Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Schuijers, Research Fellow in Environmental Law, The University of Melbourne

This morning, the Australian Federal Court delivered a landmark judgement on climate change, marking an important moment in our history.

The class action case was brought on behalf of all Australian children and teenagers, against Environment Minister Sussan Ley.

Their aim was to prevent Ley from possibly approving the Whitehaven coal mine extension project, near Gunnedah in New South Wales. They argued that approving this project would endanger their future because of climate hazards, including causing them injury, ill health, death or economic losses.

The court dismissed the application to stop the minister from approving the extension. But that’s just the beginning.

Before making those orders, the court found a new duty it never has before: the environment minister owes a duty of care to Australia’s young people not to cause them physical harm in the form of personal injury from climate change.

‘Australia will be lost’: the court’s moving findings

The court considered evidence in the case from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, and globally renowned ANU climate scientist Will Steffen.

In a tear-jerking moment during the Federal Court’s live-streamed summary, the court found that one million of today’s Australian children are expected to be hospitalised because of a heat-stress episode, that substantial economic loss will be experienced, and that the Great Barrier Reef and most of Australia’s eucalypt forest won’t exist when they grow up.

It found this harm is real, catastrophic, and – importantly from a legal perspective – “reasonably foreseeable”. In decades past, courts have considered climate change to be a “speculative”, “future problem”.

That is no longer the case. The court concluded, in a moving paragraph from the written judgment:

It is difficult to characterise in a single phrase the devastation that the plausible evidence presented in this proceeding forecasts for the children. As Australian adults know their country, Australia will be lost and the world as we know it gone as well.

The physical environment will be harsher, far more extreme and devastatingly brutal when angry. As for the human experience – quality of life, opportunities to partake in nature’s treasures, the capacity to grow and prosper – all will be greatly diminished.

Lives will be cut short. Trauma will be far more common and good health harder to hold and maintain.

None of this will be the fault of nature itself. It will largely be inflicted by the inaction of this generation of adults, in what might fairly be described as the greatest inter-generational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of humans upon the next.

To say that the children are vulnerable is to understate their predicament.

Establishing a new duty of care

The children took a novel route in asserting the federal environment minister owed them a duty of care. A duty of care means a responsibility not to take actions that could harm others. A duty of care is the first step in a claim of negligence.

A similar duty was found in the Netherlands in 2015, as a global first. In 2019, the Supreme Court upheld that duty – the Dutch government owed it citizens a duty to reduce emissions in order to protect human rights.

Other cases around the world were inspired by that success, including the one decided in Australia today.

Read more: ‘A wake-up call’: why this student is suing the government over the financial risks of climate change

The court today didn’t say the minister has a duty to stop all coal projects of any size, as it was only considering the Whitehaven extension project. But this is still hugely significant.

Australia has been repeatedly criticised on the global stage for its stance on new coal and climate change more generally. Now, we may find the decisions made by its environment ministers could amount to negligent conduct.

The buck doesn’t stop at governments

Back in the Netherlands, something else significant happened this week — the world learned the buck doesn’t stop at governments.

In what’s been described as “arguably the most significant climate change judgement yet”, a court in The Hague ordered Royal Dutch Shell, a global oil and gas company, to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2019 levels, via its corporate policy.

This could have far-reaching consequences for oil and gas companies all over the world, including in Australia.

So now we have a dual momentum — governments need to be careful what they approve, and fossil fuels companies need be careful what they propose.

Putting the minister on notice

It’s important to recognise Ley hasn’t made a decision yet to approve the coal mine extension. The young Australians were seeking to stop her from approving it, and in that they didn’t succeed.

However, her responsibility to young people has now been formally recognised by the court.

Today’s children are vulnerable to climate change and they depend on the environment minister to protect their interests. We don’t know yet if the minister will approve the mine extension, or if she does, whether that means she has breached her duty to the children. But we do know how significant the harm from climate change will be.

What’s more, in 2019, a NSW court confirmed now is not the time to be approving new coal, and every coal mine counts.

Today’s judgement opens the door for future litigation if the minister is not careful about approving projects that could harm the next generations of Australians.

But importantly, it puts the federal environment minister on notice — while political terms might be only short, decisions now have intergenerational consequences for the future.

Short-term financial gain can have detrimental consequences for the health and economic wellbeing of those who can’t vote yet.

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

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. You can read the rest of the stories here.

– ref. In a landmark judgment, the Federal Court found the environment minister has a duty of care to young people – https://theconversation.com/in-a-landmark-judgment-the-federal-court-found-the-environment-minister-has-a-duty-of-care-to-young-people-161650

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Elmslie, Honorary Fellow, University of Wollongong

“Destroy them first. We will discuss human rights matters later.” These are the reported words of Bambang Soesatyo, chairman of the People’s Consultative Assembly to the Indonesian military (TNI), last month.

He was talking about the Indigenous people of the contested territory of West Papua, who are seeking independence from Indonesia. This has sparked concerns West Papua may again be on the brink of a violent crackdown — or worse — executed by Indonesia’s elite security forces, including the notorious Kopassus.

These have occurred before, for example, the well-documented massacres in the Baliem Valley in 1977-78 and on Biak Island in 1998.

The world said nothing about these events when they were happening — they were conducted out of public sight. If violence is committed again, the world cannot in clear conscience turn away.

Months of building tensions

The immediate catalyst for this latest military intervention was the fatal shooting of Brigadier General Gusti Putu Danny Karya Nugraha, head of Indonesian intelligence in Papua, on April 25. The act was claimed by members of the West Papua National Liberation Army, the TPN-PB.

Danny had been in the highlands region investigating the killing of two school teachers and a youth, who were accused by the TPN-PB of being Indonesian spies.

After the killing, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo ordered state security forces “to chase and arrest” all armed militants and Bambang issued his threat to “crush” the rebels.

Read more: Riots in West Papua: why Indonesia needs to answer for its broken promises

We know, from recent accounts, what such revenge can look like.

In February, an Indonesian soldier was shot and killed by separatist fighters in the central highlands of Papua, and security forces went on the hunt for his killer. During their interrogation of residents of a village, they shot a young man, Janius Bagau, in the arm, shattering his bone.

His brothers accompanied him to a health clinic to seek medical attention. While there, the three men were allegedly tortured and killed, according to Janius’s wife, who was interviewed by Reuters.

The military claimed the men were members of TPN-PB — the armed wing of the broader separatist group called the Free Papua Movement (OPM) — and had tried to take the soldiers’ weapons and escape. However, a spokesman for the group said none of the men were members.

The killing of Danny, the head of Indonesian intelligence in Papua, is certain to result in similar retribution. In the wake of the shooting, the government formally declared Papuan separatists “terrorists”, which human rights groups warned could lead to more abuses.

The military also deployed 400 elite soldiers known as “Satan’s forces” to the region, who had previously taken part in operations in Timor-Leste and Aceh.

And a leading independence figure, Victor Yeimo, was arrested for alleged treason, sparking widespread protests across the restive region. At least two cities have been without internet service for weeks.

Displacement in the guise of development

In 1971, Papuans comprised over 96% of the population in the two provinces of Papua and West Papua, on the western side of the island they share with Papua New Guinea. Now, Papuans in urban centres and coastal regions make up less than half the population due to the inward migration of non-Papuan settlers in recent years.

Many Papuans believe they are facing a slow-motion genocide as they are progressively marginalised and their lands are forcibly expropriated for military-backed logging, oil palm and mining operations.

One major reason for the escalation of the conflict in recent years has been the policies pursued by Jokowi. He believes economic development will trump Papuan nationalism and has pushed accelerated development as a cure for the conflict.

Read more: Papua: how Indonesian president Jokowi is trying – and failing – to win hearts and minds

Chief among these projects is the construction of a highway through the highlands region to the coast that will “open up” the interior of Papua. These are the very regions where Papuans remain in the majority and retain some degree of control over their lives.

Where Jokowi sees economic development flowing from the road, the Papuans see more soldiers, logging and mining companies, and more Indonesian settlers. Three years ago, TPN-PB forces killed at least 24 Indonesian road workers whom they claimed to be Indonesian army spies in a bid to stop the construction of the road.

The area has been heavily occupied by the military ever since, resulting in the expulsion of some 45,000 people from their homes.

The Papuan fighters see the conflict as a legitimate war of national liberation against foreign invaders. The TPN-PB has reportedly signalled it may start targeting non-Papuan settlers if Papuan civilians are killed or injured in the military crackdown, which seems highly likely.

This opens up the horrifying possibility of inter-ethnic conflict between settlers and Papuans, which to date has been largely avoided.

Read more: Fight for freedom: new research to map violence in the forgotten conflict in West Papua

Indonesia successfully, albeit with great difficulty, resolved the other two armed conflicts that had troubled the nation for decades: Aceh (which remains as part of Indonesia) and Timor-Leste (which became independent). Through dialogue and foreign involvement, however, peace was finally achieved.

There has been no substantial dialogue between leaders in Jakarta and independence advocates in West Papua to date. The UN has been ineffectual in resolving the conflict, and the world, with the exception of some of the Pacific nations, has turned a blind eye.

While global attention has been riveted on Palestine, Myanmar and the plight of the Uyghurs in China in recent months, it is time to speak out against the atrocities unfolding on Australia’s door step.

Ronny Kareni, a West Papua Project expert advisor at the University of Wollongong, contributed to this report.

– ref. West Papua is on the verge of another bloody crackdown – https://theconversation.com/west-papua-is-on-the-verge-of-another-bloody-crackdown-161272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Russell, Senior Principal Research Fellow; paediatrician; infectious diseases epidemiologist, The University of Melbourne

Victoria’s seven day lockdown, which begins tonight, is an attempt to stop transmission of the quick-spreading COVID-19 B.1.617.1 variant.

Victoria’s chief health officer Brett Sutton said the reproduction number of the strain was yet to be determined, but could be five or more, meaning one person would infect five others.

B.1.617.1 is one of three so-called “Indian” SARS-CoV-2 variant sub-types. Little is known about it but it’s likely to have similar characteristics to the sub-type dominating in India and emerging in the United Kingdom at the moment, B.1.617.2.

Remind me, what’s a variant of concern?

To be classified as a variant of concern, it must pose a risk to public health over and above the original Wuhan virus. This could be due to changes in transmissibility (how easily it spreads), disease severity, its ability to evade detection by viral diagnostic tests, reduced effectiveness of treatments, or an ability to evade natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

The World Health Organization is tracking four variants of concern, which are often referred to by the country in which they emerged:

The B.1.617 variant, which was classified as a variant of concern on May 6 2021, has three subtypes – B.1.617.1, B.1.617.2 and B.1.617.3 – each with small differences in their genetic make-up.

Read more: What’s the difference between mutations, variants and strains? A guide to COVID terminology

What do we know about the ‘Indian’ variants?

Information about B.1.617 is emerging, but early reports indicate it spreads more easily than the original strain. Although there is limited data specifically on B.1.617.1, it is likely to behave similarly to B.1.617.2 as it is genetically similar.

Early data from the UK’s NHS Test and Trace records showed B.1.617 spreads at least as easily as the UK strain (B.1.1.7). In fact, B.1.617.2 may be twice as likely to infect another person than the UK strain, which was already more infectious than the original Wuhan virus.

The relative disease severity of B.1.617 is still under investigation, however even if it is no more severe than the original virus, increased transmission leads to more cases, more hospital admissions and more deaths.

Laboratory tests also raise the possibility that reinfection might be more common with the B.1.617 variant, but this is yet to be confirmed by real-world data and for all sub-types.

Read more: Why variants are most likely to blame for India’s COVID surge

How effective are vaccines and how long do they take to kick in?

For most variants of concern, vaccines are still effective, but are often less effective than they were against the original Wuhan virus.

So far, there are no data on how effective any of the COVID-19 vaccines are against B.1.617.1.

B.1.617.2 has one more mutation than B.1.617.1, so they are genetically similar. Therefore the vaccine effectiveness against B.1.617.1 and B.1.617.2 is likely be similar, but this is not known yet.

Data from the UK (non-peer reviewed) on vaccine effectiveness against the B.1.617.2 variant has recently been released. It found:

• both Pfizer and AstraZeneca are 33% effective against symptomatic disease (COVID-19 symptoms such as fever, dry cough and tiredness) three weeks after the first dose

• Pfizer vaccine is 88% effective against symptomatic disease two weeks after the second dose

• AstraZeneca vaccine is 60% effective against symptomatic disease two weeks after the second dose.

The difference in effectiveness between the vaccines after two doses may be due to AstraZeneca taking longer to reach peak protection as this occurs after two weeks following the second dose.

