Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael P. Theophilos, Senior Lecturer, Australian Catholic University

As shoppers and retailers do away with cash transactions, we may be witnessing the end of a major source of social and historical information – the coin.

In the modern age, coinage is increasingly seen as cumbersome, a vector for disease and costly to manufacture. Yet for more than 2,600 years, coins have faithfully preserved insights into human society through the eyes of the issuing state.

Coins reveal how rulers wanted their subjects to perceive their politics, their national identity and the social values they wanted to celebrate.

Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev wrote in 1861: “the drawing shows me at one glance what might be spread over ten pages in a book”. Nowhere is this more evident than on coinage, where words are limited.

Coins have always conveyed a message and, helpfully for historians, they are anchored to a specific time and place. Historian Harold Mattingly once called Roman coins the “newspapers of the day” – announcing new emperors, naming of heirs, proclaiming battle wins, holiday celebrations and events.

Read more: Museums are losing millions every week but they are already working hard to preserve coronavirus artefacts

The emperor’s new coins

Coins of the beleaguered Roman emperors of 69CE – during the Roman civil wars, when imperial reign was reckoned in months rather than years – depict imagery designed to bolster public confidence in the emperor of the moment.

Vitellius used imagery of the loyalty of the army. One example depicts clasped hands with the accompanying inscription FIDES EXERCITVVM (loyalty of the armies). The idea was far more aspirational than reflective of reality. That same year, Otho who reigned for 12 weeks, optimistically declared his VICTORIA (“victory”) and PAX ORBIS TERRARIUM (“worldwide peace”) on coins circulated during his fleeting reign.

Coins can offer detail where literary sources are lacking or incomplete. A large bronze sestertius (a denomination of Ancient Roman coin) that Titus had minted in 80-81CE, depicts not only external structures and statues but also intricate details of the Roman Colosseum interior. It also shows spectators, staircases, an imperial viewing box, and even depiction of the engineering mechanism for awning to provide shade.

Ancient coins show that rivalry between cities is not new. In Ancient Rome, a city was honoured with the title neokoros (temple keeper) when permission was granted to build a temple to the emperor or imperial family.

The city of Ephesus was the first to be honoured with such a title during the reign of Nero (54-68CE). Cities vied to have neokoros on their coinage and in the ensuing centuries more than three dozen cities held the title, some multiple times over.

Militaristic exploits were a common theme celebrated on ancient coins. The brutal Roman response to uprising and unrest in Judea resulted in the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70CE. Many coins of the time depicting Judea Capta (Judea captured) were issued by the emperor Vespasian. His son Titus, whose sacking of Jerusalem as military commander was his sole claim to military glory, used coins to exaggerate the Jerusalem victory and secure his own line of succession.

Language used

Roman coins minted in the provinces away from Rome typically were inscribed with Greek rather than Latin. Rome may have conquered the Mediterranean politically by the first century CE, but Alexander’s spread of Hellenistic cultural and linguistic influences long outlived the collapse of his rule.

The linguistic components on coins help provide insight into the terminology used at the time. The word for city founder, ktisths, on coinage helps explain the term’s single appearance in the New Testament – though this has been traditionally translated as “creator” in modern English editions due to the similarity of ktisths to ktizw (meaning: to create).

The term’s use on coins makes it clear Peter the apostle was not referring to a cosmological creator but to a city founder and hence sustainer. When Peter writes to the marginalised and fledgling Christian community, he seeks to encourage them with an image of God as founder.

Even seemingly innocent imagery can reveal darker meaning. Pontius Pilate’s coinage for Judea showed a ladle (simpulum) and curved rod (lituus). These were commonly assumed to lack human representation out of respect for Jewish sensitivities. In fact, they were symbols of Greco-Roman pagan religion and imperial cult. This showed Pilate’s allegiance to Roman ideology rather than any Jewish sensitivities.

Still in circulation

Imagery on older coins are very much current and still in use in modern coinage. The Athenian owl prominently displayed on the the tetradrachm coin from the 5th century BCE still features on recently issued 1 Euro coins.

The modern state of Israel sought to reverse Vespasian’s ancient war cry with a positive variation of the Judea Capta inscription. The new coin contrasts Judea Capta on one side with Israel Liberata on the other.

Money has taken various shapes and forms over human history. This includes feather money, cowrie shells, spade, boat and knife money. But it is the simple circular disk of stamped metal that has endured.

These small pieces of stamped metal have preserved insights into religion, community identity, monumentality, language and imperial power for thousands of years.

Future historians and archaeologists may find creative ways of mining cultural data out of our digital transactions, but for the time being, modern coinage continues the long human tradition of expression and national identity formation through state issued coinage.

Read more: The 14 Indigenous words for money on our new 50 cent coin

– ref. Spare change? Cashless transactions could end the cultural legacy of the coin – https://theconversation.com/spare-change-cashless-transactions-could-end-the-cultural-legacy-of-the-coin-138944

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vikrant Minhas, PhD candidate, University of Adelaide

Although bacteria are single-celled and microscopically small, they still need energy to survive, just like us. One of the most efficient ways of acquiring energy for bacteria is through sweet, soluble carbohydrates: sugars.

In fact, the keen ability of the deadly bacteria Streptococcus pneumoniae to use the plant-derived sugar raffinose may explain how it spreads through the human body.

S. pneumoniae is a bacteria that can quickly develop antibiotic resistance. Each year it causes millions of infections and about one million deaths. Its “ecological niche”, which refers to the natural position of a species within an ecosystem, is our noses and throats, where it doesn’t cause disease.

But from there, S. pneumoniae can spread into the lungs, blood and brain, or more locally into the ear, to cause diseases such as pneumonia, bacteremia, meningitis and otitis media (middle ear inflammation).

Unfortunately, S. pneumoniae is a genetically diverse pathogen, which means it has many different strains. This complicates research efforts to identify how the bacteria spreads into specific sites of the body.

New research published today in Nature Communications Biology by my colleagues and I circumvented these genetic diversity issues by studying closely related strains of S. pneumoniae. We discovered a difference in a gene between two bacterial strains that regulated their use of raffinose, and this resulted in one being more likely to spread and cause disease.

Read more: Scientists still searching for causes of mysterious pneumonia outbreak in China

Sickly sweet, sugars and bacterial disease

In our previous research, two closely related strains of S. pneumoniae were isolated, one from the blood of a patient and another from the ear. Their sequenced genomes were aligned to pick out differences that may impact how they spread to different parts of the body, and hence how they cause disease.

We found a difference in the regulating gene rafR which is responsible for raffinose uptake. This difference allowed the bacteria in the blood sample to use raffinose more efficiently than in the ear sample.

When infecting mice lungs with S. pneumoniae through their nose, we found the blood sample remained in the lungs, causing invasive disease. However, the ear sample was cleared from the lungs, and was unable to cause disease.

Remarkably, swapping the rafR gene between the strains switched their ability to use raffinose, and the way the disease progressed in each case reversed too. This confirmed the rafR gene was indeed playing a large role in causing disease.

In our most recent work, we wanted to figure out how this sugar-regulating gene was so profoundly impacting disease progression.

Using a cutting-edge sequencing technique during live mice infections, we discovered the difference in the rafR gene altered how both the mice and the bacteria responded to infection. Notably, strains containing the rafR from the ear sample resulted in more neutrophils, an important immune cell, at the site of infection.

In experiments where neutrophils were depleted in the lungs, the ear sample was not cleared, and the risk of disease was more. This research highlights how this single difference in the gene increased neutrophil levels during infection, preventing S. pneumoniae from causing invasive disease.

Potential research impacts

Raffinose is mainly found in vegetables, grains and legumes. It’s not known whether the human body ever has high enough levels of it to dramatically impact the likelihood of disease. It may be a carbohydrate similar in structure to raffinose is activating the raffinose regulator rafR instead.

Nonetheless, our research provides insight into how S. pneumoniae causes disease. As we understand what enables this deadly bacteria’s spread through the body, more paths will open up to stopping it.

If this raffinose phenomenon proves to be widespread across S. pneumoniae strains, blocking their ability to use raffinose may prevent them from surviving in, and thus invading, the lungs.

Treatments that prevent S. pneumoniae from spreading around the body may be better for preventing disease compared to simply inhibiting or killing the bacteria, as is current practice.

S. pneumoniae can stay in our nose and throats, where it does not cause disease. It plays an import role in this ecosystem. When this bacteria is killed, other deadly bacteria may take its place and spread to sites such as the lungs to cause disease.

The risk in failing to find new treatments

S. pneumoniae’s ability to rapidly develop antibiotic resistance has led the World Health Organisation and US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to list it as a priority pathogen.

Though vaccines are available, they’re far from perfect and fail to cover all the different strains of S. pneumoniae. If new treatments and vaccines aren’t created soon, the already deadly impact of this bacteria may increase.

Despite the known dangers, research into discovering new antibiotics has been slow. Many treatments in the pipeline don’t provide much benefit over existing antibiotics. Also, effective new treatments usually aren’t implemented widely, and are instead used as a back up in case all else fails. This greatly reduces their profitability, which in turn decreases incentives to make them.

In a worst case scenario, antibiotic-resistant bacteria could kill up to ten million people each year by 2050. To avoid such catastrophe, more research is needed on how bacteria cause disease. And with this knowledge we may be able to lessen the likelihood of future pandemics.

Read more: Saving lives in poor countries is about adapting to what’s already working there

– ref. We’ve discovered how these deadly bacteria use a common sugar to spread through the body. It could help us stop them – https://theconversation.com/weve-discovered-how-these-deadly-bacteria-use-a-common-sugar-to-spread-through-the-body-it-could-help-us-stop-them-138942

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Monika Sarder, Senior Strategic Analyst, Monash University

Algorithmic decision-making has enormous potential to do good. From identifying priority areas for first response after an earthquake hits, to identifying those at risk of COVID-19 within minutes, their application has proven hugely beneficial.

But things can go drastically wrong when decisions are trusted to algorithms without ensuring they adhere to established ethical norms. Two recent examples illustrate how government agencies are failing to automate fairness.

1. The algorithm doesn’t match reality

This problem arises when a one-size-fits-all rule is implemented in a complex environment.

The most recent devastating example was Australia’s Centrelink “robodebt” debacle. In that case, welfare payments made on the basis of self-reported fortnightly income were cross-referenced against an estimated fortnightly income, taken as a simple average of annual earnings reported to the Australian Tax Office, and used to auto-generate debt notices without any further human scrutiny or explanation.

This assumption is at odds with how Australia’s highly casualised workforce is actually paid. For example, a graphic designer who was unable to find work for nine months of the financial year but earned A$12,000 in the three months before June would have had an automated debt raised against her. This is despite no fraud having occurred, and this scenario constituting exactly the kind of hardship Centrelink is designed to address.

The scheme ultimately proved to be a disaster for the Australian government, which must now pay back an estimated A$721 million in wrongly issued debts after the High Court ruled the scheme unlawful. More than 470,000 debts were wrongfully raised by the scheme, primarily against low income earners, causing significant distress.

Read more: We need human oversight of machine decisions to stop robo-debt drama

2. Inputs embed racism

The stunning scenes of police violence in US cities have underscored the extent to which systemic racism influences law and order processes in the United States, from police patrols right through to sentencing. Black individuals are more likely to be stopped and searched, more likely to be arrested for low-level infractions, more likely to have prison time included in plea deals, and incur longer sentences for comparable crimes when they do go to trial.

This systemic racism has been repeated, more insidiously, in algorithmic processes. One example is COMPAS, a controversial “decision support” system designed to help parole boards in the United States decide which prisoners to release early, by providing a probability score of their likelihood of reoffending.

Rather than rely on a simple decision rule, the algorithm used a range of inputs, including demographic and survey information, to derive a score. The algorithm did not use race as an explicit variable, but it did embed systemic racism by using variables that were shaped by police and judicial biases on the ground.

Applicants were asked a range of questions about their interactions with the justice system, such as the age they first came in contact with police, and whether family or friends had previously been incarcerated. This information was then used to derive their final “risk” score.

As Cathy O’Neill put it in her book Weapons of Math Destruction: “it’s easy to imagine how inmates from a privileged background would answer one way and those from tough inner streets another”.

What is going wrong?

Using algorithms to make decisions isn’t inherently bad. But it can turn bad if the automated systems used by governments fail to incorporate the principles real humans use to make fair decisions.

People who design and implement these solutions need to focus not just on statistics and software design, but also ethics. Here’s how:

• consult those who are likely to be significantly affected by a new process before it is implemented, not after

• check for potential unfair bias at the process design phase

• ensure the underpinning rationale of the decisions is transparent, and the outcomes are relatively predictable

• make a human accountable for the integrity of decisions and their consequences.

Read more: Algorithms are everywhere but what will it take for us to trust them?

It would be ideal if the developers of social policy algorithms put these principles at the core of their work. But in the absence of accountability in the tech sector, numerous laws have been passed, or are being passed, to deal with the problem.

The European Union data protection law states that algorithmic decisions that have significant consequences for any person must involve a human review component. It also requires organisations to provide a transparent explanation of the logic used in algorithmic processes.

The US Congress, meanwhile, is considering a draft Algorithmic Accountability Act that would require institutions to consider “the risks that the automated decision system may result in or contribute to inaccurate, unfair, biased, or discriminatory decisions impacting consumers”.

Legislation is a solution, but it is not the best one. We need to develop and embed ethics and norms around decision-making into organisational practice. For this we need to boost the public’s data literacy, so they have the language to demand accountability from the tech giants to which we are all increasingly beholden.

A transparent and open approach is vital if we are to make the most of the technologies on offer in our data-rich world, while retaining our rights as citizens.

