainly exists here in its worst form.

In the 1940s, anthropologists Ronald and Catherine Berndt surveyed conditions on cattle stations owned by Lord Vestey, commenting that Aboriginal people:

…owned neither the huts in which they lived nor the land on which these were built, they had no rights of tenure, and in some cases have been sold or transferred with the property.

In 1958, counsel for the well-known Aboriginal artist Albert Namatjira argued that the Welfare Ordinance 1953 (Cth) was unconstitutional, because the enacting legislation was:

…a law for the enslavement of part of the population of the Northern Territory.

Profits from slaves

Australia has unfinished business in repaying wages to Aboriginal and South Sea Islander slaves. First Nations slave work allowed big businesses to reap substantial profits, and helped maintain the Australian economy through the Great Depression. Aboriginal people are proud of their work on stations even though the historical narrative is enshrined in silence and denial.

As Bundjalung woman Valerie Linow has said of her experiences of slavery in the 1950s:

What if your wages got stolen? Honestly, wouldn’t you like to have your wages back? Honestly. I think it should be owed to the ones who were slave labour. We got up and worked from dawn to dusk… We lost everything – family, everything. You cannot go stealing our lousy little sixpence. We have got to have money back. You have got to give something back after all this country did to the Aboriginal people. You cannot keep stealing off us.

– ref. Was there slavery in Australia? Yes. It shouldn’t even be up for debate – https://theconversation.com/was-there-slavery-in-australia-yes-it-shouldnt-even-be-up-for-debate-140544

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie P. Smith, Honorary Associate Professor, Australian National University

Working from home during COVID-19 appeared to cost us little.

Yet employers effectively requisitioned part of those homes.

While necessary, it was far from costless to us, and our generosity shouldn’t be taken for granted.

Bureau of Statistics figures show that during April and May about half the workforce worked from home.

Working at home has been far from costless

Preliminary results from a survey of more than 2,000 households suggest paid workers put in about as many paid hours per day as before (half to one hour less) but that unpaid work skyrocketed, by an extra five hours per day for women, and an extra two and a half hours for men.

Much of the increase was in childcare. Three in four Australians who live with children kept them home.

Read more: Working from home: what are your employer’s responsibilities, and what are yours?

Some of it was in extra cleaning and washing, costs that for the moment (along with, for some workplaces, rent) many employers no longer needed to bear.

Few of us working from home will bother to bill our employers for the extra heating, office furniture, office consumables, home phone and internet use, toilet paper and coffee we’ve had to fork out for.

The Tax Office has indicated it will disallow deductions for tea, coffee and toilet paper saying, “just because you have to provide those things for yourself doesn’t make them deductible”.

Akin to the requisitioning of assets permitted by the state in emergencies, employers have in effect requisitioned parts of our homes – rent free and without paying utility costs.

Read more: Forget work-life balance – it’s all about integration in the age of COVID-19

With more people using each home, and more meals cooked and eaten at home, time in the kitchen has soared. As supermarket shopping has become less appealing, consumer durables such as bread-makers and freezers have been brought in. Backyard vegetable gardens and chicken runs have popped up.

Most of the extra work has fallen to women. Surveys often understate it by asking only about the “primary” activity in each quarter hour block rather than secondary activities (which often include childcare) undertaken at the same time. Multitasking intensifies work.

How do we make it count?

In an explosive book released more than 30 years ago entitled Counting for Nothing, New Zealand politician and economist Marilyn Waring described the dominant method of accounting for work as “applied patriarchy”.

The tool is gross domestic product (GDP), a measure that mostly only takes account of work that is paid.

The point was that unpaid household work and care counted for nothing.

Since then, time use surveys have found that non-market household production is very large – in Australia, equivalent to an extra half of GDP.

This matters, because its exclusion allows GDP to give us a distorted idea of progress.

In each normal year the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts growth in developed nations of between 2% and 4%.

That’s growth in gross domestic product. OECD calculations released in 2018 suggest that as much as a third of that growth – 0.84 to 1.79 percentage points – is an artefact, created by the shift from what had been unpaid household work and childcare into to paid household work and childcare.

That is, the official figures have presented a mirage. Parents have replaced unpaid childcare – which is not counted in GDP – with paid childcare, which is counted.

Read more: The National Breastfeeding Strategy is a start, but if we really valued breast milk we’d put it in the GDP

The switch has been recorded as “growth”, but it hasn’t been growth in work done or services provided. It is better described as accounting rather than economic growth.

If the accounting was done properly – if countries such Australia properly counted the value of unpaid household and services – it would show much lower growth and more frequent recessions.

And if our environment and resources (another omission except when they are exploited) had been properly accounted for, GDP growth would be lower again.

The household services artefact has been reversed during the COVID-19 lockdown. Many of us have been doing as much or more than we did, but less of it has been counted.

As it happens, the value of services provided by the home itself are included in GDP, through rent for renters and “imputed rent” for home owners. Home-grown produce is included as well, but unpaid human-provided services are not.