Both vaccines are expected to provide even greater protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation and death than they do for symptomatic disease. As yet there are too few cases to do this analysis but this will take place over the coming weeks.

Lower vaccine effectiveness means even if you are vaccinated, you could still get infected. However, if an infection does occur, symptoms would be milder.

It’s also possible vaccination may not protect you for as long against this sub-type compared to other variants. But this is not known yet for B.1.617.1.

Read more: What’s the new coronavirus variant in India and how should it change their COVID response?

Time between doses

From December 2020, the UK had been delivering the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines with a 12-week interval between doses to provide some protection to as many people as possible.

A recent study supported this decision, finding that extending the vaccine interval from three to 12 weeks for the second dose boosted the immune response in people over 80 by 3.5 times.

However, due to the spread of the B.1.617.2 variant in the UK, the strategy was changed in mid-May to an eight-week gap in order to provide greater protection from this highly transmissible virus at an earlier opportunity.

Australia delivers the AstraZeneca vaccine with a 12-week interval, while opting for three weeks for Pfizer.

Decisions on the timing between doses must balance providing greater protection earlier, against providing some protection to the maximum number of people. It’s too early to make those changes right now for Victoria but this option should be considered if the outbreak worsens.

Should people get vaccinated?

Even though we don’t know how effective vaccines are against the B.1.617.1 sub-type, don’t delay getting vaccinated. This time our outbreak is due to B.1.617.1, but next time it could be another variant.

COVID-19 vaccines are equally effective against the original strain and B.1.1.7, and are also effective against the B.1.617.2 variant (albeit a bit lower).

During an outbreak, policymakers should also consider opportunistically increasing vaccine uptake, especially in the outbreak areas. Victoria has made progress in this area and from tomorrow all 40- to 49-year-old Victorians will be offered Pfizer.

But those responsible for the most COVID-19 transmission are aged 20 to 49 years. So vaccinating even younger Victorians – 20 to 39 year olds – would also prevent spread of the outbreak. Even if the vaccine was only 20% effective against transmission this may be a very important additional measure.

Even though there are many unknowns, it is still important to get vaccinated with the vaccine that is offered right now.

Read more: I’m over 50 and can now get my COVID vaccine. Is the AstraZeneca vaccine safe? Does it work? What else do I need to know?

– ref. What’s the ‘Indian’ variant responsible for Victoria’s outbreak and how effective are vaccines against it? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-indian-variant-responsible-for-victorias-outbreak-and-how-effective-are-vaccines-against-it-161574

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

Private business investment is one of the key drivers of economic growth.

Business investment in equipment (and even in buildings) drives productivity, which the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman famously observed

isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything

As he put it, a country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time “depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker”.

Which is why one of the forecasts in this month’s budget stood out.

The budget forecast non-mining business investment to grow 1.5% in the coming 2021-22 financial year, after falling last year and then to jump a huge 12.5% during 2022-23.

Thursday’s capital expenditure figures released by the Bureau of Statistics are important not only because they tell us what private firms have been spending on plant and equipment and buildings and structures, but also what they are planning to spend in the months and years ahead.

The survey that points to the future

Economists like me are pretty sceptical of surveys.

We like to see what people actually do (so-called “revealed preference”), rather than what they say they intend to do (“stated preference”).

But the bureau has a decent track record with this survey. In part that’s because the people surveyed are the chief financial officers of the major firms. They tend to report what they know is in train rather than “spin” grander visions.

And they usually understate what eventually happens.

Read more: Budget 2021: the floppy-V-shaped recovery

On what has actually happened, their reports suggest that private non-mining business investment bounced back 7.1% in the first three months of this year.

In the six months to March (since September) it jumped 13.8%, after falling 11.4% in the previous six months of COVID restrictions leading up to September.

Quarterly non-mining private capital expenditure

When it comes to what lies ahead, the estimates for 2021-22 are picking up.

The March estimate is up 11.3% from the estimate made in December.

It is still well down on the latest estimate for 2020-21, about 13% down. But actual non-mining investment is usually somewhere between 30% and 50% higher than what’s expected (the bureau calculates “realisation ratios”) meaning there’s a good chance it will meet the budget forecast for 2021-22.

Read more: Vital Signs: wages growth desultory, unemployment stunning

Whether it will make it over the much larger bar of the 12.5% increase forecast for 2022-23 is an open question.

The point is, the figures published on Thursday give us no reason for thinking it couldn’t. The Bureau of Statistics has left open the possibility of very good news.

The bounce-back in investment exceeds market expectations.

Better, and better than expected

JP Morgan reports that the consensus of forecasts was for an overall increase in investment (mining and non-mining) of 2% in the March quarter. We got 6.3%.

It matters because it tells us businesses are feeling optimistic about the future — optimistic enough to expand, notwithstanding everpresent uncertainties.

We don’t know when our international borders will reopen. We don’t know how long Melbourne’s newest lockdown will last. We don’t know whether enough Australians will be vaccinated to reach herd immunity.

Read more: Exclusive. Top economists back budget push for an unemployment rate beginning with ‘4’

And the results also matter because more business investment will be needed if we are to drive unemployment down to the government’s new (and very welcome) target of somewhere below 5%.

The extra jobs will have to come from enterprises employing more people. They won’t do it unless they think it is worthwhile to invest.

– ref. Vital Signs: a bounce-back in investment holds open the possibility of very good news – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-a-bounce-back-in-investment-holds-open-the-possibility-of-very-good-news-161655

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

In its centenary year, the 2021 Archibald Prize exhibition has been relocated to the Art Gallery of New South Wales’s spacious, second floor. Visitors thus enter the Archibald via the finalists for the Sulman Prize: sometimes regarded as a poor relation to the glamorous and newsworthy portrait prize.

Still, not a few artists have either begun or enhanced their public profile by entering the Sulman, which is judged by one individual rather than the gallery trustees who vote on the Archibald. This year’s Sulman entries are the usual mixed bunch, but Marisa Purcell’s That Time of Day is a witty riff on Yves Klein’s classic blue. Paul Selwood, meanwhile, has pulled off a coup with his finely beaten metal Construction Zone, which is in two dimensions while maintaining the illusion of being 3D.

Some years there is an obvious candidate (or two) for the Archibald Prize. This is not one of those years. It is quite a strong field with many entries either by previous winners, or of them. The subjects range from self-portraits to fellow artists, actors and writers.

There are many portraits of public figures, including Grace Tame, Craig Foster and the biosecurity expert Professor Chandini Raina Macintyre — but no politicians.

If the Archibald reflects who Australians value as subjects to be honoured in some kind of immortality, this is another indication of the reduced standing of our political class.

This being the centenary year, the trustees can be forgiven for showing some sentiment. Peter Wegner’s portrait of artist Guy Warren is not the strongest work in the exhibition, but his subject has the distinction of being both a former Archibald winner and the same age as the prize.

It is, however, livelier than Mira Whale’s portrait of another winning artist, Ben Quilty, who is shown sleeping on a lounge.

In past years, artists have complained the trustees were biased towards large works when selecting their shortlist. There can be no such complaint this year. A delightful wall of almost miniature portraits includes (previous winner) Natasha Bieniek’s study of actor/director Rachel Griffiths and Xeni Kusumitra’s adrift — a portrait of Campbelltown Arts Centre’s Director, Michael Dagostino.

Some previous prize winners have put in very strong entries. Fiona Lowry’s Matthys, of the artist Matthys Gerber under the shower is both light-hearted and insightful.

Joan Ross, a previous Sulman Prize winner, has an unusual but muted self-portrait: Joan as a colonial woman looking at the future.

Marikit Santiago, who won the Sulman Prize last year, has entered what must be this year’s most intriguing entry. Filipiniana (self-portrait in collaboration with Maella Santiago Pearl) is a double portrait with two overlapping figures, both in traditional dress.

It is unusual not only in its tribute to older traditions of Philippine art but because the artist has chosen to paint on a large, flattened cardboard box. This has led to the painted surface appearing especially flat, emphasising the decorative nature of the composition.

Perhaps I am biased, but I do find artists’ portraits of fellow artists especially interesting. Jonathan Dalton has taken an unusual approach in his dual study of one of our most gloriously anarchic artists, Ramesh Nithiyendran.

Painted in an academic style far removed from the approach of his subject, the artist is shown as being identical twins, one with a camera scrutinising the viewer.

By way of contrast, Benjamin Aitken’s painting of the distinguished artist Gareth Sansom uses the texture of paint to evoke a sense of the artist’s interior life.

The same intelligent use of paint is seen in one of my personal favourites, Euan Macleod’s portrait of Blak Douglas. Macleod is a former Archibald winner, but to my mind this is a stronger work than the self-portrait awarded the prize in 1999.

Blak Douglas (aka Adam Hill) is a frequent Archibald finalist, sadly not hung this year. Macleod gives a sense of his height, his imposing presence, and the intensity of his persona.

This year’s Packing Room Prize has gone to Kathrin Longhurst’s portrait of singer Kate Ceberano. This is the second time a portrait of Ceberano has won this prize, so clearly the subject is a favourite of the packers.

What is intriguing about this year’s Archibald is not just the absence of politicians, but that many of the public figures celebrated by the art are, like Tame, O’Brien and Foster, openly critical of the behaviour of some of the political class. Perhaps the artists are speaking for many of us.

This year’s Archibald winner will be announced in a week’s time, on June 4.

– ref. From Grace Tame to Craig Foster: distinguished public figures but no politicians in a telling 2021 Archibald shortlist – https://theconversation.com/from-grace-tame-to-craig-foster-distinguished-public-figures-but-no-politicians-in-a-telling-2021-archibald-shortlist-161576

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Elmslie, Honorary Fellow, University of Wollongong

“Destroy them first. We will discuss human rights matters later.” These are the reported words of Bambang Soesatyo, chairman of the People’s Consultative Assembly to the Indonesian military (TNI), last month.

He was talking about the Indigenous people of the contested territory of West Papua, who are seeking independence from Indonesia. This has sparked concerns West Papua may again be on the brink of a violent crackdown — or worse — executed by Indonesia’s elite security forces, including the notorious Kopassus.

These have occurred before, for example, the well-documented massacres in the Baliem Valley in 1977-78 and on Biak Island in 1998.

The world said nothing about these events when they were happening — they were conducted out of public sight. If violence is committed again, the world cannot in clear conscience turn away.

Months of building tensions

The immediate catalyst for this latest military intervention was the fatal shooting of Brigadier General Gusti Putu Danny Karya Nugraha, head of Indonesian intelligence in Papua, on April 25. The act was claimed by members of the West Papua National Liberation Army, the TPN-PB.

Danny had been in the highlands region investigating the killing of two school teachers and a youth, who were accused by the TPN-PB of being Indonesian spies.

After the killing, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo ordered state security forces “to chase and arrest” all armed militants and Bambang issued his threat to “crush” the rebels.

Read more: Riots in West Papua: why Indonesia needs to answer for its broken promises

We know, from recent accounts, what such revenge can look like.

In February, an Indonesian soldier was shot and killed by separatist fighters in the central highlands of Papua, and security forces went on the hunt for his killer. During their interrogation of residents of a village, they shot a young man, Janius Bagau, in the arm, shattering his bone.

His brothers accompanied him to a health clinic to seek medical attention. While there, the three men were allegedly tortured and killed, according to Janius’s wife, who was interviewed by Reuters.

The military claimed the men were members of TPN-PB — the armed wing of the broader separatist group called the Free Papua Movement (OPM) — and had tried to take the soldiers’ weapons and escape. However, a spokesman for the group said none of the men were members.

The killing of Danny, the head of Indonesian intelligence in Papua, is certain to result in similar retribution. In the wake of the shooting, the government formally declared Papuan separatists “terrorists”, which human rights groups warned could lead to more abuses.

The military also deployed 400 elite soldiers known as “Satan’s forces” to the region, who had previously taken part in operations in Timor-Leste and Aceh.

And a leading independence figure, Victor Yeimo, was arrested for alleged treason, sparking widespread protests across the restive region. At least two cities have been without internet service for weeks.

Displacement in the guise of development

In 1971, Papuans comprised over 96% of the population in the two provinces of Papua and West Papua, on the western side of the island they share with Papua New Guinea. Now, Papuans in urban centres and coastal regions make up less than half the population due to the inward migration of non-Papuan settlers in recent years.

Many Papuans believe they are facing a slow-motion genocide as they are progressively marginalised and their lands are forcibly expropriated for military-backed logging, oil palm and mining operations.

One major reason for the escalation of the conflict in recent years has been the policies pursued by Jokowi. He believes economic development will trump Papuan nationalism and has pushed accelerated development as a cure for the conflict.