– ref. From robodebt to racism: what can go wrong when governments let algorithms make the decisions – https://theconversation.com/from-robodebt-to-racism-what-can-go-wrong-when-governments-let-algorithms-make-the-decisions-132594

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Thomas, Associate professor, Flinders University

We have seen ten days of protests in the United States over the death of George Floyd.

While thousands of people have gathered to express their outrage peacefully, some demonstrations have been marred by vandalism and violent clashes with police.

Read more: As Minneapolis burns, Trump’s presidency is sinking deeper into crisis. And yet, he may still be re-elected

Research has shown that people generally see confrontational protests as unwarranted and ineffectual.

So why do some protests turn violent? And as we watch this mass movement gather pace around the world, what makes people come out into the streets in the first place?

Why do some protests turn violent?

Research suggests people who are prepared to use violent confrontation can be psychologically different from those who are not. People who are prepared to adopt violence are more likely to report feelings of contempt for political adversaries whom they hold responsible for wrongdoing.

In the US, some commentators have suggested the violence on their streets stems from a deep sense of despair and helplessness that things never change.

Psychological research offers some support for this analysis. Where people don’t believe their appeals to authorities will be heard, protesters may be more likely to adopt violent methods of protest.

Under these circumstances, people think they have “nothing to lose”.

Heavy-handed policing can lead to violence

However, there is another key element here. Feelings of contempt and helplessness do not arise in a vacuum – they stem from real-world interactions between people and groups.

We know from decades of research into policing and crowds that violent, heavy-handed treatment from the police is a major catalyst of protest violence. Such experiences lead people to redefine their understanding of the demonstrating group’s purpose.

Read more: The fury in US cities is rooted in a long history of racist policing, violence and inequality

Over the past week, people who initially turned out to express their constitutional right to protest peacefully have found they are now enemies of the state – dissidents in their own country. Under these circumstances, the purpose of the protest suddenly adopts a much broader meaning.

Protesters can change their tactics

A good way to make people feel contempt is to disregard their safety and purpose.

So, even though people tend to think confrontational protests do not work, our research shows that their assessment changes when an authority is seen to be corrupt and immoral.

Put differently, even the average punter may come to see violence as more acceptable if the state responds in a way that seems unjustified and disproportionate.

Why do people protest in the first place?

Given the the recent restrictions on public gatherings, who could have imagined that we would be witnessing a global solidarity movement of this scale in the middle of a deadly pandemic?

It has long been observed that specific events can serve as tipping points that catalyse social movements. Consider the actions of US activist Rosa Parks, who famously refused to give up her seat to a white man on an Alabama bus in 1955, inspiring mass resistance to the racial segregation policies of the time.

When Tunisian fruit seller Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in response to police corruption and harassment in December 2010, his actions were broadcast all over the world, laying the foundation of the mass protests that would become the Arab Spring.

Research shows people who engage in protest do so because they feel angry about injustices perpetrated against groups they are committed to and believe they can make a difference by acting collectively.

Critically, in the 21st century, specific events – and our reactions to them – can now be broadcast online and shared with millions of people, across the world, within a matter of hours.

Online interactions generate outrage and common purpose

These online interactions are more than just chatter. Research shows online interactions about injustice can be the very means through which people’s protest commitments are formed and maintained.

As people interact online, it generates a sense of shared outrage, as well as a belief that if “we” act together, things could be different.

Research has specifically shown that people who interact online about the police killings of Black people are more likely to attend protests, especially if they live in an area with historically high rates of police killings of Black people.

What does this mean for Australia?

The George Floyd protest movement has also reached Australia.

There have already been a number of peaceful demonstrations around Australia to protest Indigenous deaths in custody and support Black Lives Matter. More are planned for the weekend.

How Australians respond to racism in our own country is a matter for Australians in our own individual and collective ways.

But authorities should take note: heavy-handed responses from police can provoke more violent responses from otherwise peaceful protesters.

Read more: Can you socially distance at a Black Lives Matter rally in Australia and New Zealand? How to protest in a coronavirus pandemic

– ref. Why do protests turn violent? It’s not just because people are desperate – https://theconversation.com/why-do-protests-turn-violent-its-not-just-because-people-are-desperate-139968

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lachlan G. Howell, PhD Candidate | School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing significant economic challenges for Australia. With April figures showing more than 800,000 people unemployed and last month 1.6 million on JobSeeker payments, a key focus will be job creation.

Read more: The big stimulus spending has just begun. Here’s how to get it right, quickly

Lessons should be learned from what’s happening in New Zealand, where the government is funding projects that revive the environment. Unfortunately, Australia seems to be going the other way.

New Zealand gets it

As part of New Zealand’s innovative Wellbeing Budget the government will invest NZ$50 billion in a direct COVID-19 recovery response.

Of that, NZ$1.1 billion will be spent on creating 11,000 “nature jobs” to combat unemployment and supplement pandemic-affected sectors.

This unique investment will be delivered in a number of targeted environmental programs.

These include NZ$433 million for regional environmental projects that will provide 4,000 jobs in conserving and managing waterways. This will help restore fragile ecosystems such as wetlands, rivers and catchments.

There’s NZ$315 million for weed and feral animal control, including possums, pigs, deer and wallabies. This will provide employment through partnerships between the community, Māori land managers and government departments.

A further NZ$200 million will deliver jobs on public conservation land through the Department of Conservation for various management actions. These include predator control, restoration, regenerative planting and maintenance of tracks, huts and other assets.

Some of these investments will not only provide jobs but also conserve New Zealand’s environment. They will maintain agricultural productivity and advance existing environmental initiatives such as Predator Free New Zealand.

They will also provide households with income that will in turn help stimulate local economies.

This is a win for New Zealand’s environment and wildlife, particularly native fish species and unique birds. It’s also a win for people and the economy.

Australia’s destructive COVID-19 recovery

In contrast, the Australian federal and some state governments have resorted to environmentally destructive projects and policies to stimulate economic activity and support employment.

Read more: Cutting ‘green tape’ may be good politicking, but it’s bad policy. Here are 5 examples of regulation failure

For example, the New South Wales government in March granted approval to extend coalmining under Sydney’s Woronora reservoir and in May approved the controversial Snowy Hydro 2.0 project.

In Victoria, the government delayed key improvements to environmental protection laws and amended legislation to allow onshore gas extraction.

Federally, wider plans exist for an apparent fossil-fuel-led national recovery through gas expansion, fast-tracked by relaxing environmental regulations. This includes a proposed exemption from additional approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

The relaxing of environmental legislation and protections (commonly referred to as cutting “green tape”) has been pushed by business and industry lobby groups and some quarters of the media.

Even politicians such as federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley see it as a way to promote economic recovery.

A better way to recovery

Nature groups, environmental scientists, economists and political parties such as the Greens are proposing an alternative approach.

Some state and territory departments, including in the ACT and the Northern Territory, recognise environmental management and protection as a source of high employment opportunity.

They all see investment in conservation and land management as a key feature of any economic recovery.

An opportunity for Australia

Economic stimulus through conservation and land management is not yet recognised as a way for Australia to respond to both the COVID-19 crisis and long-standing conservation needs.

Australian governments, if they invested similarly to New Zealand, could create jobs in the short term in any desired target region, based on economic and environmental need.

This flexibility would allow jobs to be created in regions with already fragile local economies, particularly those made worse by COVID-19. This includes regional areas that usually have high tourism, bushfire-affected communities, drought-affected regions, as well as Indigenous communities.

Read more: When introduced species are cute and loveable, culling them is a tricky proposition

Conservation and land management jobs could include dealing with feral pests, such as cats, foxes, rabbits, pigs, deer and horses.

It could feature restoration activities such as tree planting, weed removal, hazard-reduction burning, and wildlife restoration and monitoring.

This type of employment is hands-on, labour-intensive and has low overhead costs. Investment is likely to be cost-effective, with most of it going straight to the worker.

Let’s stimulate the economy and the environment

Projects can be up and running quickly, so the economic stimulus is immediate.

The benefits of direct household stimulus are well understood. This form of spending provides localised economic benefits as money is likely to stay in the local community.

Read more: The next global health pandemic could easily erupt in your backyard

There is an opportunity to support the hard-hit university sector. It could get funds for research to design, monitor and assess the effectiveness of any interventions.

Such investment would have lasting and much-needed environmental benefits through the conservation of landscapes recently ravaged by bushfire that contain unique and declining wildlife species.

Could the much-hyped “new normal” be one where Australia’s environment and economy are not seen as incompatible?

– ref. Let’s fix Australia’s environment with any pandemic recovery aid – the Kiwis are doing it – https://theconversation.com/lets-fix-australias-environment-with-any-pandemic-recovery-aid-the-kiwis-are-doing-it-139305

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dr. Bodean Hedwards, Lecturer, Monash University

This week the leaders of India and Australia reaffirmed their mutual interest in closer diplomatic and economic ties.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison during their long-delayed Thursday “virtual summit”:

India is committed to expanding its relations with Australia on a wider and faster pace. This is important not only for our two countries, but also for the Indo-Pacific region and the world.

But I will not say that I am satisfied with this pace. When a leader like you is leading our friend country, then the criteria for the pace of development in our relations should also be ambitious.

Australia should be ambitious for its friendship with India. We have a long-term interest in India developing as another prosperous, harmonious democracy.

Standing in the way of that is India’s chaotic web of labour laws. There are hundreds at both national and state levels. They’ve long been a disincentive to trade and investment because of the compliance challenges for law-abiding foreign businesses.

Yet those same laws are so loosely enforced domestically that dodgy and unlawful working conditions are rife.

Indeed of India’s workforce of 500 million, it is estimated about 450 million are in the “informal sector”, with no minimum pay rates, let alone other benefits.

So there are good reasons for Australia to support India reducing its sheer number of labour laws. But there are also good reasons to encourage it to enforce the commitments required of both nations under international labour conventions.

In the shadows of the agenda to accelerate trade and investment is the risk of pushing more Indian workers into slave conditions.

450 million informal workers

In truth, no one knows the exact size of India’s informal sector. Statistics are unreliable for work defined as “disorganised”.

As in other countries, India’s COVID-19 response has hit these workers in lowly paid, insecure manual labour hardest. This was amplified by the severity and swiftness of measures.

Modi’s March 24 orders for “a complete lockdown” were issued at 8:58pm, and took effect at midnight.

Shops, markets, factories and construction sites were shut down. All public transport services were stopped. India’s population of more than 1.3 billion people was told to stay home.

139 million migrant wokers

But hundred of thousands had to get home first.

India has an estimated 139 million internal “migrant workers”. They come from poor regions all across India to find work in the wealthiest cities such as Mumbai, Delhi and Surat. Typical jobs are in building and manufacturing, where the average daily pay rate is about US$4.60.

With no work, no money, in fear of having no food and of catching the coronavirus, migrant workers have for weeks queued at train and bus stations for restricted services to get home.

Tens of thousands opted to walk home.

A survey of about 3,200 of these walkers in early April found nearly a third were in debt, usually to money lenders from their communities.

Bhagwan Das, who walked for three days to get back to his village after losing his job as a construction worker in Delhi, told his story to the Thomson Reuters Foundation

Unable to maintain repayments on the 60,000 rupee (US$787) loan he took out in 2017 for his daughter’s wedding, Das had no choice but to offer his son’s labour to service the rising debt.

8 million modern slaves

The Global Slavery Index 2018 estimates about 8 million Indians are in some form of modern slavery – in situations were they are forced to work under threat; are owned or controlled by another; are dehumanised or treated as a commodity; and are not free to leave.

Globally there is an estimated 40 million modern slaves. About 25 million are in forced labour. This may be through use or threats of violence, physical or emotional restraints, or bonded labour – also known as debt bondage, forcing people to work to pay off a debt.

Read more: Human trafficking and slavery still happen in Australia. This comic explains how

Debt bondage is the most prevalent form of forced labour. In India, a 2016 investigation in the southern state of Tamil Nadu (India’s largest producer of cotton yarn) found 351 of 743 spinning mills used so-called “Sumangali” schemes to lure young women with the promise of lump sums for use as a dowry.

In practice this lump sum is made up of withheld wages, and used as a means to bind workers to the mill. Girls only receive the lump sum if they fulfil their three to five years contract period, under exploitative and unhealthy conditions. Girls who fail to do so, and many do because of health problems, abuse and exhaustion, most often do not receive the withheld wages.

This despite bonded labour being outlawed since 1976, and dowries since 1961.

Suspending labour laws

So clearly law enforcement in India needs work. As things stand, however, the push is on to do even less. Half a dozen of India’s 28 states have already signalled their desire to suspend labour laws.

The northern state of Uttar Pradesh, for example, summarily suspended most laws including its minimum wage act. It reportedly plans to maintain most suspensions for three years.

As Radhicka Kapoor, of the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, has put it, these policies are “creating an enabling environment for exploitation”.

Upholding commitments

The International Labour Organisation, which sets international labour standards, has written to Modi asking him to ensure India upholds its international commitments.

Read more: Modern Slavery Bill a step in the right direction – now businesses must comply

Both India and Australia are signatories to the International Labour Organsiation’s Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which states “these rights are universal” and apply “to all people in all states – regardless of the level of economic development”.

Ensuring they apply to all of Australia’s supply chains is crucial for the Morrison government to continue to be “a world leader in eradicating modern slavery” – as Home Affairs Minister Jason Woods declared just three days before the Modi-Morrison meeting.

– ref. Fast moves in India-Australia relations risk pushing millions more into modern slavery – https://theconversation.com/fast-moves-in-india-australia-relations-risk-pushing-millions-more-into-modern-slavery-139867

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gery Karantzas, Associate professor in Social Psychology / Relationship Science, Deakin University

Life in lockdown has been tough on many relationships. But negotiating the transition back to “normal” as restrictions continue to lift could also be a challenge for couples.