It’s as if it didn’t happen

The weak March quarter GDP result strengthened calls for extra spending on infrastructure – things such as mines, pipelines and fast trains to airports.

Days later the prime minister announced that childcare would no longer be free and JobKeeper for childcare workers would be replaced by a less generous subsidy.

It’s not what might have been expected after a historic opportunity to rethink productivity and wellbeing. Putting money into the care sector creates twice as many jobs per dollar as putting it into construction. A higher proportion of investment in the care sector also flows to women, whose paid work has been disproportionately hit by the shutdown.

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

Things that would help include increased worker protection against white collar sweatshops), expanded and reconfigured tax deductions for working from home, a paid allowance for home schooling costs during the shutdown and a shorter working week to rebalance roles at home.

Behind everything should lie proper accounting for care work. Without it we are likely to continue to rely on the generosity of unpaid working women, acting as if it is free.

– ref. About that spare room: employers requisitioned our homes and our time – https://theconversation.com/about-that-spare-room-employers-requisitioned-our-homes-and-our-time-139854

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda Lotz, Professor of Media Studies, Queensland University of Technology

Australians have enjoyed watching Australian stories on the small screen for generations. From Number 96 to Offspring, House Husbands to Mystery Road, Australian television has reflected Australia back to Australian audiences.

As the government notes in its recent options paper, issued through the Australian Communications and Media Authority and Screen Australia: “Screen stories are uniquely powerful”.

But the future of these stories is in question.

Released at the end of March, the options paper aims to modernise how Australian content is supported. It suggests four options – no change, complete deregulation, minimal change or significant change – with responses due by June 12.

Three of these options would eliminate the local quotas that have underpinned Australian drama, documentary and children’s television production since the late 1960s.

Our research examines the role of television storytelling, especially the importance of local television. So it’s with great surprise we find ourselves advocating for the elimination of Australian content quotas on commercial free-to-air broadcasters.

Instead, we support the model that calls for the creation of a production fund – the “significant change” option – to address the challenges and opportunities currently facing Australian television.

We’re advocating for this change precisely because we think Australian television is so important. Australian drama, documentary and children’s programs, called “Australian story forms” here, deserve better support than currently offered by policies that have well and truly passed their use-by date.

How did we get here?

Much has changed over the past 20 years. Australia’s transition to digital broadcasting saw five existing free-to-air channels increase to at least 25, along with their correlated “catch-up” services such as Iview and 10Play.

Then, subscriber video-on-demand services (SVODs) like Stan and Netflix emerged.

The expansion of the Australian video ecosystem to include new digital channels, catch-up services and SVODs fragmented audiences, and caused advertiser funded Seven, Nine and Ten to come under significant financial pressure.

Read more: Save our screens: 3 things government must do now to keep Australian content alive

Local content quotas

When Australian content quotas were introduced in the late 1960s they applied to the three commercial channels.

These quotas dictated schedules must contain minimum levels of local content, such as documentary and drama, including children’s. At the time, the commercial networks relied on lower-cost imported programs, particularly for children, rather than homegrown drama.

When Foxtel launched in 1995, it too had local obligations, set at 10% of programming costs. SVODs do not broadcast on the public spectrum – the infrastructure that allows us to send wireless signals – and they are not subject to local content quotas. More than 14.5 million Australians pay to access these SVOD services.

Read more: Crunching the numbers on streaming services’ local content: static growth, but more original productions

The policy paradox

Commercial broadcasters now focus on programming that encourages live viewing – news, sport and reality competitions – because viewers reliably turn up when they air.

All broadcasters have slowed production of Australian story forms, while Seven announced in February it would stop production of children’s content entirely.

Seven’s actions would have put them in breach of local content rules, but the quotas were suspended completely in April in response to COVID-19.

Commercial broadcasters are poorly suited to provide Australian story forms because their business model requires attracting large audiences. But these broadcasters still use the public spectrum and remain protected from competition from additional broadcasters. These advantages must come with obligations.

Australian story forms work very well for television services with different business models, including SVODs and public service broadcasters. Their business models reward the creation of distinctive programs. Multinational SVODs – that serve subscribers in scores of countries – spend only small amounts on Australian content, however. Sustained budget cuts to the ABC and SBS mean they are also forced to commission fewer and shorter series.

Conditions have changed too much for local quotas to be effective. We believe the simplest and most equitable way of solving this paradox is through creating an Australian Production Fund and eliminating quotas.

Seven, Nine and Ten would have to contribute to this fund in return for the benefits they enjoy. Any television services commissioning Australian stories could apply for funding.

This system will simplify the safeguarding of Australian stories.

No clear sides

The commercial broadcasters’ future looks uncertain. Their failure to innovate and add value in the face of increasing audience choices has compounded the challenges of an evolving marketplace.

The requirement to contribute to an Australian Production Fund provides flexibility while maintaining commercial broadcasters’ local content obligations.

A carefully developed Australian Production Fund is our best means of safeguarding Australian stories, for audiences of all ages.

– ref. TV has changed, so must the way we support local content – https://theconversation.com/tv-has-changed-so-must-the-way-we-support-local-content-139674