Read more: Papua: how Indonesian president Jokowi is trying – and failing – to win hearts and minds

Chief among these projects is the construction of a highway through the highlands region to the coast that will “open up” the interior of Papua. These are the very regions where Papuans remain in the majority and retain some degree of control over their lives.

Where Jokowi sees economic development flowing from the road, the Papuans see more soldiers, logging and mining companies, and more Indonesian settlers. Three years ago, TPN-PB forces killed at least 24 Indonesian road workers whom they claimed to be Indonesian army spies in a bid to stop the construction of the road.

The area has been heavily occupied by the military ever since, resulting in the expulsion of some 45,000 people from their homes.

The Papuan fighters see the conflict as a legitimate war of national liberation against foreign invaders. The TPN-PB has reportedly signalled it may start targeting non-Papuan settlers if Papuan civilians are killed or injured in the military crackdown, which seems highly likely.

This opens up the horrifying possibility of inter-ethnic conflict between settlers and Papuans, which to date has been largely avoided.

Read more: Fight for freedom: new research to map violence in the forgotten conflict in West Papua

Indonesia successfully, albeit with great difficulty, resolved the other two armed conflicts that had troubled the nation for decades: Aceh (which remains as part of Indonesia) and Timor-Leste (which became independent). Through dialogue and foreign involvement, however, peace was finally achieved.

There has been no substantial dialogue between leaders in Jakarta and independence advocates in West Papua to date. The UN has been ineffectual in resolving the conflict, and the world, with the exception of some of the Pacific nations, has turned a blind eye.

While global attention has been riveted on Palestine, Myanmar and the plight of the Uyghurs in China in recent months, it is time to speak out against the atrocities unfolding on Australia’s door step.

Ronny Kareni, a West Papua Project expert advisor at the University of Wollongong, contributed to this report.

– ref. Is West Papua on the verge of another bloody crackdown? – https://theconversation.com/is-west-papua-on-the-verge-of-another-bloody-crackdown-161272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Alexander, Adjunct Reseach Fellow (Supply Chains), Curtin University

The report of the Senate committee inquiry into the ousting of Australia Post boss Christine Holgate over Cartier watches, published yesterday, pulls no punches. Some of its 25 recommendations are blistering (with the inquiry’s Coalition members dissenting).

There has been intense interest in the events involving the Morrison government pushing Holgate out of her job over rewarding four senior managers with luxury watches, worth about $20,000, for securing a deal the report says was worth more than $200 million in revenue.

The saga has touched on issues of corporate rewards, the role of public service providers, the relationship between boards and senior executives, and workplace bullying. The report castigates Australia Post’s board and its owner (the federal government) over their understanding and respect for the organisations’s charter and proper governance.

But beyond the politics of the Holgate affair, perhaps the most strategically important parts of the report are those that touch on the reason Holgate gifted those executives those watches in the first place.

Australia Post has long been caught between its role as a publicly owned corporation expected to compete with private corporations and as a community service provider delivering letters, a business in terminal decline.

The sections of the report dealing with this, and the organisation’s future, should be the most interesting. But they are also the least satisfying, since they fail to really address the fundamental issues and offer a way forward.

Read more: Morrison should apologise to Christine Holgate and Australia Post chair should resign: Senate report

Letter delivery exemptions

An example of where the report falls short is its discussion of the relaxation of Australia Post’s community service obligations for letter delivery.

The government granted a temporary exemption in April 2020 so it could put more resources into parcel deliveries. The main effect of this was letters being delivered every second day in metropolitan areas, rather than every day, and having more time to deliver interstate mail.

That exemption runs out on June 30. The report recommends it not be extended, noting “some evidence” the government and Australia Post are “actively looking for ways to entrench lower community service obligations” and that performance standards might be lowered “without adequate consultation and appropriate parliamentary oversight”.

Its point about consultation and oversight is fair enough. Nonetheless, opposing any extension is still arguably the least helpful of all its recommendations.

Daily letter delivery is already a loss-making business for Australia Post. Reduced letter service levels are an appropriate corporate response. It has been struggling with this for years. The crisis of 2020, and the huge surge in parcel delivery, simply acted as a catalyst for changes long overdue.

Read more: COVID hands Australia Post opportunity to end daily delivery

Torn between mandates

Australia Post is torn between being two organisations. On the one hand it is a public service organisation, with performance standards set by the parliament. On the other hand, its mandate is to be an effective corporate player in a competitive market.

It competes with others not only for customers but staff. Indeed, Holgate’s recruitment by parcel delivery competitor Global Express, the former division of Toll Holdings now owned by private equity company Allegro Funds, demonstrates this.

Part of attracting and incentivising managerial talent in a competitive market is through large salaries and rewards, in this case luxury watches. Bonuses are an accepted part of remuneration across the industry. If Australia Post is to attract talent it can’t afford to not to play this game.

Privatisation fears

Implicit in the inquiry report is concern of a long-term plan for Australia Post to abandon its public service role, and perhaps even be privatised. This appears to be why it wants the review of Australia Post commissioned from management consultancy Boston Consulting Group (BCG) made public.

BCG handed its report to the government in February 2020. The government has not released it. The inquiry report describes it as “secret”. There’s a clear imputation the reason is it contains political dynamite.

It is quite likely the BCG report does discuss lower mail service levels and privatisation. Any thorough review should cover all possibilities. But it is hard to see there being a compelling case to privatise Australia Post, or bits of it. No one is going to want to buy a loss-making letter-delivery business, and there’s no point selling the parcel business since it subsidises letter deliveries.

Reasons for confidentiality

It is more likely BCG focused on projections of demand in the parcel and letter businesses. It is clear Australia Post is at a tipping point with its business model. The parcels market is rapidly growing and the traditional letters market will be essentially wiped out in the next decade.

Any commercial organisation faced with such large technology and market changes, providing both threats and opportunities, needs a detailed understanding of its best way forward.

Read more: Australia Post’s worst nightmare: Christine Holgate to head delivery rival Global Express

A report on such things will contain commercially sensitive information that a business operating in a commercial environment does not want to share – though in this case the horse has effectively bolted because Holgate has been forced out and taken all of her knowledge of the market, including insights from the BCG report, to a competitor.

Given this, and that these are topics of intense interest, perhaps the government should release the BCG report. The fallout from this debacle could hardly get much worse.

– ref. Australia Post inquiry: some hard punches, but no delivery on the bigger picture – https://theconversation.com/australia-post-inquiry-some-hard-punches-but-no-delivery-on-the-bigger-picture-161651

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

When Katy Gallagher joined the podcast this week, she was running between sessions of Senate estimates.

Among other issues, she and other Labor senators pressed (with mixed results) for answers about the handling of the Brittany Higgins matter.

Gallagher has another role in the pursuit of accountability. As Chair of the Senate’s Select Committee on COVID-19, she’s spearheading the quest for detail on what the government is doing on both the health and economic fronts.

As shadow minister for finance, she’s also been vocal in the opposition’s attack on the budget – in particular the government’s failure to increase real wages despite considerable spending.

Gallagher speaks about the difficulty in getting substantive information.

“We have had pretty critical information withheld from the [COVID] committee…”

“All of the modelling and assumptions that went into the economic rescue packages, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars going out the door. All the health advice that’s been provided to the government, the decisions that have been taken about border closures, about vaccinations, about why they went with certain companies and not others.

“The government has refused to provide that information. And I think that creates a problem for us in properly scrutinising it.”

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Katy Gallagher on the battle to hold the government to account – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-katy-gallagher-on-the-battle-to-hold-the-government-to-account-161662

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Phelan, Senior Lecturer, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle

The Federal Court today dismissed a bid by a group of Australian teenagers seeking to prevent federal environment minister Sussan Ley from approving a coalmine extension in New South Wales.

While the teens’ request for an injunction was unsuccessful, a number of important developments emerged during the court proceedings. This included new figures on the financial costs of climate change to young Australians over their lifetimes.

An independent expert witness put the loss at between A$125,000 and A$245,000 per person. The calculation was a conservative one, and did not include health impacts which were assessed separately.

The evidence was accepted by both the federal government’s legal team and the judge. That it was uncontested represents an important shift. No longer are the financial impacts of climate change a vague future loss – they’re now a tangible, quantifiable harm.

Calculating climate costs

The case involved a proposed extension to Whitehaven’s Vickery mine near Gunnedah in northwest NSW. The expansion would increase the total emissions over the life of the mine to 366 million tonnes.

To help in its deliberations, the court called on an independent expert witness, Dr Karl Mallon, to estimate the extent to which climate change would harm the eight young Australians aged 13 to 17, and by extension all children in Australia.

Mallon is chief executive of Climate Risk, a consultancy specialising in climate risk and adaptation software which advises governments and businesses around the world. This is the first time anywhere in the world this technique for quantifying harm in climate litigation has been applied and accepted.

Mallon first assumed a level of ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, with reference to standard scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scenarios range from futures with ambitious emissions reductions to those with very little.

So Mallon used the IPCC’s high-end emissions scenario known as RCP8.5 – the only one consistent with increasing coal production.

Second, Mallon drew on atmospheric modelling to provide projections for Australia on climate effects such as changes in temperature and rainfall. He then quantified the financial and health costs of those changes across three “epochs”, or time periods, in the futures of young people today.

Epoch 1: loss of property wealth

The first epoch spanned the decade to 2030. Mallon limited his analysis to how climate change will affect housing markets, leading to the loss of family property wealth.

Some homes are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather and climate risks such as bushfires, flooding, coastal inundation, cyclones and subsidence. Mallon’s modelling found about 5% of family homes would be affected damaged by climate change and associated extreme weather events this decade.

Already in some areas insurance premiums are becoming unaffordable and the problem will likely worsen as climate change unfolds. This will reduce the market value of high-risk properties.

Mallon estimated an average loss to the value of family homes by 2030 at about A$40-85,000 per child.

Epoch 2: reduced earnings

This epoch spanned the years 2040 to 2060, when the applicants would be aged between 20 and 58 years. This part of Mallon’s analysis focused first on loss to prosperity – how climate change would affect a young person’s ability to work.

On hot days, the body must expend extra energy dissipating heat (usually by sweating). As the International Labour Organisation has noted, exposure to these conditions for extended periods is risky, and to endure them people must drink water and take regular breaks, leading to lower productivity.

Rising temperatures under climate change will increase the number of days where the ability to work outside safely will be hampered. Mallon found around 30% of today’s children will work in climate-vulnerable jobs, such as agriculture and construction.

People in these jobs will be less productive, and the cost to employers will eventually be passed to employees through lower wages. Mallon estimated this means a loss of about A$75,000 over a young person’s working life.

Climate change and associated extreme weather will also disrupt the infrastructure businesses rely on, such as electricity, telecommunications and transport. Again, these productivity losses will eventually be reflected in employee wages.

In Mallon’s opinion, repeated extreme weather damage to business continuity will lead to an estimated average A$25,000 annual loss per person over the working life of a child today.

Climate change will also deliver general “hits” to the economy. Mallon’s analysis here focused only on agricultural and labour productivity, and drew on existing research to estimate losses of about A$60,000 per person over their lifetimes.

The bottom line? Mallon’s partial, conservative calculations found today’s children will forego between A$125,000 and A$245,000 each due to the climate impacts noted above. He puts the most likely cost at around A$170,000 for each child.

Epoch 3: risks to health

The third epoch spanned 2070 to 2100, when today’s young people will be in the later stages of their lives. Here, Mallon’s analysis focused on the health impacts of higher temperatures. These will lead to increased heat stress, ambulance call outs, presentations to emergency departments and hospitalisations.

Older people are more vulnerable to the health effects of higher temperatures, and also more likely to die. Mallon found one in five of today’s children will likely be hospitalised due to heat stress in their senior years.

Act hard and fast

In Australia and around the world, people concerned about climate change are increasingly using litigation in a bid to force governments to act.

This means we can expect to quantification of the financial costs of climate change being presented more often in our courts.

Global emissions must urgently be cut to net-zero to avert the most disastrous climate change impacts. The arguments in favour of radical mitigation action, including the personal financial risks, grow ever-more compelling by the day.

Read more: Climate change is resulting in profound, immediate and worsening health impacts, over 120 researchers say

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. You can read the rest of the stories here.

– ref. Climate change will cost a young Australian up to $245,000 over their lifetime, court case reveals – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-will-cost-a-young-australian-up-to-245-000-over-their-lifetime-court-case-reveals-161175

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

In Australia, the US and the UK, whites without a university education have trended to the right in the past decade, relative to overall election results. Scott Morrison in Australia, Donald Trump in the US, and Boris Johnson and Brexit in the UK have recently won elections owing to these trends.