So what are some of the key factors that affect how relationships fare during such times?

To answer this, I’m going to draw on an important model in relationship science called the vulnerability stress adaptation model.

Read more: The coronavirus lockdown could test your relationship. Here’s how to keep it intact (and even improve it)

3 important factors

As its name suggests, the model proposes three broad factors that affect relationship outcomes: vulnerabilities, stressors and adaptions.

Vulnerabilities are any kind of factor that makes it harder for a person to maintain enduring and satisfying relationships. Vulnerabilities can include mental health issues, personality traits (such as neuroticism), past bad relationships, addiction, and the like.

Stressors are challenging life events and experiences external to the relationship, but which put a strain on maintaining a lasting and satisfying bond. These can include financial hardship, work stress, and difficult relationships with extended family or friends.

Adaptations reflect the skills and capabilities couples possess to effectively deal with and adapt to challenging circumstances. Adaptations can include a couple’s sense of fun or humour, constructive ways of handling conflict and solving problems, and supporting one another.

Stressors and vulnerabilities increase negative relationship behaviours (such as criticism and insensitivity), and in turn increase negative relationship outcomes (dissatisfaction and relationship breakdown).

On the other hand, adaptations buffer the effects of stress and reduce the risk of relationship dissatisfaction and breakdown.

Framing this model around COVID-19

The social distancing rules enforced during the pandemic have seen couples spending long periods of time together, often in close quarters.

Accounts from across the world show us not all couples have adjusted well. China reported an increase in the number of married couples filing for divorce. Worryingly, incidents of domestic abuse may also have increased.

Lengthy periods of close contact may have acted as a stressor which intensified negative relationship behaviours and dissatisfaction, particularly for people with existing personal vulnerabilities.

The changes associated with social distancing rules, such as working from home and supervising home schooling, are additional stressors. These too are likely to have exacerbated personal vulnerabilities and destructive relationship behaviours for some couples.

Read more: Coronavirus and ‘domestic terrorism’: how to stop family violence under lockdown

Some vulnerable couples may be able to keep their relationship stable, provided that the stress of social isolation and other COVID-19-related stressors remain low, or that supports are in place to minimise stress.

However, these same couples may encounter problems if stressors increase (for example, one partner suddenly loses their job) or supports are removed (such as from friends or family).

Similarly, high-functioning couples may cope well with the challenges of social restriction and other COVID-19 hardships. But, if the stressors become too great, they’re likely to experience declines in relationship satisfaction.

What’s the ideal?

People in loving and supportive relationships are likely to cope more effectively with the enforcement and relaxation of social distancing guidelines (and other challenges, whether related to the pandemic or not).

These are typically couples who constructively deal with conflict by working together towards solving issues, take on each others’ perspectives, and respond sensitively when the other is feeling stressed.

That’s not to say these couples never argue and don’t sometimes get frustrated with one another. But their adaptive ways of communicating and supporting each other mean these couples are likely to fare better.

Read more: Coronavirus is stressful. Here are some ways to cope with the anxiety

There’s help if you need it

Some couples may benefit from relationship education programs that teach communication skills and how to manage conflict constructively.

For couples that require more intensive support, couple therapy can be effective.

These options are available online.

As well as working on the relationship itself, the alleviation of stressors can help a relationship.

Studies have found that for couples and families experiencing stressors such as economic hardship or housing instability, providing them with financial aid, jobseeker programs and affordable housing can improve relationship satisfaction and reduce family breakdown to a similar extent as relationship education or counselling.

Hopefully, some of the measures the government has put in place, such as JobKeeper, have reduced stress for couples.

The easing of social distancing restrictions may also significantly reduce stress in some couples, shrinking “relationship cracks” that emerged during lockdown.

You may need to address these cracks if they resurface, but reductions in coronavirus-related stressors may well see transient relationship problems disappear.

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

A return to normal won’t be the answer for all relationships

Unfortunately, for some couples, the easing of restrictions may intensify relationship conflicts and dissatisfaction.

For example, if one person has health anxieties and the other is highly impulsive, they may hold very different attitudes on how to navigate situations such as social gatherings.

These differences are likely to create conflict that may increase dissatisfaction and relationship difficulties, particularly if both members of the couple typically respond to conflict in destructive ways.

So the easing of social restrictions may not have the same outcome for all. It depends in part on a couple’s existing vulnerabilities and their way of handling conflict and supporting one another.

– ref. Love lockdown: the pandemic has put pressure on many relationships, but here’s how to tell if yours will survive – https://theconversation.com/love-lockdown-the-pandemic-has-put-pressure-on-many-relationships-but-heres-how-to-tell-if-yours-will-survive-135824

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Professor of Architecture, University of Adelaide

HomeBuilder is a good idea gone bad. It is possibly the most complex and least equitable program the government could have devised to deliver construction jobs.

It gives $25,000 to people who already own a home or already have enough money to buy one while delivering a minimal stimulus to extra construction. It isn’t a program to create jobs, it is a way of making people who are reasonably well off richer.

It does not address homelessness, precarious rental or any of the other pressing problems that are caused by our current housing mix.

It might build more nice decks for sipping Chardonnay (most already planned), it might deliver ritzy new bathrooms with imported taps or even new kitchens with the latest European appliances, but it won’t help those suffering housing stress.

Read more: Scott Morrison’s HomeBuilder scheme is classic retail politics but lousy economics

Construction is Australia’s third-biggest employer, after retail and health care and social assistance. It employs one in every 11 Australians, and it generates other jobs in the building supplies industry and in design and engineering.

The Master Builders Association says construction is facing a decline of 40%, with potentially horrendous implications for employment.

The industry has three main components:

• residential – apartments and houses

• commercial – including offices, airport terminals, retail, tourism, education and factories

• engineering – including roads, railways and airport runways.

Engineering construction is doing reasonably well.

Across the country, governments are delivering a veritable infrastructure Utopia. Continuing projects include the Tullamarine Airport Rail Link, the second stage of the Sydney Metro, the North East Link motorway in Melbourne, the WestConnex motorway in Sydney, the Airport Metro in Perth and Cross River Rail in Brisbane.

All governments have to do is keep this pipeline going, which, by and large, they are doing.

On the other hand, commercial construction will be in deep trouble by the end of the year as current projects finish without new projects to replace them.

Outlook bleak, then COVID

The outlook for residential construction is desolate, although for some people with secure jobs working from home, COVID-19 appears to have ignited a mini home renovation boom.

Prior to COVID-19, commercial construction was forecast to shrink from A$48.77 billion in 2020-11 to $41.3 billion in 2023-24.

Residential construction was forecast to bottom out in 2021-22 with only 168,000 dwelling starts, down from a peak of 233,872 starts in 2016-17.

Now, both forecasts will be slashed.

The tourism sector is dead, the education sector is near death and the multi-unit residential market, already badly impacted by confidence issues around construction quality, is in terrible shape with many projects on hold.

Not big enough, not broad enough

The HomeBuilder scheme is not big enough or broad enough to do much to reignite residential construction. To be useful for jobs, it would need to deliver an extra 60,000 housing starts.

Given the only people who will benefit from the grant will be those some way down the track to either buying or building, it is hard to guess what the additional outcome will be, but it would be surprising if the scheme generated much additional activity.

Even if the full budget allocation of the scheme is taken up, it would fund only about 25,000 projects. Many would have gone ahead anyway.

Among the peculiarities of HomeBuilder are that it won’t work in much of Sydney where many houses are likely to be valued above the $1.5M limit and it won’t work in regional towns where the required spend will overcapitalise existing houses.

Complexities aplenty

It will encourage people to build in fridges, microwaves, coffee makers and washing machines (many of them tastefully European) to bump the contract price of renovation up above the $150,000 minimum.

It is a potential administrative nightmare for state governments that are already stretched administering existing emergency relief programs.

Who will establish that the value of an existing house is less than the $1.5M upper limit? Will it be the value now in the middle of the COVID downturn or the value last year, or the value used to set local government rates?

Contracts are meant to be arms-length, but who will ensure the builder is not the cousin or the in-law of the owner, something that might be impossible to avoid in a small country town? If a garage is built on the side of a house, rather than as a separate structure, will it comply with the rules? And on and on and on.

Few extra homes

While these are legitimate questions, they ignore the big, central problem with the scheme: the opportunity to deliver a substantial program of social housing that would address real problems, including homelessness, has been missed.

And the government has done it in a way that will minimise the jobs created and maximise the wealth transfer to Australians who are relatively well off.

For a government that has mostly managed to do the right thing ever since COVID-19 hit, this has been a terrible policy clanger.

It will encourage everyone who cannot afford to buy a home, or who is homeless, to believe the government has forgotten them.

– ref. HomeBuilder might be the most-complex least-equitable construction jobs program ever devised – https://theconversation.com/homebuilder-might-be-the-most-complex-least-equitable-construction-jobs-program-ever-devised-140162

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trivess Moore, Senior Lecturer, School of Property, Construction and Project Management, RMIT University

The federal government’s new A$688 million HomeBuilder package might protect residential construction jobs but it’s a missed opportunity to deliver sustainability benefits that would save owners money in the long run. The A$25,000 grant for new homes and renovations could have been better leveraged to provide broader and ongoing benefits. In particular, it could have been used to ensure homes are more energy-efficient and cheaper to run.

The grant is available for building an owner-occupied home with property values (house and land) under $750,000. Renovations costing between $150,000 and $750,000 for a property valued under $1.5 million are also eligible. Grants are means-tested against household incomes.

Read more: Scott Morrison’s HomeBuilder scheme is classic retail politics but lousy economics

Building new houses better

The scheme could have required new houses to exceed minimum building code requirements to be eligible. The development industry would then have had to deliver housing to this standard or risk losing potential buyers. Using the right design and materials would mean any extra costs are recouped over time.

Heating and cooling energy use could be reduced by almost 25% across capital city climate zones with minimal requirements. New houses could achieve these reductions with a solar PV system and 7-star performance rating (in line with proposed changes to raise the National Construction Code’s current 6-star minimum in 2022). This would reduce utility bills and carbon footprints for householders.

Read more: Spruiking the stars: some home builders are misleading consumers about energy ratings

The use of majority Australian-made materials could be stipulated. Local renewable energy, insulation and energy-efficiency businesses would benefit from increased demand. Job creation would follow in these and secondary industries.

The $25,000 grant cost to government would more than cover the costs of these requirements. Various Australian studies have found achieving a 7-star rating involves little if any extra cost for new houses in many locations. The cost of solar PV continues to fall.

Combining these sustainability measures through HomeBuilder would provide benefits across the lifetime of new houses.

Read more: Sustainable housing’s expensive, right? Not when you look at the whole equation

Renovation to benefit everyone

Restricting HomeBuilder grants to renovation projects over $150,000 excludes many modest renovations like upgrading a kitchen or bathroom. It has already been called a handout for the rich.

Much of the existing housing stock in Australia has poor energy and thermal performance. Many houses are too hot in summer or too cold in winter, or both.

Read more: When the heat hits: how to make our homes comfortable without cranking up the aircon

A better and more equitable strategy would be to provide renovation grants for energy-efficiency retrofits in owner-occupied and rental housing.

Retrofits could be undertaken for a fraction of the price of the renovation grant and still help a range of trades. There would be demand for heating and cooling systems, insulation and draught proofing to be supplied and installed. Households would save on bills and suffer less from extreme temperatures.

Energy-efficiency retrofits are a cost-effective way to improve environmental performance, thermal comfort, health and well-being. Much of Australia’s existing housing stock could be upgraded to 5 stars for much less than the budgets required by the announced stimulus.

Retrofits should be determined by an in-house sustainability assessment by qualified assessors – another potential growth area. Programs like the Victorian Residential Energy Scorecard already offer guidance on best practice. Identifying the best retrofitting opportunities for individual properties would ensure each household gets best value for money.

Read more: Stimulus that retrofits housing can reduce energy bills and inequity too

Capturing wider benefits

A more strategic approach to HomeBuilder could help the economy and move us towards a lower-carbon future.

The need to upskill tradies and limitations of local manufacturing are often cited as barriers to improving the sustainability of Australian housing. HomeBuilder could offer incentives to overcome these obstacles. Setting higher building performance standards as a condition of the HomeBuilder grant would upskill workers and create jobs.

Tradies would have the opportunity to work on tens of thousands of houses with higher performance ratings. This would provide extensive professional experience of building more sustainable housing across the country. Local manufacturing and secondary industries could innovate and supply sustainable building materials and technologies for Australian conditions.

Improving housing sustainability would also help achieve broader federal and state government policy goals. For a start, it would help Australia achieve targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would also help with issues such as energy vulnerability and security.

As a final note, economists, housing researchers and social housing organisations argue that a program designed to deliver more social housing would provide greater benefits. Australia certainly needs to increase its social housing stock. HomeBuilder could have helped with this.

If future stimulus schemes target social housing, we suggest environmental and energy performance should be top priorities from the outset.

Read more: Why the focus of stimulus plans has to be construction that puts social housing first

– ref. HomeBuilder misses a chance to make our homes perform better for us and the planet – https://theconversation.com/homebuilder-misses-a-chance-to-make-our-homes-perform-better-for-us-and-the-planet-140067

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Keller, Professor of Cognitive Science, Western Sydney University

The coronavirus pandemic has silenced the world’s concert halls and opera theatres.

Organisations specialising in live performance face an existential crisis under current restrictions on social gatherings, with up to 75% of people employed in the creative and performing arts expected to lose work.

Online digital content has emerged as an immediate option for some. This has taken the form of ephemeral, light-hearted and quirky social media offerings, more weighty archival content, or live-streamed concerts.

These technological solutions are stopgaps rather than long-term substitutes for close human contact provided by live performance.

Digital offers some possibilities …

While digital delivery has the possibility to extend reach geographically and demographically, it can prove a difficult task for groups who cater for audiences accustomed to the ritual of the concert hall – available online viewer numbers in Australia, such as on YouTube videos, are far off comparable live-audience numbers.

Small scale streamed concerts can generate revenue better than larger ones. Percussionist Claire Edwardes of Ensemble Offspring has been holding live Zoom concerts. Tickets cost A$50 per person and streams are limited to around 20 per gig to facilitate smooth communication both technically and personally.

“Everyone is seeing isolation as an opportunity that forces us to ask: how do we spread the word outside of our core supporters, and how do we actually expand our reach?,” asks Edwardes.

… but livelihoods depend on a comeback

Work for online audiences comes with significant costs – high quality streaming technology, as well as fees for artists, production teams and administration – but revenue can be minimal.

While Opera Australia is expanding its digital offerings, staff are being stood down. Chief executive officer Rory Jeffes tells me 475 staff members are on partial wages through Jobkeeper, but an additional 338 staff, mostly casuals, were not eligible and have been stood down.

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

Local organisations cannot compete for online audience numbers with music streaming giants like Spotify, and institutions with long-established digital offerings: the Metropolitan Opera has nearly 150,000 YouTube subscribers; Opera Australia has 8,000.

Even for companies with established digital footprints, numbers online do not necessarily translate to income. The National Theatre in London (650,000 YouTube subscribers) is considering large-scale staff redundancies despite its popular streaming performances.

And as concert halls are able to reopen, there is a long road ahead in rebuilding audience numbers.

The Berliner Ensemble has removed most of its seats in what may be a glimpse into future nights out. Others are promoting protective suits for concertgoers. Opera Australia is discussing temperature checks – the company stills hopes to stage the Ring Cycle in the 2,000 seat Lyric Theatre in Brisbane, in November.

Some companies are hoping for permission to open up to bigger audience numbers, even while social distancing rules remain. Melbourne Theatre Company executive director Virginia Lovett told The Age she hopes the government will allow performance companies to “open at a capacity that works for us” by knowing the seating details and contact information for every audience member.

But it is not just risks to the audience that will need to be considered. Virus transmission risks posed by singing and playing wind instruments will need to be taken into account in safety guidelines for performers, too.

Compact units like Ensemble Offspring are keen to lead the way back. Unless the government’s plan for lifting restrictions is revised, concert venues will first be allowed to admit just 20, then 100, patrons.

“We hope that because of the smaller size of our audiences and our performances, intimacy will be part of the gradual opening up,” says Edwardes.

And still, optimism remains

The musical performing arts face a lengthy process of dealing with threats to sustainability. Nevertheless, shock has brought on solidarity and support among organisations and venues.

David Rowden, artistic director of Omega Ensemble, expects we will see “more organisations collaborating because there is going to be more need to co-present and to share costs.”

Despite everything, he remains optimistic. “Coming out of this on the other side, maybe people will have an even greater appreciation for the arts,” he says.

– ref. There is no easy path out of coronavirus for live classical music – https://theconversation.com/there-is-no-easy-path-out-of-coronavirus-for-live-classical-music-138207

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pi-Shen Seet, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Edith Cowan University

Scott Morrison wants to overhaul the skills workforce to ensure a better post-COVID-19 recovery. But there may not be enough people with the necessary skills to do so. And travel restrictions, which will reduce migration, will only compound the issue.

A Productivity Commission interim report released today found the proportion of people without qualifications at a Certificate 3 level or above decreased from 47.1% in 2009 to 37.5% in 2019. This will not be enough to meet a Council of Australian Governments (COAG) target of 23.6% set for 2020.

Read more: Morrison’s VET reforms offer the same old promises, with no more money

The report also found while the number of higher-level qualifications (diplomas and advanced diplomas) sharply increased between 2009 and 2012, it has since fallen to its 2009 level.

The 2020 target was set out in the 2012 National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development (NASWD), which identified long-term federal and state objectives in skills and workforce development.

The report noted the skills agreement is no longer fit for purpose, and the A$6.1 billion governments spend annually on vocational education and training can be better allocated to improve outcomes.

What the report found

The National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development was intended to significantly lift the skills of the Australian workforce and improve participation in training, especially by students facing disadvantage. Several targets, performance indicators and outcomes were agreed to.

These included to:

• halve the proportion of Australians aged between 20-64 without qualification at certificate 3 level and below, from 47.1% in 2009 to 23.6% by 2020

• double the number of advanced diploma and diploma completions nationally from 53,974 to 107,948 in 2020.

The commissioners admit some of the targets agreed to were arbitrary and ambitious.

The report says:

If targets are unattainable, they quickly become irrelevant for policymakers. The NASWD’s performance indicators were reasonable general measures but needed to be linked to specific policies to allow governments to monitor progress.

The commissioners state the failure to meet the targets is not an indication the national agreement has failed overall. This is because the targets only looked at those with formal education.

It noted a large proportion of the workforce aged over 25 are more likely to do informal training to increase skills for their current occupation, as opposed to formal training to get a new job.

Read more: Most young people who do VET after school are in full-time work by the age of 25

About 85% of workers’ non-formal learning is paid for by employers, but government policies are largely silent about this kind of training.

Noting these caveats, the report identified factors that contributed to the failure to meet the targets. These included:

1. a lack of uniform commitment and execution to meet the reform directions set as part of the original national agreement. This was meant to improve training accessibility, affordability and depth of skills through a more open and competitive VET market, driven by user choice

2. the reputational damage of the VET FEE-HELP scheme that facilitated rorting of the system

3. a reduction in governments’ commitment to a competitive training market. This includes a lack of accessible course information for students and inadequate sector regulation

4. unclear pathways to jobs through the VET system – for example through lack of proper employment advice through school career advisors.

The fall in VET participation also coincided with an increase in university enrolments. This suggests students were choosing university over VET. VET and traineeship funding also tightened from 2014.

What the report recommends

Treasurer Josh Freydenberg asked the Productivity Commission to undertake the review of the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development in November 2019, before the bushfires and COVID-19 hit the economy.

The request came a few months after former New Zealand skills minister Steven Joyce released a report and recommendations of his review of Australia’s VET system.

The findings of the Productivity Commission’s interim report appear to dovetail well with those of the Joyce review. This recommended the formation of the National Skills Commission, which can facilitate an overarching national and consistent approach to vocational education and training.

Read more: The government keeps talking about revamping VET – but is it actually doing it?

The interim report’s main recommendation is for governments to consider reforms to make the VET system a more efficient, competitive market. This must be driven by informed choices of students and employers, with the flexibility to deliver a broad suite of training options.

The commissioners also advocate for the use of common methods of measurement among states and territories to achieve nationally consistent VET funding and pricing.

For example, one of the most popular VET courses in Australia is the Certificate 3 in individual support — the course you’d study to work in aged or disability care. Standard subsidies for this course vary by as much as A$3,700 across Australia.

The report calls for more submissions and consultation as part of the next phase of the review.

The initial assumption of the commissioners was that the changing nature of work largely driven by new technology would be the main driver of changes to VET requirements.

But given the disruptions to the economy, and learning delivery having moved online, the commissioners note that while their current options and recommendations are unlikely to change in the general sense, COVID-19 is probably driving longer-term changes to the economy.

They say the pandemic may lead to structural changes in the VET sector which will also be relevant to any future agreements between governments.

– ref. There may not be enough skilled workers in Australia’s pipeline for a post-COVID-19 recovery – https://theconversation.com/there-may-not-be-enough-skilled-workers-in-australias-pipeline-for-a-post-covid-19-recovery-140061

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn J. Whitaker, Senior Lecturer in New Testament, Pilgrim Theological College, University of Divinity

US President Donald Trump delivered an address this week in which he threatened military action on the nation. Then he walked to the nearby St John’s Episcopal Church to pose with a Bible.

Yes, Trump held the Bible like a baby holding a spoon for the first time – unsure which end is which – but the real problem was the complete disconnection between the text in his hand and the force, both verbally threatened and actually used, to clear the way for his stunt. Tear gas and militarised police cleared crowds, including some of the church’s own clergy from its grounds, in order for Trump to pose in front of the church.

Read more: When Trump attacks the press, he attacks the American people and their Constitution

While Christian outrage at Trump’s hypocrisy is genuine, for reasons that several Christian leaders have elegantly articulated, we need to ask ourselves: did Trump do anything new? Has he done anything that powerful “Christian” leaders haven’t done for centuries?

The answer is no.

Co-opting Christianity in the service of power is almost as old as Christianity itself. In the culture war raging in America, the very president who has stoked the flames of racism and white supremacy effectively claimed God is on his side. It is deeply offensive, but it is not new.

In the early fourth century CE, Flavius Valerius Constantine would defeat his brother-in-law, Maxentius, in a battle for control of the Roman Empire. His victory would solidify him as emperor of a vast western empire.

The legend goes that Constantine had a vision before the battle on Milvian Bridge: he saw a cross of light in the sky and heard a voice that said, “in this sign, conquer”. The next morning, Constantine ordered his soldiers to paint crosses on their shields. They marched into battle as the first cross-bearing “Christian” soldiers. When Constantine won, he would attribute his victory to the God of the Christians.

While historians are quick to point out that this “conversion” of Constantine is as much myth as reality, and may have been motivated by either political expediency or sheer superstition, it marked a turning point for Christianity. The new emperor’s adoption of the cross transformed a persecuted, minority sect into a legitimate religion and, eventually, the official state religion.

The use of propaganda and standardised imagery was not new for the Roman Empire. Indeed, they were already experts in using imagery to communicate dominance, power and a certain worldview. The new element in 312 CE was the type of imagery; Christian instead of pagan, a cross representing the death and resurrection of Jesus instead of a god, goddess or symbol from the Roman Pantheon.

We have been left with a legacy in Western Christianity of powerful rulers claiming God for their cause. The Crusaders rode out to fight Muslims with chests and shields adorned with the sign of the cross, popes would wield more power than kings, and God’s name would be invoked in war after war.

Eventually, Christianity became so synonymous with colonial power and whiteness that the two can be hard to distinguish. It is telling that, in the new Western empire, no American president has been elected without explicitly signalling his Christian faith.

Photoshopped images of Hitler with a Bible started to circulate this week following Trump’s stunt. Evidence already exists for the casual way in which Hitler, too, co-opted Christianity for his cause. A 1930s propaganda book titled Hitler as No One Knows Him contains numerous photographs of Hitler designed to make him likeable. One of them has him leaving a church, implying his Christian faith and basic decency, suggesting he is a good Christian just like so many of those who were deceived by his politics and drafted to his cause.

Closer to home, the Bible arrived on the shores of Australia in the hands of those who would colonise this land through violence and domination. Its diverse history here has been described by Meredith Lake. But the Bible was, at least superficially, synonymous with white culture and power. It would be (mis)used to justify colonisation in Australia just as it was to argue for apartheid in South Africa.

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

The co-option of Christian symbols by Western Christian empires has meant its core symbols have often been inverted in meaning. The great irony is that the cross worn as a symbol of power and victory by imperial soldiers was first the symbol of the unjust death of Jesus, a brown-skinned Jew killed by the Roman State. It was a shameful symbol in that culture, an image for a humiliating public death.

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

The Bible, wielded by Trump and others like him, likewise did not begin its life as the text of the victor. Had Trump read the text he held, he would have found a story of liberation for slaves, a divine preference for the poor, a demand of justice for the marginalised, a cry of lament from those who grieve, and a damning critique of any empire that oppressed its people.

What Trump did was not new. But perhaps we are offended because his delivery was so unsophisticated, an insult to our intelligence for its lack of pretence at genuine faith. He didn’t even attempt to enter the church and pray nor open the Bible and read it.

Both church and Bible were mere backdrops, doing the rhetorical work Trump needed in signalling his virtue and values to his base. Values, to be clear, that are antithetical to both the building and the book in his hand.

– ref. Trump’s photo op with church and Bible was offensive, but not new – https://theconversation.com/trumps-photo-op-with-church-and-bible-was-offensive-but-not-new-140053

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Senior Lecturer and clinical academic gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

Why do we burp? We sometimes also burp before meals, why does this happen? — Ahaana, age 7

That is a really interesting question, Ahaana!

There are two types of burping, but mainly we burp to get rid of swallowed air from our stomach.

What is a burp?

A burp is the sudden escape of gas from the food pipe to the top of your throat. It can be loud or silent.

Read more: Curious Kids: why are burps so loud?

The food pipe is a cylinder which sits on top of the stomach, and is known scientifically as the oesophagus.

At either end of the oesophagus is a valve, called a “sphincter”. These valves are quite strong and stop food coming out again after you eat. This is why you can stand upside down after eating without food falling back into your mouth!

When these valves relax, they let out excess gas which we call a burp.

Burps get rid of swallowed air

There are two types of burping. The first is known as gastric burping, which comes from your stomach. It is the most common type of burp.

Gastric burping is a normal way our body gets rid of swallowed air. We may not realise it, but every time we swallow food, around a tablespoon worth of air also enters our stomach.

Eventually, this buildup of air stretches the stomach and causes both the valves to relax at both the top and bottom of your food pipe.

For the air that escapes upwards from your stomach, your muscles help to push the air out. These muscles are in a part of your body called your “diaphragm”, and also the muscles at the front of your tummy, which you might call your “abs” or “six-pack”.

These muscles push the air up your oesophagus and then out of your mouth (or sometimes your nose!).

Gastric burping is normal – you can do up to 30 burps a day. We don’t just swallow air while eating, but all through the day. This explains why people can burp before meals as well as after.