Read more: Final 2019 election results: education divide explains the Coalition’s upset victory

I wrote about how Trump won the 2016 US election here. Although Trump lost the 2020 election, his defeat in the key Electoral College battleground states was very narrow (0.6% in the tipping-point state), and this was because his support with non-uni whites held up from 2016. See my 2020 US election report at The Poll Bludger.

In the UK, a YouGov poll, taken after the Conservative landslide at the December 2019 election from a sample of 42,000, gave the Conservatives bigger leads among low-income than high-income people. The Conservatives won by 58-25% among those with the lowest education level.

CNN analyst Harry Enten wrote in early April that in 2006, Democrats won 23 of the 50 federal US House seats with the highest population share of whites aged 25 or older without a university degree. In 2020, Democrats won just two of the top 50 such seats.

Democrats gained control of the House in 2006; they lost it in 2010, then regained it in 2018.

In 2006, a Democrat won the seat with the second highest proportion of non-uni whites by 24 percentage points, winning his home county by 45 points. Trump won that county by 40 points in 2020.

Income is far less important than it was in 2006 in explaining how white people vote, with education level the dominant factor. Enten says that in 2020, non-uni whites below the median income level voted Republican by a 26-point margin, and those above voted Republican by 31 points. Democrats increased their margin by 39 points when shifting from non-uni whites to whites with a university degree.

In Australia, the regional Queensland federal seat of Capricornia was Labor-held for all but two terms from 1961 until 2013; those terms, in 1975 and 1996, were Coalition landslides. At the 2019 federal election, the LNP won Capricornia by a 62.4-37.6% margin, a massive 11.7% swing to the LNP from 2016, the highest of any seat.

From being pro-Labor relative to the national and Queensland results, Capricornia was 4% better for the Coalition in 2019 than Queensland overall (58.4-41.6% to LNP), and 10.9% better than the nation (51.5-48.5% to Coalition). According to the 2016 Census, just 11.3% of Capricornia’s population aged 16 and over had a Bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 22% of Australia overall.

Australia 2016 and UK 2017 elections broke this trend

At the 2016 Australian federal election, the Coalition under Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership won only a bare majority of 76 of the 150 seats, losing 14 seats from the 2013 Coalition landslide.

The Coalition’s one gain from Labor occurred in the inner Melbourne seat of Chisholm (36% Bachelor’s degree or higher), while Labor gained the three northern Tasmanian seats of Bass (15% Bachelor’s), Braddon (9.5%) and Lyons (9.5%), Longman (9.3%) and Herbert (15.3%) in Queensland and seven seats including Lindsay (13.5%) in NSW.

Bass, Braddon, Lindsay, Longman and Herbert were all regained by the Coalition in 2019.

Although there was an overall swing to Labor of 3.1% at the 2016 election for a two party result of 50.4-49.6% to the Coalition, the Liberals gained a 2.2% swing in the inner Melbourne seat of Melbourne Ports (44.6%), reducing Labor’s margin to 51.4-48.6%. In 2019, the same seat (renamed Macnamara) was one of Labor’s best in swing terms with a 5% swing to them.

At the 2017 UK election, both major parties increased their vote share from 2015, with the Conservatives up 5.5% to 42.4% and Labour up 9.6% to 40%. In a major upset, the Conservatives lost their parliamentary majority, winning 317 of the 650 seats (down 13). They were able to form a government with support from Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party.

In the 2017 YouGov post-election poll, Labour still lost the least-educated by 55-33%, but this 22-point margin was much better than the 33-point margin in 2019. Furthermore, Labour performed well in traditional heartland seats that voted heavily for Leave at the 2016 Brexit referendum.

In Hartlepool, which Labour had held continuously since its creation in 1974, Leave won by 69.6-30.4%, but Labour won 52.5% in 2017 (up 16.9% since 2015). The Conservatives won 34.2% (up 13.3%) and UKIP 11.5% (down 16.5%).

The 2021 UK Hartlepool byelection

Despite the Conservatives’ 2019 landslide, Labour held Hartlepool owing to vote splitting between the Conservatives and Brexit party. Labour won 37.7% (down 14.8% since 2017), the Conservatives 28.9% (down 5.3%), the Brexit party 25.8% and the Lib Dems 4.1% (up 2.3%). The UK uses first past the post.

A byelection was held on May 6. The Conservatives won 51.9% (up 23%), Labour 28.7% (down 9%) and an independent 9.7%. It was not shocking the Conservatives won as they were expected to consolidate the Brexit party vote.

What was shocking was Labour’s nine-point drop in support from what was already a bad loss nationally in 2019. I covered this byelection and the generally disappointing local government UK elections for Labour in a live blog for The Poll Bludger.

Non-uni whites are voting the opposite way to elite opinion

For this article, I am defining elite opinion as representing political journalists and opinion and editorial columns at organisations like The Conversation, The Guardian, the ABC, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.

In the US and UK, Trump, Brexit and Boris Johnson were hated by elite opinion, but non-uni whites voted heavily for all three.

When he deposed Tony Abbott as prime minister in September 2015, Turnbull was welcomed by elite opinion. I believe this welcome alienated non-uni whites, and led to Labor making many gains in seats with low levels of educational attainment at the 2016 election, while the Coalition gained in seats with high levels of educational attainment.

Elite opinion was never in favour of Morrison, and the 2016 pattern was reversed in 2019, with the Coalition making its strongest gains in regional Queensland. See this Poll Bludger post for the gory details of Labor’s collapse in regional Queensland.

Jeremy Corbyn was despised by UK elite opinion because he was pro-Brexit, and Labour was perceived as headed for a thrashing under Corbyn’s far-left policies. The 2017 surge for Labour nationally and in seats like Hartlepool probably reflected non-uni whites’ distrust of elite opinion.

By 2019, Corbyn had become associated with blocking Brexit, and so non-uni whites rejected him and Labour. Keir Starmer, who had been an ardent Remainer under Corbyn, then became Labour leader, and elite opinion welcomed him. However, the Hartlepool byelection result was utterly woeful for Starmer and Labour.

There are mitigating factors for Labour. The Conservatives have opened up a big poll lead as the result of the UK’s COVID vaccination program that has massively reduced deaths and cases from January peaks. However, the Conservative government is 11 years old, and Labour could only get into a near-tie late last year.

In the 2020 US presidential election, elite opinion was disdainful of Joe Biden owing to his age. It’s possible Trump would have gained further ground with non-uni whites and won the election in the Electoral College if not for this.

Left should attempt to dissociate from elite opinion

The above section implies that non-uni whites are voting contrarily to elite opinion. If left-wing parties want to regain the votes of non-uni whites, they should probably break with elite opinion on some issues.

I think political correctness is an area where the left could break with elite opinion without compromising its core values on supporting low-income people and the environment. As I wrote here, the right could gain with young voters from the political correctness issue.

Read more: Has a backlash against political correctness made sexual misbehaviour more acceptable?

At the very least, people from the left should be as condemnatory as those from the right about extreme politically correct jargon such as “chestfeeding”.

A danger for the right is being perceived as wanting to slash government services when in office. The 2014 Australian federal budget was very unpopular, with Labor’s lead blowing out by about three points to 55-45%. Trump was at his most unpopular during his first year in office, during which he attempted to gut Obamacare.

In the last year, there have been two massive victories for the left in New Zealand and Western Australia. The wins have been by such huge margins that Labo(u)r must have easily won non-uni whites.

Perhaps incumbent left-wing governments will be able to make progress with non-uni whites, but the difficulty is becoming an incumbent. Those two elections were strongly influenced by NZ and WA’s successful campaign against COVID.

– ref. Non-university educated white people are deserting left-leaning parties. How can they get them back? – https://theconversation.com/non-university-educated-white-people-are-deserting-left-leaning-parties-how-can-they-get-them-back-160617

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Poulton, Senior Lecturer, Brain Mind Centre Nepean, University of Sydney

If your child has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), you might be wondering: what now? And how do I know if medication is warranted?

The answer will depend on circumstances and will change over time. It’s quite OK to leave medication as a last resort — but it can be a very useful last resort.

Here are some questions I typically work through with a parent and child negotiating this issue.

Read more: ADHD affects girls too, and it can present differently to the way it does in boys. Here’s what to look out for

Five key questions for parents and children with ADHD

1. Is this child underachieving academically in relation to their ability?

Was the child bright as a preschooler but struggled at school for reasons unclear (not, for example, due to vision or hearing problems)? Did they cope OK early in school but didn’t achieve at the level expected when schoolwork got harder?

2. Is this child’s behaviour creating unreasonable levels of stress or disruption at school?

For a child with ADHD to complete a task, it must be sufficiently interesting, short or easy. If a child can’t concentrate in class, they get bored. They might talk in class, create distractions or disrupt class. Obviously, careful judgement is needed to differentiate typical child behaviour from problematic behaviour.

3. Is this child’s behaviour creating unreasonable levels of stress or disruption at home?

At home, is the child able to draw, construct with LEGO, do puzzles or play blocks for longish periods of time? Or do they find the sustained effort needed unachievable? Do they then annoy a sibling to make life more interesting, or constantly ask adults to play with them?

If a child is working on homework for half an hour, how much time is spent concentrating? Are they focused for only ten minutes and the remainder is spent guiding them back on track?

Is the parent tearing their hair out with countless reminders and finding every time they check, the child is distracted again?

4. Is there a significant effect on peer relationships?

Children with ADHD don’t always have the patience to wait their turn or concentrate on what peers say. They may come across as bossy; they find it easier to focus on what’s happening in their own mind but more challenging to listen and process what others say. Their peers may eventually find someone else to play with.

5. Is there an impact on self esteem?

Is this a smart child who doesn’t think they’re smart because they struggle to concentrate long enough to get work done? Do they speak negatively about themselves? It’s important to take self esteem seriously.

Support strategies at home and in class

What other supports could help? Is the child sitting at the front of class? Is the teacher giving written instructions? Do they sit next to a good role model?

Has the parent done parenting classes? Have they tried home strategies rewarding good behaviour, or giving appropriate consequences for problematic behaviour?

Having a chart for the morning routine can be helpful. Many such strategies work nicely on children without ADHD. But children with ADHD often find the effort needed to earn a sticker isn’t worth it and may try to negotiate ever greater rewards.

If you’ve got to the end of that road and the child is still having problems, you might consider medication.

Read more: ADHD: claims we’re diagnosing immature behaviour make it worse for those affected

What does medication do?

With ADHD, it’s like your brain is running on a half-charged battery. Your concentration keeps flicking off or winding down. Medication makes it more like your brain is running with a fully charged battery.

The active ingredient in medication is usually a stimulant such as dexamphetamine or methylphenidate. You might know it by the brand name Ritalin.

These stimulants wear off quickly — after about four hours. That may help the child get through the school morning; they may need another dose at lunch and perhaps a third dose if they have after-school activities. There are also capsules that release medication more slowly.

The medication is always wearing off and you are back to square one. On the one hand, that’s a nuisance. On the other, it means you can try medication, then stop and you’ll still have the same child you had at the beginning.

You start low and increase gradually until you find a dose that lasts about four hours. The teacher can help with feedback. The dosage may need to be adjusted as the child grows. These decisions are all made with the support of the clinician.

Generally, you get improvement up to a point where no further benefit is seen. If the dosage is too high, a child may seem aggressive, depressed or “zombie-like”. Nobody wants a dosage that is not leading to a better outcome.

What about side effects?

The most significant side effect is appetite suppression, so we monitor weight and height closely. Generally, weight stabilises in the long run.

Rebound hyperactivity as the medication wears off and difficulty sleeping can occur. Sometimes this can be managed by changing the dosage or by not medicating too late in the day.

The decision to give medication is made on a daily basis. If you aren’t happy, you can omit it and see how things go.

This medication improves anyone’s concentration, not just children with ADHD, so it’s also sometimes a drug of abuse (among university students, for example). When used for treating ADHD, the risk of addiction is minimal.

But if you have concentration problems, you have more scope for improvement. A child who is concentrating most of the time cannot experience much improvement.

Reviewing progress

I always ask the child: does the medication work? How do you know? I might find out from a teenager that their concentration has improved from 20% to 80% or 90% of classtime. A younger child who prefers to feel in control of their behaviour may actually remind the parent when the next dose is due.

Often I hear from parents the child is now keen to get homework done, has more friends and feels happier and more confident.

All parents want their child to feel they’re functioning and fulfilling their potential. Most will achieve this without medication. That’s plan A. Plan B is that they are fulfilling their potential and living a great life, helped by medication.

Doesn’t every child, every person, with ADHD deserve a plan B?