This type of burping becomes more frequent when we drink fizzy drinks like lemonade because these drinks have bubbles in them, made of a gas called carbon dioxide. This adds to the air in our stomach and makes more burps.

Burping can also increase when we run around a lot. This is because body movement and increased pressure in the abdomen makes the lower valve relax more frequently.

Gastric burping is usually not a problem for people, except for the rare situations where some people can swallow lots of air. This is called “aerophagia” and can make people feel bloated and do lots and lots of burps.

A good night’s sleep can help reduce burping, and eating different foods that have less sugar and starch in them can also help.

Read more: If sugar is so bad for us, why is the sugar in fruit OK?

Oops, I did it again – and again

Burping is usually fine, but it can turn into a problem if people are burping way too much. This doesn’t usually happen with stomach burps, but it can happen with a second type of burps, which come from above the stomach, in the food pipe. Some people who do these types of burps can burp hundreds of times a day!

Normally, when we try and take a deep breath, the breathing muscle contracts. But in people who do way too many burps, their breathing muscle contracts not on-purpose!

This means that air gets sucked into the food pipe by accident. But air does not go all the way into the stomach. The lower valve remains closed and the “abs” strain, causing the air to be quickly pushed back up the food pipe and out of the mouth.

This type of burping might happen for people who are very stressed or sad for a long time, which we call mental illness.

But thankfully, there are ways to help. One way teaches people who burp too much to use their minds to understand the warning signs. Then they can use special exercises that focus on the proper use of the breathing muscle which can help reduce the burps.

Read more: Curious Kids: why do some people worry more than others?

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

This article is supported by the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas.

– ref. Curious Kids: why do we burp? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-we-burp-137493

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justine Bell-James, Associate Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

After years of litigation, Australia’s highest court will today make a major decision on the fate of the controversial proposed expansion to the New Acland Coal mine in Queensland.

A so-called “special leave application”, if successful, may eventually see the matter sent back to Queensland’s Land Court for a new hearing.

If the application fails, the mine expansion is one big step closer to proceeding, with only a few approvals left to obtain.

Read more: These young Queenslanders are taking on Clive Palmer’s coal company and making history for human rights

If approved, the project will have serious ramifications for prime agricultural land and groundwater in the region. As one opponent, Oakey Coal Action Alliance (OCAA) secretary Paul King, has said:

We believe it is really crucial that these important matters are tested in court, because once groundwater is lost it’s most likely lost forever.

Today’s ruling will also have ramifications for the law of apprehended bias, which is a perception by a fair observer that a “judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide”.

The proposed coal mine

The New Acland Coal mine is located on Queensland’s Darling Downs about 170km west of Brisbane and just north-west of Toowoomba.

The mine began operating in 2002 and a decade later was producing more than 5 million tonnes of thermal coal each year.

New Acland Coal is now seeking approval for stage 3 of the mine, which would produce 9 million tonnes of coal per year from new pits to the south of the existing mine.

The mine sits in the middle of prime agricultural land. Farmers and the community are deeply concerned the proposed expansion will have serious impacts including groundwater depletion, noise, air quality, visual amenity, soil damage, social disruption and land values. It will also absorb the town of Acland.

After some scaling down, the Queensland Labor government issued a draft environmental authority for the project in 2015. Commonwealth approval followed in 2017.

The start of litigation – the Land Court

A large group of farmers and residents, including OCAA, took their objections to the draft environmental authority and mining lease to Queensland’s Land Court.

These objections were heard together in 2016 in a mammoth 100-day hearing, the longest in the 120-year history of the court. In an equally mammoth recommendation spanning almost 2,000 paragraphs, then Land Court member Paul Smith recommended the mining lease and environmental authority be rejected.

Not all the objections succeeded. Smith based his refusal on groundwater modelling inadequacies, make-good arrangements for landholders, noise impacts and agricultural impacts.

Judicial review – the Supreme Court

New Acland Coal applied for judicial review of Smith’s recommendation on 15 initial grounds. One of these was apprehended bias.

The apprehended bias allegations included that Smith threatened contempt of New Acland Coal staff during the hearing, questioned their motives, rejected evidence without a genuine basis and assisted the objectors with their arguments.

During the hearing, there was a lot of focus on comments made by New Acland Coal in the media regarding delays in the Land Court. It was suggested Smith had taken personal offence to these statements.

The claim succeeded in 2018 on several grounds, mainly related to groundwater. In particular, Justice Helen Bowskill found the Land Court does not have jurisdiction to consider groundwater issues. The apprehended bias allegation did not succeed at this stage.

The rehearing in the Land Court

The matter was sent back to the Land Court for a limited rehearing, on the issues New Acland Coal succeeded on before the Supreme Court. Land Court president Fleur Kingham in November 2018 recommended approval of the mining project.

This was perhaps a reluctant recommendation, given the hearing was necessarily limited in scope. As Kingham said, a full rehearing would have allowed her to consider issues such as New Acland Coal’s past environmental performance in greater detail.

Appeal and cross-appeal

This is where is gets complicated. While waiting for the Land Court rehearing, OCAA appealed against Justice Bowskill’s decision to the Court of Appeal in May 2018. New Acland Coal cross-appealed over the finding of no apprehended bias.

In September 2019, the Court of Appeal dismissed OCAA’s arguments, but upheld New Acland Coal’s argument that apprehended bias had affected the original Land Court recommendation.

A finding of apprehended bias would generally result in the matter being sent back to the original court or tribunal for a fresh hearing before an independent person.

By this stage, a fresh hearing was not in New Acland Coal’s interests, as it already had a favourable result from the Land Court. However, a fresh hearing would be an opportunity for OCAA to test its arguments before a new Land Court member.

Fortunately for the mining company, the Court of Appeal did not order a rehearing. Instead, the court held the recommendations of Kingham and the findings of Justice Bowskill should stand.

Application for special leave to appeal

It is perhaps surprising the Court of Appeal found apprehended bias, but did not order a fresh hearing.

Read more: Rio Tinto just blasted away an ancient Aboriginal site. Here’s why that was allowed

On this basis, OCAA applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal the decision. If it succeeds in seeking special leave – and is then successful in a hearing before the High Court – the matter will go back to the Land Court for an entirely new hearing on all the facts and issues.

If the application is unsuccessful, the Court of Appeal’s decision will stand. The controversial mine expansion will have officially cleared a major hurdle and be closer to proceeding.

Today’s decision is being closely watched. It may have broad ramifications for future decisions involving apprehended bias. And it could have devastating consequences for farmers and landholders, as well as their land and groundwater supplies.

– ref. High Court decision today on the long legal battle over New Acland Coal mine expansion – https://theconversation.com/high-court-decision-today-on-the-long-legal-battle-over-new-acland-coal-mine-expansion-139866

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Williams, Associate Professor in Urban Ecology and Urban Horticulture, University of Melbourne

Tomorrow is the first World Green Roof Day. Cities around the world will celebrate the well-documented environmental, economic and social benefits of green roofs. New ground-level green spaces are difficult to create in high-density urban areas. As a result, other forms of city greening – green roofs, green walls and vegetated facades – are increasingly popular.

Being able to grow plants up and on top of buildings combines grey infrastructure with green infrastructure. Unfortunately, most Australian cities are lagging behind many international counterparts in this aspect of urban greening.

Read more: Australian cities are lagging behind in greening up their buildings

Roadmap outlines key steps

To explore how to increase the uptake of engineered green infrastructure we ran appreciative inquiry summits in Sydney and Melbourne. More than 60 representatives from the building and horticultural industries, local and state governments and universities attended. They worked together to create a positive vision for greener Australian cities using green roofs, walls and facades.

Participants identified key actions to achieve this goal. These are compiled in the Roadmap for green roofs, walls and facades in Australia’s urban landscapes 2020-2030. The newly released report sets out how to achieve a flourishing green infrastructure industry and more liveable, green, climate-adapted Australian cities.

There is a significant amount of Australian-specific information on the benefits, value and construction requirements of green roofs, walls and facades. Sharing this knowledge is essential for accelerating advances and bringing people up to speed quickly. A key recommendation was establishing a cloud-based knowledge hub and accompanying programs.

It’s also about job growth

Green roofs, walls and facades require a diverse mix of professions and trades to build them. As the sector grows, many jobs will be created.

Changes to government policies and inclusion in economic recovery programs are key to this. For example, in Toronto a 2009 bylaw made green roofs mandatory on new buildings with floor areas greater than 2,000 square metres. That change is estimated to have created more than 1,600 jobs in their construction and 25 jobs a year in maintenance.

Education and training programs will be needed to upskill the new workforce. The National Skills Standards for Green Walls and Rooftop Gardens is a welcome vocational training initiative. In addition, university engineering, design and planning graduates require greater expertise in both policy and implementation, backed up by continuing professional development programs.

Read more: If planners understand it’s cool to green cities, what’s stopping them?

Government leadership makes a difference

Strong government leadership is a feature of countries and cities with a rapid uptake of green roofs, walls and facades. They have clear policies and strategies, established funding mechanisms and good co-ordination among all levels of government.

A national transition to more sustainable cities that incorporates systematic job-making is desirable. It could be achieved through new federal government City Deals focused on stimulating the green economy.

The European Union has already proposed fiscal recovery packages along these lines. Economists have identified policies with high potential for both economic multiplier effects and climate impact.

Read more: Forget siestas, ‘green micro-breaks’ could boost work productivity

Cities that combine incentives with regulation have higher rates of green infrastructure installation. Education and advocacy to ensure standards of design, installation and maintenance further improve these rates. Importantly, tailored policies can produce green roofs, walls and facades that deal with specific impacts of urbanisation, such as stormwater runoff in flood-prone catchments.

The City of Melbourne has adopted this approach. Its Green Our City Strategic Action Plan identified the benefits of requiring new buildings to include green infrastructure via a planning scheme amendment. The amendment is yet to be approved. However, the city’s Urban Forest Fund is providing incentives for projects.

In addition, the council has released an Australian-first online Green Factor Tool to measure and improve vegetation cover on new developments. Developers have been asked to voluntarily submit a green factor scorecard with building planning applications. This is expected to increase greening in the private realm.

Crisis also creates opportunities

The upheavals in how we live and work caused by COVID-19 also provide opportunities. It’s a chance for developers and building managers to rethink apartment and office building design, with health and well-being in mind. The benefits of green roofs for the cognitive functioning and well-being of employees are already well documented.

Read more: Biophilic urbanism: how rooftop gardening soothes souls

During the pandemic we have seen high demand for urban green space and nature. Rooftop and podium-level green roofs can help meet this public need. If next to lunch rooms, these spaces may help workers feel safer in communal areas.

A business tax incentive for retrofits of this type would also help to stimulate the construction industry.

Australian cities are already experiencing hotter days, more intense storms and flooding. Creating more green roofs, walls and facades is an important way to respond to climate change and biodiversity impacts. At the same time, these actions create engaging and restorative outdoor spaces for workers and residents. The new roadmap provides a bold but achievable path towards a more sustainable and liveable future.

– ref. Greening our grey cities: here’s how green roofs and walls can flourish in Australia – https://theconversation.com/greening-our-grey-cities-heres-how-green-roofs-and-walls-can-flourish-in-australia-139478

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Klein, Senior Lecturer, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Robodebt isn’t the only measure the government should consider withdrawing.

Late last Friday, after a long press conference from the prime minister which avoided any mention of the topic, the government conceded all points on its so-called “robodebt” formula for alleging welfare recipients have been overpaid.

It’ll refund all of the A$721 million collected including interest charged and collection fees charged. The 470,000 Australians affected have yet to receive an apology or damages.

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

Our research suggests ParentsNext needs also to be addressed .

It subjects more than 75,000 low-income parents of pre-school children, 95% of whom are female, to a compulsory, complicated and discriminatory “pre-employment program”.

Those deemed not to cooperate lose their parenting payments.

Disproportionately Indigenous and female

Participation is based upon perceived risk of “intergenerational welfare dependency”, itself a questionable assumption.

It began as a trial in ten locations in 2016. From July 2018 it was rolled out across Australia.

In December 2018, 75,259 people were in ParentsNext: 95% women, 19% Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, 21% culturally and linguistically diverse, and 12% with a disability.

Our interviews with participants paint a picture of a weekly “tick-the-box” exercise conducted under the threat of losing payments below the poverty line at a time when caring for children, often under challenging circumstances, is more than enough to keep them busy.

Read more: More than unpopular. How ParentsNext intrudes on single parents’ human rights

Natasha* left school in Year 10 and has since worked in sales and administration roles. She arranged for a friend to come and keep her two-year-old occupied so she would be free to take a phone call scheduled to determine her eligibility for ParentsNext.

After an hour of waiting, Natasha was stressed and her friend had to leave. Her call came eventually.

Anna’s never did. Anna* has three children and cares for people with spinal cord injuries on a casual basis. Her Centrelink payments were suspended because she was deemed to have missed a compulsory meeting about ParentsNext, deemed to have been set up in a call that never came.

Makework instead of work

ParentsNext attracted negative media attention in late 2018, with women revealing they were forced to sign participation plans agreeing to attend playgroups, story-time sessions at their local library and swimming lessons at their own expense, instead of getting appropriate training and employment assistance.

Failure to sign would have meant loss of income.

Megan* agreed to keep on taking her child to a local playgroup. Once playgroup became a compulsory matter, however, it “drained the joy” from her involvement and she grew increasingly resentful about needing to be there.

Svetlana* explained to her case-worker that most days she catches two buses across town to care for her elderly mother. This responsibility was not deemed a legitimate activity. She has health problems and is a single mother with few social connections.

Read more: Turning local libraries, pools and playgroups into sites of surveillance – ParentsNext goes too far

“I need help,” she said simply. Like others, she had hoped ParentsNext would help get her back into the workforce. She was left demoralised after agreeing to enrol in an online TAFE course that proved too difficult to complete.

Meanwhile, program providers profit from creating and enforcing participation in “activities” of debatable benefit to participants.

These kinds of revelations led to a Senate Inquiry that reported in March 2019.

ParentsNext continues largely unreformed despite the Senate committee’s recommendation that it cease in its current form.

It is consistent with a long Australian history of blaming, punishing and stigmatising welfare recipients and single mothers in particular.

Participation requirements have been suspended during the stay-at-home period of COVID-19 restrictions, allowing participants to focus on parenting, but they are about to restart.

We can do better than forcing already stretched parents into more stressful situations. They already do huge amounts of unpaid work caring for their children.

This unpaid work is a fundamental part of economy; by some estimates worth three times as much as our mining, finance, construction or manufacturing industries.

We ought to value the role of unpaid care and view it as an irreplaceable component of the formal economy, essential to our rebuilding post-COVID.

*Pseudonyms have been used for the people taking part in our research

Andi Sebastian and Jenny Davidson (Council for Single Mothers and their Children) also authored this article.

– ref. After Robodebt, it’s time to address ParentsNext – https://theconversation.com/after-robodebt-its-time-to-address-parentsnext-133222

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

Harvard University’s Alberto Alesina died suddenly of a heart attack on May 23.

He was 63.

His long-time colleague and friend Larry Summers wrote that before him, “there was no academic field of political economy. Today, political economy is an important component of economics and political science.”

That is because of Alberto’s contribution. More distinguished scholars than I – Ed Glaeser, Howard Rosenthal, Stefanie Stantcheva, Paola Giuliano, and Summers – have provided wonderful accounts of his work in recent days.

I had the great privilege of having him on my PhD thesis committee, and counting him as a friend.

The father of political economy

The modern field of political economy views the political process as a critical determinant of economic outcomes.

It might be that political instability threatens economic growth, or that political programs designed to redistribute income or wealth hinder or help growth, depending on their design.

Whatever they do, political processes and institutions have economic consequences, and they can be examined through an economic lens.

An important institutional question he examined was the best way to control inflation.

In a series of papers with multiple coauthors he identified the advantages of an independent central bank.

The median voter in would like to appoint a central banker that cares a lot about inflation, but might also be tempted to remove that central banker because of the short-run (but not long-run) tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.

Central bank independence is the way out. As he and Summers put it

insulating monetary policy from the political process avoids this problem and helps enforce the low inflation equilibrium

His 2001 paper with Ed Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote posed a big question in its title: “Why Doesn’t the US Have a European-Style Welfare System?”

The final two sentences of its abstract seem distressingly apposite in light of the current wrenching events in the United States:

Racial animosity in the US makes redistribution to the poor, who are disproportionately black, unappealing to many voters. American political institutions limited the growth of a socialist party, and more generally limited the political power of the poor

Beyond this, his work showed that political party platforms need not converge on to the interests of the median voter – something that might seem obvious now, but was revolutionary in the late 1980s.

His insight was that politicians care about more than being elected. They also care (to some degree) about the policies that are implemented when they are elected. His elegant mathematical model turned the Median Voter Theorem on its head.

The optimal number of nations

It is hard to understate the importance of this body of work, one which no doubt the Nobel Committee would have recognised one day. But for me there is one strand that captures the breadth and creativity of his scholarship.

What is the optimal size and number of nations?

This is breathtaking question that one might suspect is reserved for a statesman such as Bismark rather than a social scientist.

But in a 1997 Quarterly Journal of Economics paper and later a wonderful book with Enrico Spolaore, he provided a politico-economic model of “country formation as a result of a specific trade-off between the benefits of large political jurisdictions and the costs of heterogeneity in large population”.

Larger political entities – the European Union is the prototypical example – are so diverse that it is difficult to reach agreement on any number of matters.

Democracies give us too many

On the other hand, larger countries are better at self insuring against shocks and have bigger markets, with less need to worry about neighbours. Put more technically, governments internalise externalities.

The implications are as far reaching as the question.

Alesina and Spolaore showed that the process of democratisation leads to secessions: we should observe “fewer countries in a nondemocratic world than in a democratic one”, that “the democratic process leads to an inefficiently large number of countries”, and that the equilibrium number “is increasing with the amount of international economic integration”.

He’s already missed

Alberto was the epitome of great scholar. He posed deep and important questions central to both politics and the economy. And he showed how those questions could be answered with the mathematical and statistical tools of social science.

Very few scholars create a field, let alone one that encompasses profound issues.

Those of us whose lives he touched directly found him to be an inspiration, a supporter, a comfort, and a person of seemingly limitless intellectual and emotional generosity. We miss him already.

– ref. Vital signs. Remembering Alberto Alesina, the father of political economy – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-remembering-alberto-alesina-the-father-of-political-economy-139995

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Griffith University

What keeps democracies together? As America burns, Brazilians die and Europe braces for another wave of the coronavirus, the question assumes an alarming immediacy. If the answer is complicated in one way, it is simple in another: what we have in common, what we share, and what we value as a result.

This week saw the federal government finally open discussions about real support for Australia’s flailing cultural sector as it slips ever closer to the abyss, and prepares to take a significant chunk of Australia’s GDP with it.

COVID-19 has shown up a mind-bending contradiction. On the one hand, the arts are entwined with our daily lives. Whether we are out and about, or in lockdown, it is the arts that fill our days with meaning, instruction and fun. Yet culture has all but disappeared as a major focus of federal policy. The tailored assistance packages have been manifestly inadequate, while the exclusions around JobKeeper have badly affected cultural workers and organisations.

Labor’s Tony Burke said it plainly on ABC radio last Friday and again, this week, in print:

This industry is worth an estimated $111 billion a year. It employs hundreds of thousands of Australian workers. It helps drive other industries, too, like tourism and hospitality. It’s an important part of our economy. But [the government] has done next to nothing [to support it].

Moving on from Mathias Corman’s erroneous claim that the sector has not demonstrated a significant fall in revenue, the government is now promising a culture-focused coronavirus relief fund. Details are scanty. A proposal would need to clear the expenditure review committee, and discussions with state arts ministers (reportedly tense) appear to have stalled.

But it isn’t just a matter of money. The real question – the one every cultural worker feels like a kick in the face – is why the sector was left out of policy calculations in the first place.

Something has gone fundamentally wrong with the relationship between government and Australian culture. This is important to acknowledge, because behind the question of how the nation should support the cultural sector is the larger one of what value the sector truly provides. Now is the moment to reconsider the whole cause and case of arts and culture, their place in Australian life. That can only be done if there is an understanding of how we got into this policy black hole in the first place.

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

Australia’s failed attempts at finding common ground

A central feature of arts and culture that makes them hard to manage from a policy perspective is that they include both the broadest aspects of human existence, and the most particular. Culture defines us, our common values and collective way of life. At the same time, we enjoy specific cultural activities and art forms as a matter of individual preference. This double helix makes them a profoundly challenging area for governments to address.

By conducting the conversation about arts and culture in solely economic terms – and this has been the way we have talked about them for a long while now – we neglect a host of issues key to understanding the real role they play in our lives. We strip the conversation of its political, historical, social and moral dimensions.

It is time to regain those dimensions and integrate them into a new cultural policy vision. This is not an easy task nor simply a matter of goodwill. It requires wrestling with large and sometimes uncomfortable questions of history, identity, and social purpose.

There are two prime examples of common values thinking whose failure weakened a proper understanding of Australian arts and culture at a policy level. Both aimed to articulate our identity as a nation, and though neither were specifically cultural documents, they both involved artists. One came from the conservative side of politics, one from the progressive side.

The first was Prime Minister John Howard’s attempt to insert a Preamble into the Australian Constitution in 1999, which was written with the help of the poet Les Murray. The other was the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is itself an artwork, in the form of a Yirrkala bark petition, telling two Anangu creation stories in pictorial form.

Both documents sought to encompass, in a few hundred words, principles important to all Australians. There are, of course, significant differences between them. But there are also some compelling consonances, and at a time of growing social and political division, these are worth considering.

Here are eight key words the Preamble and the Uluru Statement have in common:

The Preamble was lost in the vortex of the republic referendum. The Uluru Statement was rejected by the Turnbull government.

Yet without these kinds of common values statements, and considered debate around them, the soullessness characterising the government’s response to arts and culture during COVID-19 will continue.

Read more: Remember the arts? Departments and budgets disappear as politics backs culture into a dead end

It’s not just the economy, stupid

When the policy case for the cultural sector is made, it is almost always in terms of its incidental effects – the social, health, diplomatic and especially economic impact. When cultural policy is developed, its relationship with our national identity, with our history, with our land, with the vast tapestry of Australian experiences and stories, is ignored or given only lip-service.

We don’t ignore these on a personal level, of course. The arts wouldn’t make any sense if we did. But when we address them in policy terms, the words aren’t there. We can’t speak to ourselves in meaningful ways about what we culturally care for and see this translated into effective public action.

However important the issue of financial assistance to the cultural sector is – and I’d be the first to say it’s vital – there is a broader conversation that determines it. It is one that Australia often seems reluctant to have. But it offers the chance to discover the things that genuinely unite us, not just the ones over which we angrily disagree.

Only by finding the courage to talk honestly and openly about difficult matters of history, identity and collective purpose can we develop the emotional and intellectual resources to value the arts and culture that are their daily expression.

Only by finding a way to agree on the common values we have as a nation will the place of Australian arts and culture be better understood by everyone. Especially by governments, who should support them as part of our precious, democratic way of life.

– ref. Friday essay: the politics of dancing and thinking about cultural values beyond dollars – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-politics-of-dancing-and-thinking-about-cultural-values-beyond-dollars-139839

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

When Ken Wyatt, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, last week effectively pronounced dead the prospect of a referendum on indigenous recognition being put to the people this parliamentary term, the demise of his hoped-for timetable received little attention.

Partly, this was because Wyatt’s aspiration had always seemed unrealistic.

But centrally, it was that the pandemic has thrust aside nearly all other issues, including those that once generated big headlines and vociferous debate.

This total re-ordering of agendas and priorities has been understandable and necessary. When 1.6 million Australians are on the dole, millions of others are being publicly subsidised, the economy is in recession and no one can be sure how rocky to path to recovery will be, the government must concentrate all its efforts on the main task.

Certainly that’s what most Australians would want.

Still, while the government has seldom been so (usefully) busy, it is worth giving a thought to what’s been shoved aside.

Asked last week where things were up to on three issues, the indigenous recognition referendum, religious freedom legislation and the proposed anti-corruption commission, Scott Morrison fudged on the first (later clarified by Wyatt) and indicated cabinet hadn’t thought about the others for a long time.

The government already has an unreleased exposure draft for the federal anti-corruption body. There is pressure to act on this front, and it seems more than likely the legislation will be brought forward.

The religious discrimination legislation is another story. Its origins go back to the same sex marriage vote when Malcolm Turnbull, as a sop to the conservatives on the losing side, promised an inquiry into religious freedom, which was chaired by one-time Liberal minister Philip Ruddock.

Morrison got some mileage with the issue among religious communities at last year’s election, but it has subsequently turned into a nightmare.

None of the religious stakeholders like the draft legislation. They have varying objections but at the core is that they believe it doesn’t go far enough.

Liberal backbencher Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who always wanted to go further, says: “Despite theological differences, religious leaders across the spectrum have expressed serious concerns about the draft bills”.

Attorney-General Christian Porter had carriage of the negotiations, which COVID stalled. While he’d obviously deny it, it’s fair to say his heart wasn’t really in the task.

(Porter, incidentally, is absurdly overloaded. As well as attorney-general, he is minister for industrial relations, and leader of the House of Representatives. He’ll have a great deal to do on IR for the rest of this term, given it is a central part of the government’s reform agenda. Apart from religious freedom, the anti-corruption commission also comes within his remit.)

Read more: Grattan on Friday: When Christian met Sally – the match made by a pandemic

The demands of the stakeholders on religious freedom will not be met by the government, and the legislation appears to have hit a dead end.

Fierravanti-Wells says: “No bill is better than this flawed bill. I suspect it will now be quietly shelved by the government.” She is advocating, as an alternative, the consolidation of discrimination laws across the country into federal legislation to get consistency.

On the other side of the religious freedom argument, critics think this legislation should not have been pursued in the first place – that it is unnecessary and could have undesirable consequences.

The most sensible course would be simply to inter it as soon as decently possible.

If the religious freedom legislation is yet to be formally killed off, the prospect of recognising indigenous people in the constitution would to have little chance under a Coalition government even in a subsequent term of parliament (assuming Morrison was re-elected).

Laying aside the referendum Wyatt, whose comments came during National Reconciliation Week, said: “COVID-19 has presented many challenges – unfortunately a referendum is unlikely in this term … This is too important to rush and too important to fail”.

But even without COVID, Wyatt in the next few months would surely have had to admit a referendum next year had become too hard.

In the early days of the Coalition government (under Tony Abbott) there appeared to be a window. But divisions within the Coalition’s ranks and base, Labor’s insistence the wording must go further than the government would ever accept, the expectations of First Australians, the argument over a “voice” to parliament, the high hurdle for changing the constitution – all these have made it extremely difficult (if not impossible) for the necessary support to be achieved.

It’s questionable whether a Labor government could do any better.

Current events in the United States have inevitably refocused attention on Australian indigenous issues. This is not to suggest equivalence. But we’re seeing demonstrations of solidarity, and local injustices and problems freshly highlighted.

Deaths of indigenous people in custody continue – more than 400 over the last three decades – as does excessive use of force on occasion (which happened this week with a policeman’s reaction to the threatening language used by an Aboriginal youth in Sydney).