Read more: ADHD prescriptions are going up, but that doesn’t mean we’re over-medicating

– ref. My child has been diagnosed with ADHD. How do I make a decision about medication and what are the side effects? – https://theconversation.com/my-child-has-been-diagnosed-with-adhd-how-do-i-make-a-decision-about-medication-and-what-are-the-side-effects-161411

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Munsie, Head Ethics, Education & Policy in Stem Cell Science and Convener of Stem Cells Australia, The University of Melbourne

The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) today released updated guidelines for stem cell research and its translation to medicine.

Developed in response to recent scientific and clinical advances, the revised guidelines provide a series of detailed and practical recommendations that set out global standards for how these emerging technologies should be harnessed.

Stem cell research has huge potential — it could help pave the way for new therapies for ailments ranging from Parkinson’s disease to childhood kidney failure. But scientific advances in this field can present unique ethical and policy issues beyond that seen in other areas of medical research.

The science is advancing at breakneck pace. Just in the past couple of months, we have seen model human embryos grown from skin cells, and the creation of human-monkey embryos for use in research.

The ISSCR has long recognised the need to set clear ethical boundaries for stem cell research. Previous guidelines have provided advice on techniques such as the use of human embryos to create stem cells, and set the required standards when using these technologies to create new medicines.

They have also explicitly banned certain practices, such as reproductive cloning and the sale of unproven therapies that claim to be made of stem cells.

The 2021 guidelines — an update on the previous version, released in 2016 — aim to set standards for the many recent advances in stem cell and human embryo research. These include “chimeric” embryos containing cells from humans and other animals, “organoids” grown from stem cells to create tissue that resembles particular human organs, and “models” of human embryos — arrangements of human cells that mimic the early stages of embryo development.

So what’s new?

The guidelines contain a clear requirement for certain new stem cell research approaches only to be conducted after a specialised review process. This review should be independent of the researchers, and include community members as well as people with expertise in the relevant science, ethics and law.

This is beyond what is typically required by a university or research institute where medical research is conducted. Besides evaluating the merit of the proposed research, the new reviews should also consider whether there are alternative ways to do the research, the source of stem cells and how they were obtained, and the minimum time required to reach the research goals, particularly in relation to human embryo and related research.

Specialised review is not a new concept. The previous guidelines required it when researchers made stem cells from human embryos or sought to culture human embryos in the lab. But now researchers will now also be required to seek higher review when they create model embryos such as blastoids, or study the development of animal-human embryos in animal wombs.

Researchers developing new therapies for mitochondrial disease will also be required to seek higher-level review before attempting to transfer to the uterus of a woman human embryos in which affected mitochondria (a part of the cell’s energy-production apparatus) have been replaced.

Importantly, the revised guidelines also clearly rule out certain activities. These continue to include reproductive cloning and attempts to form a pregnancy in a woman from genetically “edited” human embryos or from model embryos made from stem cells. Prohibited activities also now include using eggs and sperm made from human stem cells for reproduction, or transferring a human-animal chimeric embryo into the uterus of a woman or an ape.

Read more: China’s failed gene-edited baby experiment proves we’re not ready for human embryo modification

The guidelines also call for a public conversation about whether we should allow limited lab research on human embryos beyond the existing limit of 14 days’ development. Historically, it has not been possible to support human embryonic development outside the body beyond this stage. However, recent advances in human embryo culture raise the possibility that this may now be technically feasible.

Extending the amount of time in culture – in terms of days – could potentially yield new treatments for developmental conditions or infertility, but will also raise concerns about whether possible benefits justify this research. Any decisions to overturn this long-held signpost would need to be carefully deliberated and take into consideration existing law, community values and discussion around what the new limit should be.

The revised guidelines also reinforce the need for informed consent for the collection of human material and participation in stem cell clinical trials, and reiterate that no new stem cell treatment should be made available before it is tested for safety and effectiveness in well-designed and publicly visible clinical trials. The ISSCR continues to condemn the commercial use of unproven stem cell treatments.

Why do these guidelines matter?

While stem cell science holds much promise, it is paramount that research is scientifically and ethically rigorous, with appropriate oversight, transparency and public accountability.

The fact these guidelines are driven by experts – including stem cell scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers and industry representatives – from across 14 countries indicates a deep sense of responsibility and integrity within the research community, and a desire to ensure science remains in step with community values.

However, these guidelines are recommendations, not laws.

Researchers will need to abide by their respective national or state regulations and ethical standards. Some countries already have regulatory frameworks that are consistent with the new recommendations. In other places there is no national guidance around laboratory and clinical stem cell research at all, or existing law touches on some but not all of the emerging applications of stem cell research.

Read more: As scientists move closer to making part human, part animal organisms, what are the concerns?

For example, in Australia there is already an established pathway for higher-level review of embryo models created from stem cells. However, the same legislation currently bans any attempt to use mitochondrial transfer techniques to create embryos for research or to achieve a pregnancy – both of which are permissible under the new ISSCR guidelines.

Rather than attempting to impose a set of hard-and-fast rules on an ever-evolving research field, the new guidelines attempt to address emerging issues and drive important discussions at domestic level. Ultimately, it is the public and the regulators who will need to set the standards.

– ref. New global guidelines for stem cell research aim to drive discussions, not lay down the law – https://theconversation.com/new-global-guidelines-for-stem-cell-research-aim-to-drive-discussions-not-lay-down-the-law-161578

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Curtin, PhD Candidate, Charles Darwin University

We acknowledge the Bininj, Larrakia, Noongar, Ngarluma, Yindjibarndi and Yawuru peoples as the Traditional Owners of Country where this article, and our research, was conducted and written, and we pay our respects to Elders past and present.

In a reconciled Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights, histories and cultures are recognised and valued as part of our shared national identity. In the 2021 State of Reconciliation in Australia report, Bundjalung woman Karen Mundine (CEO of Reconciliation Australia) says:

Reconciliation cannot just be about raising awareness and knowledge. The skills and knowledge gained should motivate us to ‘braver’ action.

The 2020 reconciliation barometer survey revealed we are at a tipping point in our nation’s reconciliation journey, with public support for reconciliation higher than ever. It is time to take tangible steps to walk together towards a more fair, equitable and sustainable nation.

However, many of us don’t quite know how. Too often, we are afraid of not “getting it right”, of not being able to do enough. We may feel paralysed, not knowing how to move forward. It may seem safer to not act at all.

Actual reconciliation is not a box-ticking exercise. It requires individuals and communities to have meaningful and shared visions of places and relationships.

To do this, we need to increase the visibility and recognition of Indigenous people as knowledge holders, as co-author Warumungu Luritja woman Dr Tracy Woodroffe explains:

My strength, and the strength of Indigenous people, is in who we are at the core. The core is our Indigenous knowledge. It is the foundation for our strength of character and our Indigenous perspectives are a uniting force.

Engaging in Indigenous tourism is one way to experience meaningful connections and hear stories of Indigenous perspectives. There are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tourism operators across the country who are ready take visitors on a learning journey into the world’s oldest living culture.

How we can avoid “reconciliation paralysis”?

As Australia opens up, many people are taking the opportunity to “tour our own backyard”. In a time when we cannot travel overseas, many are rekindling their curiosity for local places. Who better to guide us than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have intimate knowledge of this country and of the cultures that have sustained it – and been sustained by it – over millennia?

Aboriginal tourism operators are keen to meet visitors and share their knowledge of their Country and its stories, as Ngarluma and Yindjibarndi man Clinton Walker (Ngurrangga Tours in Karratha, WA) says:

I got into tourism so that I could preserve this knowledge and pass it on and teach others about it so that future generations can enjoy it too.

Participating in Aboriginal tourism is an accessible and enjoyable option. There are many ways to get involved, including guided nature walks, four-wheel drive tag-along tours, cooking classes, visiting art galleries, and being entertained by storytelling under the stars, as Noongar woman Marissa Verma, (Bindi Bindi Dreaming in Perth) says:

Business is fun and can take you anywhere and everywhere. I love what I do!

We don’t even need to travel very far, as Njaki Njaki Nyoongar man Mick Hayden (Njaki Njaki Aboriginal Cultural Tours in Merredin, WA) says:

I want to try to get across to the locals, come and know a little bit about your own backyard before you go elsewhere.

These activities are not mere entertainment. We argue they are precisely the types of actions required for us to experience reconciliation in practice.

It can take courage to leave our comfort zones and connect in this way, hence the theme for National Reconciliation Week 2021: “More than a word: Reconciliation takes action”.

“We are reconciliators”

Our recently published research “We are reconciliators”: When Indigenous tourism begins with agency shows how Aboriginal tourism operators from Western Australia and the Northern Territory have experience in three key elements of tourism: hosting, connecting and sharing.

Hosting is the act of creating culturally safe spaces for interactions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Connecting is the practice of establishing common ground with visitors. And sharing involves stories of culture, people and places.

These aspects of Indigenous tourism proceed from the agency, or self-determination, of operators, as Whadjuk Nyungar woman Kerry-Ann Winmar (Nyungar Tours in Perth) describes:

We want to share our own culture. We want to tell our own story our own way.

Showing up and supporting Aboriginal people and their businesses is a part of reconciling, as Yawuru man Bart Pigram (Narlijia Experiences in Broome, WA) says in a powerful call to action:

I believe that reconciliation – because it’s about people coming together – I believe that we need to do it. Politicians don’t need to do it and sign a paper, each and every one of us need to do it. This is our lifestyle. That’s why I said, ‘we are reconciliators’, because that’s how we get paid, by practising reconciliation, not by talking about it.

Learning and unlearning

However, it is important Indigenous Australians are not left to bear the responsibility for reconciling. Reconciliation must be a reciprocal process. It requires non-Indigenous Australians to learn about and reflect on the stories of Indigenous cultures and peoples, and of our shared Australian history.

It also requires taking responsibility for so-called “white ignorance” and unlearning prejudices which may not be easily seen.

We need to be mindful that National Reconciliation Week can be challenging for Indigenous Australians because of the mental strain of attention being called to how much change is still needed.

The required change is not only about shifting individual attitudes or biases — systemic change is also needed. This is the difficulty. When systems “work” for the non-Indigenous majority, there is an underlying reluctance towards change. This can be seen in the inertia in decolonising the Australian education system. However, there is a way forward.

Indigenous voices can change Australian education for the better

There is much to be gained by listening to Indigenous voices. Indigenous voices, and an Indigenous standpoint, provide an opportunity to consider perceived problems holistically by identifying inadequacies in systems.

Then we can focus on what change is required to meet the needs of people. We need to begin with education and developing our workforces to be confident in engaging and working with Indigenous people and communities.

Reconciliation is a two-way process. The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls on Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike to:

Walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

Indigenous tourism operators are agents of reconciliation. They are showing us what reconciled interactions can look like. Through acting as educators and sharing their cultural, environmental and social knowledge and values with their visitors, they bring reconciliation into the present.

We are grateful to Aboriginal tourism operators Bart Pigram, Clinton Walker, Kerry-Ann Winmar, Marissa Verma, Mick Hayden and Roland Burrunali for sharing their stories with us. We appreciate their generosity in helping us to understand more about their Country and culture.

– ref. ‘More than a word’: Practicing reconciliation through Indigenous knowledge-sharing in tourism – https://theconversation.com/more-than-a-word-practicing-reconciliation-through-indigenous-knowledge-sharing-in-tourism-158563

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

The European Union is preparing to harmonise regulations governing the trade in human milk, which sounds like a good thing. But it won’t be if it sidelines breastfeeding or makes informal human-to-human milk exchanges more difficult.

Women and their families have exchanged human milk informally (including for money) throughout history, and still do.

Until a century ago human milk was mainly delivered in person, breast-to-child, by friends, relatives or wet nurses if mothers couldn’t provide it.

As the paediatric profession developed, hospitals in Europe and the United States took over the process and began administering human milk by bottles, at first filled by volunteers, and later, in the lead-up to the second world war, by paid donors.

Higher women’s wages after the war made paying donors financially prohibitive, and most countries moved closer to a “gift economy” in which payment for products such as human milk and blood was seen as inappropriate, alongside a growing commercial market for formula and powder derived from cows milk.

Donor milk collected by charities and non-profit organisations from screened donors is mostly pasteurised and tested to minimise risks of disease.

Biotech discovers breast milk

Things changed in 1999 when an American company, Prolacta, developed human milk-based products for fortifying breast milk fed to premature infants.

At first Prolacta didn’t pay donors, but it now pays about US$4 per 100ml for milk it uses to make products that sell for up to US$250 per 100 ml.

In 2015 a not-for-profit Utah-based company, Ambrosia Labs established clinics in Cambodia to collect milk for exporting to the United States.