The high rate of incarceration of Australian indigenous people remains unaddressed; appalling conditions exist in many communities.

Read more: Despite 432 Indigenous deaths in custody since 1991, no one has ever been convicted. Racist silence and complicity are to blame

Labor’s shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, herself indigenous, said this week that “in some parts of Australia, particularly in the north, the incarcerated population – adult and juvenile – are almost all Indigenous”.

“Many First Nations Australians are in custody for short periods of time. But we need to consider factors which are prompting interactions with the justice system and the nature of those interactions, such as bail laws or police training,” she said.

Incarceration, bad living conditions, and the general disadvantage of many First Australians remain blights on our society.

In policy terms they are “wicked problems”, not capable of ready solutions, though both advocates and their opponents would often have you believe otherwise.

Neither constitutional recognition, nor even a “voice” – and remember the government treated dismissively the call in the Uluru Statement from the Heart for a voice to parliament and instead is promoting an ill-defined alternative – would solve them.

But constitutional recognition would be symbolically important to First Australians as well as a proper completion of our constitution.

And an effective “voice” could be an important practical contribution to making what have been such intractable issues a little more tractable.

Yet we seem to find these steps harder to deal with than the immense challenges of a pandemic.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Pandemic kills Indigenous referendum, delivers likely mortal blow to religious discrimination legislation – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-pandemic-kills-indigenous-referendum-delivers-likely-mortal-blow-to-religious-discrimination-legislation-140079

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

The Morrison government will significantly strengthen its scrutiny of foreign investment to protect sensitive national security technology and information and further ring fence the nation’s critical infrastructure.

It will insert a new “national security test” on bids, in a sweeping overhaul of the foreign investment regime.

The action follows mounting public concern about Chinese investment, although the government – already under harsh criticism from China – will seek to play down suggestions it relates to any one country, and point out it has been a long time in the pipeline.

Planned new legislation will also strengthen compliance provisions to ensure foreign investors follow conditions attached to approvals.

During the pandemic, all foreign investment bids are being scrutinised to ensure unfair advantage is not taken of distressed companies.

But in normal circumstances those under certain thresholds escape examination by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB), the body that makes recommendations to the treasurer.

While all bids from foreign governments are screened, most private investments under $275 million – or $1.2 billion if the country has a free trade agreement with Australia, as China and a number of other major trading partners do – are not scrutinised.

The government is concerned investments in some very sensitive sectors are escaping screening even when there are national security concerns. Of particular worry is the vulnerability of small and medium sized companies that have specialised expertise, but fall below the threshold in value.

Under the new test, foreign investors will have to notify FIRB if they propose to start or acquire an interest – generally 10% or a position of control – in a “sensitive national security business”.

This will mean all foreign investments in sensitive national security businesses will be examined.

Businesses which raise sensitive national security concerns are those involved in critical infrastructure, including telecommunications, energy, ports and water, as well as those which service defence and national security organisations.

The national security test will also involve new powers.

The treasurer will be able to “call in” an investment before, during or after an acquisition if it raises risks which were not picked up earlier.

The treasurer will also have a new “last resort” power enabling them to apply or vary conditions or order disposal of an investment where national security concerns emerge after approval. This last resort power would only apply to future approvals – it will not be retrospective.

The government will release draft legislation next month for consultations. It wants it passed this year, to apply from January 1 next year.

It is estimated the new security arrangements will affect only a very small proportion of total foreign investment.

The tougher compliance measures follow complaints that some foreign investors ignore the conditions that are attached to approved bids. Recently fingers were pointed at Alinta for not implementing conditions about information storage. The company was told to comply.

Increasingly, conditions have been applied to allow bids to pass. In 2018-19, 4149 applications were approved with conditions attached. This was 47.6% of total approvals. By value, more than 80% of investment was approved subject to conditions.

The government says the monitoring and enforcement powers of Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office need expansion because of the extensive use of conditions and “emerging risks caused by global developments and rapid advances in technology”.

It notes that apart from residential property investments, the treasurer’s enforcement powers are limited to taking civil action or seeking a criminal prosecution. This inhibits the government’s ability to respond proportionately, for example to a minor breach.

Under the changes, the government will have a wider range of tools for enforcement, including for example, powers to give directions to investors to prevent or address suspected breaches.

While most of the announced changes are about toughening the scrutiny regime, the government will at the same time streamline the approval process for investments that do not raise national interest concerns.

Aware of the need to attract passive investment as part of the post COVID recovery, it will narrow the definition of a foreign government investor to exclude certain passive investments in funds where the investors have no influence over the investment or operational decisions of the entity.,

The government is committing $54 million over four years to step up compliance and monitoring capability. Funding will go to Treasury, the ATO and “relevant agencies such as the Department of Home Affairs”.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said the changes were the most significant made to the foreign investment regime since it was introduced in 1975.

“The reforms will ensure that our foreign investment regime is able to respond to emerging risks and global developments,” he said.

“Through the introduction of a new national security test, stronger enforcement powers and enhanced compliance obligations, we will ensure that Australia can continue to benefit from foreign investment while safeguarding our national interest.”

The reforms were developed with the support of FIRB whose chairman David Irvine has a national security background, including as head of ASIO.

Irvine said the package “appropriately addresses increasing risks to the national interest whilst ensuring Australia remains welcoming and open to foreign investment”.

– ref. Morrison government toughens foreign investment scrutiny to protect ‘national security’ – https://theconversation.com/morrison-government-toughens-foreign-investment-scrutiny-to-protect-national-security-140100

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

When a newspaper with the authority of The New York Times chooses to publish a party-political essay calculated to further inflame the violence wracking cities across America, serious questions arise.

On June 3 the Times published in its opinion section an essay by a Republican senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton, headlined “Send in the troops”.

It argued the case, plentifully coloured by party-political asides, in support of US President Donald Trump’s threat to mobilise the US military against the protests triggered by the police killing of George Floyd.

Read more: When Trump attacks the press, he attacks the American people and their Constitution

The newspaper’s decision provoked a stream of protests on social media, including from several journalists on its own staff. Some simply stated that they disagreed with Cotton. But for others, their objections ran far deeper.

Many expressed concern that it endangered the safety of Times journalists, in particular those who are black. In circumstances where the police are already turning their violence on journalists covering the protests, this is a well-founded objection.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, a correspondent for The New York Times Magazine who won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary last month, tweeted:

The NewsGuild of New York, the union that represents many Times journalists, said in a statement:

This is a particularly vulnerable moment in American history. Cotton’s Op-Ed pours gasoline on the fire. Media organizations have a responsibility to hold power to account, not amplify voices of power without context and caution.

In the face of these cogent criticisms, it might have been expected the Times would publish a coherent and substantial account of its reasons for running the Cotton essay. It has not. It has left it to the editorial page editor, James Bennet, to respond, and he has contented himself with a Twitter thread.

His reasoning, if it can be dignified with the term, can be summarised in these statements from that thread:

Times Opinion owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy.

We understand that many readers find Senator Cotton’s argument painful, even dangerous. We believe that is one reason it requires public scrutiny and debate.

These reasons can be swiftly disposed of before moving on to questions he did not bother to mention.

Counter-arguments: by all means, but why from a party-political source at this time in American history, when party-political polarisation is as deep as at any time in the post-civil war era? Why not invite a non-party source, perhaps an expert in national security, to make the case for military intervention?

From a person in a position to set policy: just about the strongest reason not to run such a piece. It aligns the paper closely with those in power, an abrogation of the paper’s independence from government.

Scrutiny and debate: government is better scrutinised at arm’s length, and the public debate that has ensued is not about the merits of military intervention, but about the inflammatory content of the essay and the Times’s decision to run it.

Now for the questions Bennet did not mention.

Did the Times solicit the essay from Cotton or did he offer it?

To what extent, if at all, did the Times consider the likely foreseeable consequences of running such a clearly partisan essay on so volatile an issue?

What consequences did it anticipate?

How did it balance the obvious risks of aggravating an already violent situation against the public-interest grounds Bennet has advanced?

Did it ask itself why a senator, with the powerful platform of the US Senate at his disposal, would seek to harness the authority of The New York Times to his cause?

Did it perceive that in lending its authority to this essay, it would be handing a valuable propaganda tool to the White House?

The newspaper’s blithe public disregard for these questions is unsettling.

In the three-and-a-half tumultuous years of the Trump presidency, America’s serious national newspapers -– the Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times -– have been a remarkable bulwark in defence of American democracy.

Along with the judiciary, they have discharged their institutional responsibilities fearlessly. They have kept an unflinching gaze on the Trump presidency and faced down his intimidatory tactics.

With Congress paralysed by partisan divisions, it is these two institutions that have made America’s democratic arrangements work.

Yet the strains are beginning to show.

The Washington Post reported this week, in the context of police attacks on the media covering the riots, that “the norms have broken down”.

In these circumstances, the decision by the Times to publish the Cotton essay is worse than just a bad editorial call.

At a critical juncture in this crisis, it suggests a failure of nerve.

– ref. In publishing Tom Cotton, the New York Times has made a terrible error of judgment – https://theconversation.com/in-publishing-tom-cotton-the-new-york-times-has-made-a-terrible-error-of-judgment-140065

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Program Director, Household Finances, Grattan Institute

Scott Morrison’s new housing stimulus package is straight-out retail politics.

HomeBuilder offers homeowners (including first home buyers) a grant of A$25,000 to build a new home worth less than $750,000 or to spend between $150,000 and $750,000 renovating an existing home.

The scheme is limited to owner-occupiers with reported incomes below $125,000 for singles and $200,000 for couples.

Giveaways to home buyers are wildly popular. And who wouldn’t want their house renovated on the public dime? The trouble is it’s bad economics.

Take the new grants for home owners wanting to renovate.

To be eligible, they have to sign a contract with a builder by the end of the year.

But renovations costing $150,000 or more take time to plan.

Read more: Why the focus of stimulus plans has to be construction that puts social housing first

The plans need to be drawn up, finance approved, and any building and development approvals secured.

Which means that anyone who signs a contract with a builder today was already planning to renovate.

And chances are that many who sign contracts over the coming months have already planned to renovate.

The new grants will also encourage the in-demand tradies to raise their prices.

They’ll add up to a lot of spending for few jobs saved.

Not many more homes

The grants for buying new homes are more likely to support construction jobs. They will encouraging buyers to bring forward purchases.

It’s why in 2008, in response to the global financial crisis, the Rudd government tripled the first home buyer grant to $21,000 for new homes.

There’s no doubt the coronavirus crisis has hit construction hard: in the past three months almost 7% of the industry’s workforce have lost their jobs.

But most industry forecasters expect at least 110,000 homes to be built (and sold) in Australia anyway next fiscal year.

And most of those first home buyers will be eligible for the grants

About 83% who had recently bought their first home in 2018 paid less than $750,000 for it. Of those, about 90% would have satisfied the income tests for the new grants.

That’s a lot of homes that will have to be funded first before HomeBuilder funds the construction of any extra homes.

Read more: Government to give $25,000 grants to people building or renovating homes

And stiff competition among prospective buyers of homes selling below the $750,000 price cap will force up the prices of those homes.

That’s a big win for developers selling house-and-land packages on the urban fringe.

Perhaps the best that can be said for the scheme is that it probably won’t cost much.

The grants are uncapped, but the government expects it to cost about $688 million for roughly 27,000 grants. And since many of those homes would have been built anyway the scheme won’t support many construction jobs either.

What’d be better

It’d be better to fund the states to build new social housing or refurbish existing homes, as the Rudd government did during the global financial crisis.

Many have forgotten about that scheme because it attracted so little controversy, unlike other of Rudd stimulus programs.

Public residential construction approvals spiked within months of the announcement, and more than half of the homes built went to tenants at risk or already homeless.

Building 30,000 new social housing units today would cost between $10 billion an $15 billion. it would support the building industry, and as important, would help many of the 116,000 Australians who are homeless on any given night.

It might not make for good retail politics, but it would help people who need it. And it would be good economics.

– ref. Scott Morrison’s HomeBuilder scheme is classic retail politics but lousy economics – https://theconversation.com/scott-morrisons-homebuilder-scheme-is-classic-retail-politics-but-lousy-economics-140076

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Richard Braczkowski, Research Associate, Griffith University

Pangolins are one of the most illegally trafficked animals on the planet and are suspected to be linked to the current coronavirus pandemic.

Pangolins are also one of the world’s most threatened species but new efforts are underway to reintroduce pangolins to parts of Africa where the animal has been extinct for decades.

Read more: What Australian birds can teach us about choosing a partner and making it last

The reintroduction of pangolins has not been easy. But it’s vital to prevent this shy, mysterious creature from being lost forever.

A cute but threatened species

Pangolins are the only mammals wholly-covered in scales, which they use to protect themselves from predators. They can also curl up into a tight ball.

They eat mainly ants, termites and larvae which they pick up with their sticky tongue. They can grow up to 1m in length from nose to tail and are sometimes referred to as scaly anteaters.

But all eight pangolin species are classified as “threatened” under International Union for Conservation of Nature criteria.

There is an unprecedented demand for their scales, primarily from countries in Asia and Africa where they are used in food, cultural remedies and medicine.

Between 2017 and 2019, seizures of pangolin scales tripled in volume. In 2019 alone, 97 tons of pangolin scales, equivalent to about 150,000 animals, were reportedly intercepted leaving Africa.

There is further evidence of the illegal trade in pangolin species openly on social media platforms such as Facebook.

The intense global trafficking of the species means the entire order (Pholidota) is threatened with extinction. For example, the Temminck’s pangolins (Smutsia temminckii) went extinct in South Africa’s KwaZulu Natal Province three decades ago.

Reintroduction of an extinct species

Each year in South Africa the African Pangolin Working Group (APWG) retrieves between 20 and 40 pangolins through intelligence operations with security forces.

These pangolins are often-traumatised and injured and are admitted to the Johannesburg Wildlife Veterinary Hospital for extensive medical treatment and rehabilitation before they can be considered for release.

In 2019, seven rescued Temminck’s pangolins were reintroduced into South Africa’s Phinda Private Game Reservein the KwaZulu Natal Province.

Nine months on, five have survived. This reintroduction is a world first for a region that last saw a viable population of this species in the 1980s.

During the release, every individual pangolin followed a strict regime. They needed to become familiar with their new surroundings and be able to forage efficiently.

Previous releases, including early on in South Africa and in other countries such as the Philippines, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Thailand had minimal post-release monitoring.

Pangolins released immediately following medical treatment had a low level of survival for various reasons, including inability to adapt to their release sites.

A ‘soft release’ in to the wild

The process on Phinda game reserve involved a more gentle ease into re-wilding a population in a region that had not seen pangolins for many decades.

The soft release had two phases:

1. a pre-release observational period
2. an intensive monitoring period post release employing GPS satellite as well as VHF tracking tags.

The pre-release period lasted between two to three weeks and were characterised by daily walks (three to five hours) of individuals on the reserves. These walks were critical for acclimatising individuals to the local habitat, its sounds, smells and possible threats. It also helped them source suitable and sufficient ant and termite species for food.

Following that, the post release period of two to three months involved locating released pangolins daily at first, and then twice per week where they were weighed, a rapid health assessment was made and habitat features such as burrows and refuges monitored.

Phinda reserve manager Simon Naylor said:

A key component of the post release period was whether individuals gained or maintained their weight.

The way the animals move after release also reveals important clues to whether they will stay in an area; if they feed, roll in dung, enter burrows. Much of this behaviour indicates site fidelity and habitat acceptance.

Read more: No, Aussie bats won’t give you COVID-19. We rely on them more than you think

Following nine months of monitoring and tracking, five of the seven survived in the region. One died of illness while the other was killed by a Nile crocodile.

Why pangolin reintroduction is important

We know so little about this group of mammals that are vastly understudied and hold many secrets yet to be discovered by science but are on the verge of collapse.

The South African and Phinda story is one of hope for the Temminck’s pangolin where they once again roam the savanna hills and plains of Zululand.

The process of relocating these trade animals back into the wild has taken many turns, failures and tribulations but, the recipe of the “soft release” is working.

– ref. Back from extinction: a world first effort to return threatened pangolins to the wild – https://theconversation.com/back-from-extinction-a-world-first-effort-to-return-threatened-pangolins-to-the-wild-138621

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brett Mitchell, Professor of Nursing, University of Newcastle

With coronavirus restrictions gradually lifting across the country, we’re now able to resume many of our regular activities.

A lot of us might have been particularly keen to get back to the gym, which is now an option in some Australian states, and not far off in others.

So, how can we protect ourselves and other people from COVID-19 infection when we return to the gym?

Read more: Working out at home works for women – so well they might not go back to gyms

How are gyms unique?

First it’s important to understand gyms are a bit different to other places where people might gather.

Gyms are generally indoors, which means they don’t have the luxury of open air. We know SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, is more likely to spread indoors than outdoors.

So there may be a need for individual gyms to consider specific limitations on the number of people in a given space, especially if the ventilation is poor.

The huffing and puffing associated with vigorous exercise may cause you to cough or splutter, which can see infectious particles propelled, contaminating the environment. So keeping your distance from others is especially important in gyms.

SARS-CoV-2 appears to survive for longer periods on smooth, hard surfaces, such as stainless steel, compared to paper or cardboard, for example. Gyms tend to have a lot of equipment with these smooth surfaces. This makes cleaning equipment very important.

People in the gym are likely to be sweating more than the average person. While SARS-CoV-2 is primarily spread through respiratory droplets, when you sweat, you often touch your face.

You may be carrying the infectious droplets you’ve picked up from surfaces on your hands, and could risk infecting yourself in this way – or infecting others if you are infected.

Read more: From spit to scrums. How can sports players minimise their coronavirus risk?

Finally, shared amenities in gyms such as drinking fountains, change rooms, showers and even hair-dryers can also increase the risk of virus transmission.

Drinking fountains generally have a smooth surface and you need to use your hands to operate them, providing a potential route for transmission. Likewise, objects in change rooms and showers may be frequently touched. And hair-dryers have the potential to propel droplets, much like fans or air-conditioners.

Responsibilities for gyms

Several indoor sports facilities were implicated in a COVID-19 outbreak in South Korea which saw 112 people infected. An investigation suggested large class sizes, small spaces, and intensity of the workouts may have contributed to the outbreak.

We obviously don’t want that to happen here. So as gyms reopen, staff should ensure the number of patrons doesn’t exceed what’s allowed. Different states have slightly different rules around this.

For example, in South Australia, gyms reopened this week to a maximum of 80 patrons, but only ten in a group fitness class.

When gyms reopen in New South Wales on June 13, a maximum of 100 people will be allowed in a large gym, and similarly a maximum of ten in one class.

Gyms have been encouraged to take bookings to ensure people don’t need to be turned away at the door.

Gyms will also need to increase their cleaning practices and collect contact details from patrons to ensure they can follow up in the event of a positive case of COVID-19.

Read more: How to keep a coronavirus-safe distance when you’re jogging or cycling

What you can do

There are a number of things you can do to protect yourself and others when you’re back in the gym. The obvious top three are not going to the gym if you’re unwell (any cold or flu like symptoms), hand hygiene and maintaining sufficient distance from others.

But here are some specific tips:

• wash your hands or use hand sanitiser when you enter and leave the gym

• clean equipment before and after you use it. Wash or sanitise your hands after you’ve cleaned the equipment (gyms can help by making sure cleaning materials and hand sanitiser are readily available)

• avoid touching your face or mouth during your workout

• increase the space between yourself and others to avoid accidentally getting closer while you exercise, especially during classes where your contact time with others may be longer

• bring your own water bottle to avoid drinking from fountains or refilling water (water stations may be closed anyway)

• change and shower at home if possible (shower facilities may be closed anyway)

• go to the gym during off-peak or quieter times where possible.

Read more: How to stay fit and active at home during the coronavirus self-isolation

At present, community transmission in Australia is low. But everyone has a role to play in keeping numbers low, particularly as we start returning to “normal”.

Taking these measures will help reduce the risk as much as possible, and hopefully ensure gyms, and the rest of society, can remain open.

– ref. Heading back to the gym? Here’s how you can protect yourself and others from coronavirus infection – https://theconversation.com/heading-back-to-the-gym-heres-how-you-can-protect-yourself-and-others-from-coronavirus-infection-139681

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

Perhaps at no point in Australia’s history has the demand for real-time figures been stronger than during the coronavirus crisis.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has stepped up its efforts to get data fast, to help inform the government’s COVID-19 decision-making.

David Gruen, the Australian Statistician and ABS head, in this podcast tells how the bureau has used small, quick surveys to mine timely data from businesses and households.

Some of the more interesting findings concern household stresses felt during the crisis.

Some 28% of women reported feeling lonely, compared to 16% of men. “Overall, only about a fifth of people said they were lonely, but that was the most common of the stressors,” Gruen says.

ABS survey results also showed 75% of parents kept their children home from school. “Women were almost three times as likely to have stayed at home to take care of their children on their own, than men.”

“About 15% of parents said that a lack of access to a stable internet connection was impeding their children’s ability to undertake schooling from home,” Gruen says.

In the wake of the roll out of the single touch payroll system last year, the ABS has also had instant access to almost all business and tax data. “[Single Touch Payroll] is a huge addition to the statistical arsenal,” Gruen says.

In the next census of the Australian population, to be held in August 2021, there will be two new fields of questions – on chronic health conditions and veterans.

But the census will no longer ask Australians whether they use the internet.

“There’s huge public value in having an accurate census, because you collect an enormous amount of information which is of value both to government decision makers, and to decision makers in the community,” Gruen says.

“The things that you learn from the census form the basis for an awful lot of decision-making in subsequent years.”

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Statistician David Gruen and the race for real-time pandemic data – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-statistician-david-gruen-and-the-race-for-real-time-pandemic-data-140068

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bree Hurst, Senior Lecturer, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

This quote, or part of it, has been circulating on social media this week.

It is attributed to South African Anglican bishop Desmond Tutu in the 1984 book Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes. So it dates from Tutu’s time as a leading opponent of the apartheid system in South Africa, in which only white people were afforded the full rights of citizens.

But in recent days Tutu’s quote has encapsulated many people’s feelings about what’s going on in the United States today.

The killing by Minnesota police of George Floyd, arrested on suspicion of passing a counterfeit $20 bill, has become the latest ignition point for grievances about the systemic overpolicing and extrajudicial killing of African Americans.

Read more: The fury in US cities is rooted in a long history of racist policing, violence and inequality

But the protests involving millions of people across the US and outside of it are fuelled by more than that. These protests are also about the systemic inequities that have recently seen America’s poorest communities take the brunt of both health and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

So given the Black Lives Matter protests are in part about the failings of American capitalism, how the corporate world is responding is worth talking about.

Brands supporting Black Lives Matter

A bevy of the world’s best-known brands have used their marketing channels to offer support.

“To be silent is to be complicit. Black lives matter,” said Netflix on Twitter. “We have a platform, and we have a duty to our Black members, employees, creators and talent to speak up.”

Similar tweets have come from Disney-owned Fox and Hulu. Apple Music joined the “Black Out Tuesday” campaign to raise awareness about issues of systemic ethnic inequity.

Nike has repurposed its famous slogan with its “For once, Don’t Do It” advert:

Corporations taking a stand on social issues is a relatively new phenomenon.

As academic-turned-Gold Logie-winner Waleed Aly noted on the program The Project:

Normally when there’s something this divisive and controversial, you know, if you are running a big company, you stay out of it. You don’t want to be involved.

What I’m interested in here is, is this just an evolution in marketing and the way that companies do this, or does it signal – is it a kind of leadership?

Even if these companies are just protecting their commercial base (as his co-host Steve Price suggested), Aly said: “That’s still significant.”

As a researcher in the field of corporate social responsibility, I agree.

It’s easy to dismiss these statements as low-cost tokenism or politically correct wokism. It may be there’s a hard-headed business decision behind each message, weighing the costs and benefits to the bottom line.

Read more: Where ‘woke’ came from and why marketers should think twice before jumping on the social activism bandwagon

But my research (and that of others) suggests there’s a growing need for what business academics call “political corporate social responsibility” (or PCSR).

The challenge for those embracing it is both talk the talk and walk the walk.

Political corporate social responsibility

The concept of PCSR arises out of a wider paradigm shift in thinking about the responsibilities private businesses owe society.

A traditional view – famously advocated by Nobel prize winning US economist Milton Friedman – is that a business, so long as it obeys the law, is only obliged to maximise profits for it shareholders. Nothing else.

Since the 1950s, however, a growing movement (both within business and without) has championed the cause of corporate social responsibility (CSR), arguing that it’s good business to do more than what is legally required to improve social and environmental impacts.

Read more: Small businesses get long-term financial boost from social responsibility: study

Political CSR (PCSR) goes one step further than the narrower focus of CSR on how companies engage with suppliers, customers and local communities.

Just last year 181 US corporations – including Apple, Deloitte, Fox, and Walmart – signed the US Business Roundtable’s revised purpose of a corporation, which aims to promote “an economy that serves all Americans”.

Research published last month shows almost a third of consumers say they buy brands whose political and social values align with their own, and about a quarter of consumers boycott brands that don’t.

Nike’s path to politics

Nike has been a forerunner in using its marketing to push social campaigns. The shoe maker has come a long way since the late 1980s, when it was the iconic corporate exploiter of both third-world labour, including children, and poor communities in rich countries. All the while spending millions on athlete endorsements to market its expensive sneakers.

Since then, however, Nike has sought to reinvent itself as an socially responsible organisation that champions “equal playing fields for all”.

It dived into PCSR into 2018 when it chose controversial American footballer Colin Kaepernick for the face of its 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign.

Kaepernick began the practice of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem before games in solidarity with Black Lives Matter. US president Donald Trump called the kneelers “disgraceful”.

Read more: Why US sports stars are taking a knee against Trump

So Nike’s decision was not risk-free. On Kaepernick’s advice it also withdrew a sneaker featuring an early American flag.

Internally Nike has worked to improve equality, with pay equity maintained for women and members of minority groups. It funds grassroots initiatives such as PeacePlayers, whose mission is to unite communities through sport.

Walking the walk

The uptake of PCSR by so many other companies in support of Black Lives Matter is significant. But it is only the start of an evolution that corporate America must make to shake accusations of tokenism.

Read more: Woke washing: what happens when marketing communications don’t match corporate practice

As Waleed Aly noted on the same episode of The Project, the focus on outbreaks of looting and violence at the expense of the much greater prevalence of peaceful protest, has helped obscure the main issue:

there’s things state governments could be doing right now that they’re not.

This is the point of PCSR – to address the “regulatory gaps” in social and environmental standards and norms.

Among the gaps in the US system contributing to overpolicing of black communities is the failure to provide equal access to public goods like education, health care and even clean air.

Those talking the talk of PCSR will need to walk the walk and get serious about addressing why America’s particular take on free enterprise has failed to deliver on its promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by all.

Desmond Tutu’s quote rings out across the decades as a universal truth. But a well-known aphorism also bears repeating.

Actions speak louder than words.

– ref. Brands backing Black Lives Matter: it might be a marketing ploy, but it also shows leadership – https://theconversation.com/brands-backing-black-lives-matter-it-might-be-a-marketing-ploy-but-it-also-shows-leadership-139874