After the United Nations Children’s Fund condemned the practice saying breast milk could be considered “human tissue” the Cambodian government banned it. Some mothers despaired at losing crucial income.

Read more: Without better regulation, the market for breast milk will exploit mothers

A few years later in 2017 an Australian-Indian company Neolacta, was granted permission to sell milk collected from Indian mothers in Australia.

In 2019 a related company, NeoKare, established a “state-of-the-art” plant in Europe making freeze-dried fortifier sourced from UK donors.

These human milk product manufacturers are competing with cow-sourced product manufacturers such as Nestle and might soon be competing with start-ups growing new products that mimic human milk.

Industry backs new regulation

The harmonisation being considered by the European Union would extend to human milk the rules that already govern trade in blood, tissues and cells.

Some member states in the European Union already apply tissue and cell rules to human milk, others apply food legislation, and at least 11 don’t regulate it at all.

Australian regulators will be watching closely, because Australian states and territories have similarly diverse rules.

That formula companies are backing the idea provides cause for concern.

But it’s women who matter

Health authorities have already expressed disquiet about commerce-free internet-based milk sharing. The proposal would give them greater powers to act against it.

If these powers were applied heavily they could shut down the generally safe and self-regulated human-to-human trade.

And advancing the medical market for human milk products might delay the advances in social and employment protection policies needed to support breastfeeding at work, at home and in public.

Human milk is not simply a homogenised “commodity crop in a bottle”.

Breastfeeding creates connections that are important for women’s health and wellbeing and for their babies.

Ironically, where governments fail to adequately protect, promote and support breastfeeding, mothers are often forced to turn to commercial formula for a quick fix.

The proposals as drafted pay scant regard to the United Nations human rights commissioner’s view that “states should do more to support and protect breastfeeding, and end inappropriate marketing of breast-milk substitutes”.

A truly comprehensive set of laws would include protection from marketing and biomedical experiments and allow suitable recompense for donors. Serological testing would be easily available to donors along with guidance to support milk sharing outside of medical facilities.

Read more: The rise of commercial milk formulas matters for women and children

Such comprehensive laws would impose levies on commercial substitutes in order to fund better breastfeeding support in maternity and newborn facilities.

They would have at their centre the needs and rights of women, who are both the main providers of human milk and (on their children’s behalf) its biggest users.

– ref. Behind moves to regulate breastmilk trade lies the threat of a corporate takeover – https://theconversation.com/behind-moves-to-regulate-breastmilk-trade-lies-the-threat-of-a-corporate-takeover-152446

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ritesh Shah, Senior Lecturer in Education, University of Auckland

Schools in Gaza had only recently begun reopening after COVID-19 when the recent escalation in violence shut them down again. For students, it was simply another disruption in their already disrupted lives.

For the past decade, I have been conducting research in Palestine for a range of humanitarian organisations and donors, and witnessing first-hand the realities of life of under occupation, particularly for children and their families.

From the narrow alleyways of the Old City of Jerusalem to the ramshackle streets of Gaza City, I’ve been amazed by the resilience of Palestinians in the face of occupation and oppression.

For many children in the West Bank, the very act of attending school each day is fraught. Those living near the wall separating Israeli and Palestinian-controlled territories, or close to Israeli settlements, face daily and humiliating searches by Israeli security forces on their way to and from school.

They also suffer physical or verbal abuse from settlers, and the prospect of live ammunition, tear gas or stun grenades being fired at or near their schools. There’s a constant threat of their schools being demolished or permanently closed by Israeli authorities.

It is estimated these conditions affected nearly 20,000 children in 2019.

COVID-19 and conflict

Ironically, the COVID-19 pandemic eliminated the physical risks of simply reaching and attending school. Recent research I conducted in partnership with the Norwegian Refugee Council showed children’s psycho-social well-being improved while schools were closed.

Why? Because they were able to participate in learning from the relative safety of their homes.

Read more: As trust between Israeli Jews and Arabs reaches new lows, Netanyahu rises again

Since schools in the West Bank began to reopen in late January, however, dozens of children have been injured or arrested on their way to and from school as tensions rose over the illegal annexation of homes in East Jerusalem and raids by Israeli security forces on Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Until students and schools are protected from attack, it’s likely the decision to go to school will be determined by risk and insecurity.

School as sanctuary

For Gaza’s two million residents, a long economic blockade and past military escalations, as well as internal conflict between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, had already severely limited livelihoods, basic services and even food.

Then COVID-19 hit with a vengeance in August 2020, forcing children to learn from home when electricity and internet access were sporadic, food insecurity and unemployment were skyrocketing, and domestic violence was far too common.

Read more: 3 practical ways New Zealand could help with the Israel-Palestine conflict from afar

Our research found less than half of these children were able to engage in any form of learning from home during this period. Only 30% of the children we surveyed had a positive outlook on the future, with just one in five feeling safe at home.

Even before the latest escalation, children’s psycho-social well-being was at an all time low.

Schools in Gaza are often places of social connection, sanctuary and self-expression for young people, particularly adolescent girls. COVID-19 and then the latest outbreak of fighting have conspired against this source of hope.

An ephemeral ceasefire

In the coming weeks and months we’ll witness the international community rush in to provide emergency support to the children of Palestine. But while food, medicines (including sorely needed vaccines), cash relief, temporary shelters, educational materials and mental health support are all needed, on their own they are not enough.

If another generation of Palestinian youth is to be saved from the conflict, the systems and structures that have made young learners vulnerable in the first place must be reconfigured.

As a colleague from Gaza recently wrote:

As terrified as we are of the relentless air strikes, what terrifies me more is the silence of the aftermath. A silence that will allow the world to forget about us once again until the next round of hostilities, while we die a slow, anonymous death under the pretence of calm.

As the occupying power, Israel must sufficiently protect the rights of young people according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This includes guaranteeing young Palestinians unfettered access to an education free of attack, of the same quality afforded children in Israel.

Other governments must hold Israel to account on this. If not, all the rebuilding efforts of the international community in the years to come will be as ephemeral as the current ceasefire.

– ref. After COVID-19 and the latest violence, what now for the school children of Palestine? – https://theconversation.com/after-covid-19-and-the-latest-violence-what-now-for-the-school-children-of-palestine-161496

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Imogen Wegman, Lecturer in Humanities, University of Tasmania

The new Netflix series Shadow and Bone opens with cartographer Alina Starkov crammed into the back of a rumbling wagon, sketching a war-torn landscape. A flashback to her childhood in an orphanage shows her looking at a map of a conflict zone.

A guardian tells her, “keep a pencil in your hand, or else someone will put a rifle in it instead”. The cartographers of this fictional world are crucial to the military, just as they are in the real world. But there is also a sense that cartographers played a peaceful role in the army.

In reality, the role of surveyors and cartographers throughout history was often far from peaceful. It was their initial explorations that paved the way for destructive waves of colonising armies and civilians.

At each stage of mapping an area, clues are preserved about the priorities and prejudices of the person wielding the pencil, and those instructing them. Today, researchers can spot these clues and draw out the contextual history of the time.

Exploring the land

Maps made it easier for the government back home to imagine the territory of a new colony, to claim to “know” and thus own it. Therefore, surveying expeditions into unknown lands were prioritised.

Some expeditions were huge, such as Lewis and Clark’s crossing of the United States. Others were small, such as James Meehan’s treks around the Derwent River in Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) between October 1803 and March 1804.

Meehan kept a daily log of measurements and happenings as he explored. Like many, he occasionally included sketches, probably trying to ward off boredom during the long evenings at camp.

We know through journal records that Meehan met some palawa (Tasmanian Aboriginal) people along the different routes, once firing on a group when he felt threatened.

Read more: Thirteen years after ‘Sorry’, too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are still being removed from their homes

Focused on sought-after utilities

Meehan’s observations were then produced for their first external audience – the colonial government. It’s here we start to see the colony’s priorities.

Many of the map labels highlight the quality of the land in terms of potential for expansion and European-style agriculture. Meehan’s map of the Hobart area emphasises whether the land encountered was hilly or flat, covered with vegetation, or cleared pasture.

By the time Meehan drafted his “Plan of the Settlement at the River Derwent”, pictured above, the Europeans had moved from their initial camp at Risdon Cove to today’s site of Hobart. The Risdon settlement was considered a failure as the fresh water ran out and soldiers threatened mutiny, so Meehan omitted any reference to it beyond a small name label.

More importantly, he excluded any reference to any Indigenous people, despite having encountered them on more than one occasion.

Meehan was playing his part in cultivating the narrative of Van Diemen’s Land as a successful colony on an “empty” island that had been (supposedly) waiting for the Europeans to arrive. This was the same as the terra nullius narrative perpetuated by the British government regarding the mainland.

Propaganda in map form

Sometimes the map would be destined for wider circulation and would be refined with simple decorative features such as a key, north arrow, coloured inks and detailed illustrations of ships or gardens.

Within these more attractive maps, hidden clues became even more nuanced.

Aspirational elements were introduced, giving the viewer a sense of what the cartographer, landholder or government perceived as a desirable landscape. Phrases such as “unexplored country” would be used, or an area of blank space sparked the imagination with some promise of undiscovered wealth.

Both sketch maps and their more refined siblings were used by the ruling powers as working maps to track their increasing expansion over the land. By reading the scribbled annotations carefully, stories of changing land ownership, population growth and acts of violence become apparent.

Republishing and distribution

Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, geographers, engravers and others combined data from maps and reports to print single sheets and atlases they could sell at a range of prices.

These maps transported the reading public to remote locations and made them sound educated at the dinner table. Accuracy was not required for this, so mistakes were copied from one chart to another, and outdated information often circulated for decades.

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, explorers’ maps and reports sometimes included references to First Nations peoples or their significant sites. Abel Tasman observed the presence of palawa people in southern Tasmania. A century later, explorers in America named “native guides” in recognition of their invaluable assistance during cross-country expeditions.

But by the end of the 18th century, changing attitudes towards First Nations peoples started to see references to them disappear from maps of European colonies around the globe.

In 1804, Meehan omitted all mention of Tasmania’s palawa people from his Derwent River map. This is a reflection of emerging ideas of colonial superiority. The Europeans were increasingly reluctant to admit to needing help from Indigenous people, or even to admit there were other people already living on the lands.

So the next time you find yourself in front of a historic map, make sure you ask what details have been included, which have been excluded and — most importantly — why?

Read more: We mapped the ‘super-highways’ the First Australians used to cross the ancient land

– ref. How early Australian settlers drew maps to erase Indigenous people and push ideas of colonial superiority – https://theconversation.com/how-early-australian-settlers-drew-maps-to-erase-indigenous-people-and-push-ideas-of-colonial-superiority-161097

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Price, Sessional Lecturer, The University of Queensland

Since 2018, Australia has been seeking to become a top ten global defence exporter.

Its main exports are products and components that fit into broader global supply chains for weapons and weapons systems. For example, the government boasts there isn’t a single F-35 fighter jet production operation that doesn’t feature Australian-made components.

The government sees further export potential for products and components to be used in armoured vehicles, advanced radar systems, and patrol boats, as well.

While Australia hasn’t made much headway on its export ranking, it has enjoyed some impressive sales success. In the 2017-18 financial year, the estimated value of approved export permits was A$1.5 billion. By 2019-20, it had grown to nearly $5.5 billion.

Australia’s export goals are connected to a broader effort to resuscitate domestic manufacturing.

Considerable government funding is involved in this effort, including $1 billion recently allocated to the Sovereign Guided Weapons Enterprise for building missiles.

Where do Australian arms go?

Australia doesn’t provide data on which countries it exports arms to. It only maps the regions, and unhelpfully, it lumps the Middle East and Asia together.

We do know successive defence ministers have courted markets in the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

Heavily redacted documents obtained by the Guardian under a Freedom of Information request also indicate that in 2018-19, Australia issued 45 arms export permits to the UAE and 23 to Saudi Arabia.

Another 14 permits were approved for the countries from 2019-20.

These developments are significant, not least because the UAE and Saudis have both been embroiled in the Yemeni civil war for years, at times conducting their own indiscriminate air strikes.

The UN secretary-general anticipates 16 million Yemenis will go hungry this year because of the conflict, while 50,000 Yemenis are already starving to death.

Earlier this year, the Biden administration announced a freeze on “offensive” arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, citing the toll on civilians in the Yemeni war. Italy followed suit. Germany, too, halted weapons exports to the Saudis after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

Advocacy groups in Australia have attempted to seize on this glimmer of momentum by calling for Australia to do the same.

When weapons end up in the wrong hands

The Australian government still claims its arms export industry operates under strict regulations:

In keeping with Australia’s national interests and international obligations, Defence facilitates the responsible export of military and dual-use goods and technologies from Australia.

Such claims are hardly new. If anything, they’re part of a long-standing Western tradition.

In the 1960s, the UN Security Council debated the merits of an arms embargo on South Africa. At the time, the French and British maintained their weapons sales were for “defensive purposes” and not “internal use”. South Africa built a terrifying internal security apparatus, making a mockery of the distinction.

The historical record shows that arms exports often show up precisely where they shouldn’t, causing untold civilian suffering. At times, they are even wielded against the immediate interests of the countries in which they were produced.

Britain’s many mistakes

Here, the British experience is illustrative (although we just as easily tell this story about any purported liberal democracy in the arms export business).

When Tony Blair’s Labour government came to office in 1997, it promised an “ethical” foreign policy. As part of this, Labour would never allow the sale of arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression. Or so they said.

The previous government had approved export licenses for the sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia’s Suharto regime. While Labour could have cancelled these licences, it didn’t do so until it was too late. A series of unedifying spectacles followed.

In 1999, Britain confirmed Indonesia had flown Hawk jets over Timor-Leste to intimidate local residents before the region’s independence referendum. Hawk jets were then used in 2003 to bomb Aceh province during a particularly brutal internal military campaign. British Scorpion tanks were also used.

These were by no means isolated incidents. In 2009, Britain conceded it was possible its weapons had been used in the Sri Lankan civil war in a manner contravening their export licences.

That same year, the foreign secretary also confirmed Israel had used British-made equipment to bombard Gaza.

Like Australia, Britain is currently exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia, though a court challenge is being brought to try to stop it. From 2013-17, it was the country’s second-biggest supplier, after the US.

While Britain recently announced it will halve its aid budget to Yemen, it will not stop supplying the Saudis with arms.

Today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy

Arming foreign governments does not just pose an immediate risk to civilians. In a phenomenon known as “blowback”, it can undermine the interests of exporters.

In 2004, for example, the European Union lifted arms sanctions on Libya. And from 2005–09, EU member states cemented arms deals with the oil giant.

Muammar Gaddafi’s regime stored its new purchases in warehouses. Then, in 2011, Libya erupted into civil war and NATO enacted a “no-fly zone”. Many of the warehouses were looted and the weapons spilled into the hands of both government and rebel forces. This effectively turbo-charged a conflict that NATO was responsible for controlling.

A 2013 UN report said looted weapons had been smuggled to as many as 12 other countries in the region. They’ve fallen into the hands of foreign governments, separatists, warlords, and Islamic extremists. This is how arms deals can come back to bite exporters.

The arms industry has an array of potential drawbacks. There are questions about the economic efficiency of investing in defence at the expense of other sectors, and arms procurement is highly susceptible to corruption.

Even if our intentions are good and we behave transparently, we still cannot predict the future. The British Parliamentary Committee on Export Controls articulated this problem over a decade ago when discussing the Sri Lankan war:

The issue of Sri Lanka illustrates the difficulties faced by the government, and by those who, like us, scrutinise the licensing decisions made by government, in assessing how exports of arms might be used by the destination country at a future date, particularly if [the] political situation in the country at the time of the exports appears stable.

That should give us pause for thought.

– ref. Australia is building a billion-dollar arms export industry. This is how weapons can fall in the wrong hands – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-building-a-billion-dollar-arms-export-industry-this-is-how-weapons-can-fall-in-the-wrong-hands-159817

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karlheinz Peter, Lab Head, Atherothrombosis and Vascular Biology and Deputy Director, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute; Interventional Cardiologist, Alfred Hospital; Professor of Medicine and Immunology, Monash University, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute

With COVID-19 community transmission on the rise once again, those aged over 50 are weighing up the benefits of being vaccinated against the virus with the very rare risk of blood clotting induced by the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Since the first reports of blood clotting after the AstraZeneca vaccine emerged in March 2021, our understanding of the clotting disorder, called vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia (VITT) or thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), has grown.

We now know how to diagnose and treat it, so we’re likely to see better outcomes for patients with the condition.

How common and deadly is it?

Thankfully, developing blood clots after the AstraZeneca vaccine is very rare.

So far in Australia, out of 2.1 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 24 cases of TTS have been reported. So the risk of TTS is approximately one in 88,000.

These figures are similar to those reported in the UK, Europe, the Middle East and Canada.

Although early reports from Europe indicated approximately 20% of cases of TTS were fatal, in Australia, to date, one out of 24 TTS cases has been fatal, so just over 4%.

What exactly is thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome?

Although we don’t yet have the full explanation, it appears that the AstraZeneca vaccine can activate platelets, which are small cells in our blood important for forming blood clots that prevent bleeding.

In some people, activated platelets can release a protein called platelet factor 4 (PF4), which binds to the AstraZeneca vaccine. It is thought that this binding of PF4 can induce the immune system to activate more platelets, making them stick together and thereby diminishing their numbers. This leads to blood clotting (thrombosis) and a low platelet count (thrombocytopaenia).

Having blood clots with a reduced number of platelets is a key feature of TTS.

Read more: What is thrombocytopenia, the rare blood condition possibly linked to the AstraZeneca vaccine?

Different to other blood clots

This mechanism is quite different to the usual process by which blood clots occur.

TTS appears to result from an irregular immune response, so current evidence suggests people with a history of heart attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism (a clot in the lung) or on regular blood thinners aren’t at any increased risk of TTS.

However, as a precautionary measure, the Pfizer vaccine is currently recommended for people aged under 50 years, or those with a history of clots in the brain, in the abdomen or previous low platelet count after taking the blood-thinning drug heparin.

Testing and treatment has improved

A key development is diagnostic tests and guidelines to recognise and treat cases of TTS. In most cases, patients will have a low platelet count, evidence of a blood clot, and antibodies directed against PF4. Many of these tests can be done quickly.

Treatment can now begin immediately, with specific blood thinners and medications to dampen the immune system.

As of May 20 when the latest vaccine safety report was released, 21 of the 24 Australians with TTS had recovered and been discharged from hospital and two were stable and recovering in hospital.

So what side effects are normal, and what might indicate a clot?

General side effects are common after any vaccine. In the case of the AstraZeneca vaccine, these occur in the first two days after vaccination and include:

• headache
• fever (chills)
• muscle and joint aches
• nausea
• fatigue
• pain at the site of injection, which tends to resolve with simple measures such as paracetamol.

In many cases, the blood clots in TTS occur in unusual locations such as the veins in the abdomen (splanchnic vein thrombosis) and brain (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis). They typically occur four to 30 days days after vaccination.

Read more: I’m over 50 and can now get my COVID vaccine. Is the AstraZeneca vaccine safe? Does it work? What else do I need to know?

Therefore, symptoms that could indicate TTS after getting the AstraZeneca vaccine include:

• persistent or severe headache
• blurred or double vision
• shortness of breath
• severe abdominal, back or chest pain
• swelling, redness, pain in a leg
• unusual bleeding or bruising.

If you experience any of these symptoms four to 30 days after your vaccination, seek urgent medical attention.

Balancing the risk and benefits

While TTS is very rare, some people will have concerns and will want to discuss them with their doctor. This is essential to allow people to make an informed choice.

Read more: I’m over 50 and hesitant about the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine. Should I wait for Pfizer?

However, with the ongoing risk of COVID outbreaks in Australia and their potential deadly consequences, as well as the potentially severe long-term effects of COVID-19, for the vast majority of people, the benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 as soon as possible outweigh the risks.

– ref. How rare are blood clots after the AstraZeneca vaccine? What should you look out for? And how are they treated? – https://theconversation.com/how-rare-are-blood-clots-after-the-astrazeneca-vaccine-what-should-you-look-out-for-and-how-are-they-treated-161280

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alistair Woodward, Professor, School of Population Health, University of Auckland

At the end of this month, the Climate Change Commission will deliver its final advice to government, outlining how New Zealand can reach its climate targets.

New Zealand has committed to reaching net zero emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) and reducing methane emissions from animals by 24-47% by 2050.

The commission’s draft advice proposed electrifying the country’s car fleet as the best way of reducing transport emissions.

There are a number of reasons to question this course of action. One is equity — relying on electric cars to meet climate targets runs the risk of embedding existing health inequities.

Our first concern is that electric cars won’t reduce transport emissions quickly enough to meet our 2050 net zero carbon target. And without rapid cuts in emissions, climate change will continue largely unchecked, hitting disadvantaged populations hardest.

According to the commission, domestic transport emissions must be halved by 2035, and the pathway the commission favours relies on shifting 40% of light vehicles from fossil fuels to electricity. Others argue bigger cuts are needed, sooner, given the slowness of emission reduction in other sectors.

Even with the commission’s (relatively) modest goal for electrification, there are two problems.

First, it is doubtful the target can be achieved. Obstacles include the low starting point (electric cars currently make up about 2% of the vehicle fleet), international competition for supplies and the high cost of EVs, slow turn-over of the old fleet (the average life span of cars in New Zealand is about 14 years), no obvious source of suitable second-hand vehicles, and the work required to build a comprehensive charging infrastructure.

Second, as the recent Ministry of Transport green paper demonstrates, even if the goal of 40% electric cars was met, this wouldn’t bend the emissions curve far enough to reach the 2050 target.

Fundamentally, the number of private vehicles must reduce, the distance travelled must shrink, and alternative forms of transport (including electric buses and electric bikes) must substitute for car trips. Making towns and cities more attractive for walking and cycling is also necessary to take serious amounts of carbon out of transport.

Unchecked climate change amplifies disadvantage

If emissions continue to rise, climate change unfolds unchecked. This is inherently unfair because climate change amplifies social disadvantage, including the conditions that lead to poorer health outcomes for Māori and Pacific populations. Examples include infectious diseases, mental health problems and chronic respiratory diseases.

Climate change will sharpen the threat of food insecurity, which currently affects Māori and Pacific peoples disproportionately as a result of pressures on food production worldwide. Living in more marginal areas in poorer-quality housing means Māori and Pacific communities are more severely affected by extreme storms and floods.

Read more: NZ’s Climate Change Commission needs to account for the huge potential health benefits of reducing emissions

People in lower socioeconomic groups also face greater exposure to climate risks, for example due to outdoor work, and are less able to afford measures such as air conditioning to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Penalties in a car-dominated world

The electric car might be an energy solution, but it is definitely not a transport solution. If New Zealand relies on this technology to reduce emissions, the price will be perpetuating an unfair and damaging transport system.

People without cars (10% of Māori households compared with about 5% of non-Māori) find it more difficult to access vital goods and services, and are more likely to be socially excluded.

A high volume of fast motor traffic, encountered more commonly in low-income communities because they tend to be closer to busy roads, deters walking and cycling. It also reduces neighbourhood social interactions and causes health-damaging air and noise pollution.

Read more: How to cut emissions from transport: ban fossil fuel cars, electrify transport and get people walking and cycling

Electric engines will not prevent social severance, and will not get rid of noise and air pollution. Road crash injuries, known to occur more commonly among disadvantaged groups, will not be reduced by electric cars.

Indeed, there are concerns road trauma will be more common because of increased distances travelled, the greater weight of electric vehicles compared to petrol or diesel equivalents, and increased risk to pedestrians due to the quiet and rapid acceleration of electric cars.

Missing out on co-benefits

A transport system that relies on cars discourages physical activity, one of the cheapest and most effective means of preventing diseases such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and many types of cancer. These are the commonest causes of death in New Zealand and affect Māori, Pacific and low-income New Zealanders particularly severely.

A narrow focus on changing what is under the bonnet from petrol to electric means we miss the opportunity for win-win outcomes.

It is not clear yet how the shift to electric cars will be paid for, but it is likely the cost will not be evenly shared. Indeed a climate policy that relies on individual households paying for new technology will always run the risk of aggravating inequities.

Car dependence is socially patterned, shaped by the geography of affordable housing, the demands of work and access to alternative transport. This means those with low incomes rely particularly heavily on cars, but will not have the means to transition to electric vehicles unless there are large subsidies or a source of cheap second-hand cars.

To sum up, a climate policy that relies heavily on electric cars will do little to improve poor health outcomes and ensure a just transition. Health, equity and sustainability require bigger changes, more transport choices and environments with less need to travel by car.

– ref. Climate policy that relies on a shift to electric cars risks entrenching existing inequities – https://theconversation.com/climate-policy-that-relies-on-a-shift-to-electric-cars-risks-entrenching-existing-inequities-160856

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

Australia is unquestionably in the midst of an extinction crisis. Some 34 native mammal species have been driven to extinction since European invasion, and threatened species and ecological communities now number more than 1,900.

On Friday, federal environment minister Sussan Ley released Australia’s second Threatened Species Strategy – a roadmap for combating threats to native plants, animals and ecological communities.

The ten-year plan builds on the first strategy launched in 2015, and contains welcome changes. But there remain serious questions about how the plan will be funded and implemented – and quite possibly undermined by other federal government policies.

In essence, the strategy sends a few extra ambulances to the bottom of the cliff, rather than installing a fence at the top to stop species tumbling over.

First, the good news

It would be useful when assessing the new strategy to know how the previous one measured up. Unfortunately, federal environment officials have not yet released the last report card for that strategy, which makes it hard to identify what worked and what didn’t.

Nonetheless, the second strategy differs from the first in important ways.

The first strategy was criticised for its heavy focus on feral cats. Other problems which are just as (and often more) threatening to vulnerable species were not given the same attention. These include altered fire regimes, land clearing and other invasive species such as weeds and rabbits. Importantly, the new strategy recognises a greater number of key threats to wildlife and their habitats.

It also expands the number of actions for threatened species recovery from four to eight. Such actions may include tackling weeds and diseases, relocating species and identifying climate refuges.

The first strategy was rightly questioned for a somewhat myopic focus on 20 mammal, 20 bird and 30 plant species. It also lacked a transparent and evidence-based process for determining how a species was selected as a priority.

The new strategy could expand the types of species targeted for conservation to include fish, amphibian, reptile and invertebrate species. Also, the process for prioritising species for action promises to be more rigorous – assessed against six principles supported by science and existing conservation frameworks.

Significantly, priority places in need of conservation will likewise be assessed through a formal process. This is welcome if it ultimately protects habitats and broader ecosystems, an essential element of avoiding species extinctions.

Read more: It’s not too late to save them: 5 ways to improve the government’s plan to protect threatened wildlife

But challenges remain

The strategy talks of improving species trajectories, but it’s unclear what would constitute success in this regard.

If a threatened species’ population numbers were declining at a slower rate due to an intervention, would that intervention be deemed a success? Will successful actions be attributed to the strategy (and, by association, the federal government), even if they were entirely funded by philanthropic or community efforts?

Scientists have gone to great lengths to improve our knowledge about trends in threatened bird, mammal and plant species for which monitoring programs exist. However data for threatened species remains deficient, due to funding cuts for monitoring and associated infrastructure.

This means measuring progress on the strategy will be difficult, because we simply don’t have enough reliable data. And the strategy does not appear to remedy this situation with funding.

The strategy makes references to six important principles to guide decisions on which species are to be prioritised for assistance. These include how close a species is to extinction, a species’ ‘uniqueness’, the likelihood an intervention will work and whether the species is culturally significant. But these principles should not be applied in isolation from each other.

For example, it may be more cost efficient to save species with both a high chance of extinction and relatively cheap and effective interventions. But the most unique species may not be the cheapest to save, and the most endangered species may not be the species of greatest importance to one sector of the community.

So prioritisation may require trade-offs between different principles. There is no magic “one size fits all” solution, but excellent scientific guidance exists on how to keep this process objective, transparent and, most of all, repeatable.

The strategy acknowledges major drivers of biodiversity decline and extinction, including climate change, habitat destruction and pollution. However, nowhere is there an explicit declaration that to conserve or recover our species and environments we must tackle the underlying causes of these drivers.

The strategy also fails to acknowledge the key role legislation plays in reining in – or enabling – threats such as land clearing. An independent review earlier this year confirmed federal environment laws are failing abysmally. But fundamental recommendations stemming from the review, such as independent oversight and adequate resourcing, are not included in the strategy.

Read more: A major report excoriated Australia’s environment laws. Sussan Ley’s response is confused and risky

A better deal for nature

To be effective, the strategy must chart a path to effective environmental law reform.

And saving our threatened species and ecosystems shouldn’t be seen as a cost, but rather a savvy investment.

Increased and targeted funding for on-ground actions, such as weed and pest animal control, species re-introductions, and Indigenous ranger programs, could generate many thousands of jobs. Such measures would also boost local economies and support industries such as tourism.

A 2019 study found Australia’s listed threatened species could be recovered for about A$1.7 billion a year.

The Morrison government recently announced it would spend A$7 billion setting up a military space division to better protect satellites from attack.

What’s our best defence for an uncertain future? We argue it’s ensuring Earth’s life support systems, including its remarkable species and landscapes, are also protected.

Read more: Research reveals shocking detail on how Australia’s environmental scientists are being silenced

– ref. Australia’s threatened species plan sends in the ambulances but ignores glaring dangers – https://theconversation.com/australias-threatened-species-plan-sends-in-the-ambulances-but-ignores-glaring-dangers-161407

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

The Senate inquiry into the Christine Holgate affair has declared Scott Morrison, shareholder ministers and the Australia Post board should apologise to the former CEO “for denying her the legal principles of procedural fairness and natural justice”.

The Labor-Greens dominated committee said in scathing findings that Morrison’s “improper threat” in parliament’s question time suggested “a lack of respect for due process”, as well as a “double standard” when contrasted with the procedural principles applied to cabinet members.

Holgate told the ABC on Wednesday night she was “absolutely delighted” by the report and would “graciously accept” a Morrison apology.

But none will be forthcoming.

A government spokesperson said it had “no intention of responding to a politicised report published by a committee controlled by the Labor and Green parties”. The inquiry was chaired by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

Morrison reacted furiously on October 22 last year, after Holgate revealed to a Senate committee Australia Post had rewarded with Cartier watches four employees who had concluded a highly lucrative 2018 deal. The watches were worth in total nearly $20,000.

Morrison told parliament Holgate had been instructed to stand aside – if she did not want to do that “she can go”.

Holgate resisted standing aside but had little choice but to do so. Soon after, she left Australia Post. She has since been appointed CEO of Global Express, which competes with it.

The government minority on the committee, in a dissenting report, said the inquiry had been a highly politicised exercise. The Coalition senators said they did “not support aspects of the analysis of evidence and many of the recommendations of the majority report”.

They said the claim Holgate was denied procedural fairness and natural justice was contested, with evidence showing different recollections snd interpretations.

The majority report lambasted Australia Post’s chair, Lucio Di Bartolomeo, saying he should resign, and accept responsibility for the organisation’s failings over Holgate. It criticised “the veracity of his evidence provided to the committee, his capacity to defend the independence of Australia Post and the lack of effective robust policies and financial oversight processes in place throughout his tenure”.

But government senators said evidence had highlighted that the chair had sought to work constructively with Holgate when events were moving fast in the media spotlight.

The majority report said evidence suggested “there is a culture operating outside the legislated framework that results in so‐called ‘independent’ government agencies being controlled by ministers and their advisers through informal directions in a completely unaccountable manner.”

Holgate’s treatment also was “indicative of a wider pattern of behaviour towards women in workplaces, including Parliament. As both an employer and legislator of workplace laws, the Australian Government must set an example.”

The Australia Post board, notably for being heavy with political appointments, also came in for strong rebukes.

The board, “apparently acting on informal instructions from the Minister for Communications [Paul Fletcher], decided that Ms Holgate should be stood aside without being accorded procedural fairness and an opportunity to defend her actions,” the report said.

“The Prime Minister and Shareholder Ministers [Fletcher and then finance minister Mathias Cormann] created a very public expectation that Ms Holgate would be stood aside, to which the board dutifully acquiesced.

“This pressure appears to have led the Board to breach its duties under the Act, standing Ms Holgate aside without any evidence that she had acted improperly.”

The process by which board members are appointed has compromised the board’s independence from government, the report said.

The Holgate matter “has focused attention on the sheer magnitude of bonuses and incentives paid to executives, senior managers and other highly paid staff across the Commonwealth.

“If the purchase of $20,000 worth of watches for senior executives fails the ‘pub test’, what does the Australian public think of the tens of millions of dollars that are given in bonuses each year to highly paid staff at Australia Post, in government departments, and at other GBEs [government businesss enterprises]?” the report said.

It said “a comparison of other events during that period puts in stark perspective the inconsistent treatment of public officials by this government when faced with a scandal.

“On one hand, the high performing CEO of Australia Post was effectively forced to resign over the purchase of $20 000 worth of watches for securing a deal worth more than $200 million in revenue to the organisation.

“On the other hand, there appears to have been no action taken against the responsible public servants involved in the purchase of the ‘Leppington Triangle’ for $30 million of public funds, ten times more than the land’s market value.”

Among its 25 recommendations, the majority report said the Australia Post board should be restructured and include nominees of the parliament, employees and unions, and licensees. Appropriate board independence should be restored.

The Solicitor-General should investigate the legality of the October 22 instruction from shareholder ministers to the board that it should stand aside Holgate during an investigation into the watches’ purchase.

The government should rule out privatising Australia Post or divesting any of its services including parcel delivery. The Senate should oppose any extension of the current temporary regulations, which were put in place for the pandemic.

Pauline Hanson, who pressed for the inquiry and was a participating member (rather than a member of the committee) said in additional comments in the report that the chair should be removed and Morrison, Fletcher and Simon Birmingham (the current finance minister) should “each offer an unqualified apology” to Holgate.

– ref. Morrison should apologise to Christine Holgate and Australia Post chair should resign: Senate report – https://theconversation.com/morrison-should-apologise-to-christine-holgate-and-australia-post-chair-should-resign-senate-report-161605

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Ha, Associate, Grattan Institute

In the global effort to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, achieving a “100% renewables” electricity system is considered ideal.

Some Australian states have committed to 100% renewable energy targets, or even 200% renewable energy targets. But this doesn’t mean their electricity is, or will be, emissions free.

Electricity is responsible for a third of Australia’s emissions, and making it cleaner is a key way to reduce emissions in other sectors that rely on it, such as transport.

So it’s important we have clarity about where our electricity comes from, and how emissions-intensive it is. Let’s look at what 100% renewables actually implies in detail.

Is 100% renewables realistic?

Achieving 100% renewables is one way of eliminating emissions from the electricity sector.

It’s commonly interpreted to mean all electricity must be generated from renewable sources. These sources usually include solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, and exclude nuclear energy and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage.

But this is a very difficult feat for individual states and territories to try to achieve.

The term “net 100% renewables” more accurately describes what some jurisdictions — such as South Australia and the ACT — are targeting, whether or not they’ve explicitly said so.

These targets don’t require that all electricity people use within the jurisdiction come from renewable sources. Some might come from coal or gas-fired generation, but the government offsets this amount by making or buying an equivalent amount of renewable electricity.

A net 100% renewables target allows a state to spruik its green credentials without needing to worry about the reliability implications of being totally self-reliant on renewable power.

So how does ‘net’ 100% renewables work?

All east coast states are connected to the National Electricity Market (NEM) — a system that allows electricity to be generated, used and shared across borders. This means individual states can achieve “net 100% renewables” without the renewable generation needing to occur when or where the electricity is required.

Take the ACT, for example, which has used net 100% renewable electricity since October 2019.

The ACT government buys renewable energy from generators outside the territory, which is then mostly used in other states, such as Victoria and South Australia. Meanwhile, people living in ACT rely on power from NSW that’s not emissions-free, because it largely comes from coal-fired power stations.

This way, the ACT government can claim net 100% renewables because it’s offsetting the non-renewable energy its residents use with the clean energy it’s paid for elsewhere.

SA’s target is to reach net 100% renewables by the 2030s. Unlike the ACT, it plans to generate renewable electricity locally, equal to 100% of its annual demand.

At times, such as especially sunny days, some of that electricity will be exported to other states. At other times, such as when the wind drops off, SA may need to rely on electricity imports from other states, which probably won’t come from all-renewable sources.

Read more: More coal-fired power or 100% renewables? For the next few decades, both paths are wrong

So what happens if all states commit to net 100% renewable energy targets? Then, the National Electricity Market will have a de-facto 100% renewable energy target — no “net”.

That’s because the market is one entire system, so its only options are “100% renewables” (implying zero emissions), or “less than 100% renewables”. The “net” factor doesn’t come into it, because there’s no other part of the grid for it to buy from or sell to.

How do you get to “200% renewables”, or more?

It’s mathematically impossible for more than 100% of the electricity used in the NEM to come from renewable sources: 100% is the limit.

Any target of more than 100% renewables is a different calculation. The target is no longer a measure of renewable generation versus all generation, but renewable generation versus today’s demand.

Tasmania, for example, has legislated a target of 200% renewable energy by 2040. This means it wants to produce twice as much renewable electricity as it consumes today.

But this doesn’t necessarily imply all electricity consumed in Tasmania will be renewable. For example, it may continue to import some non-renewable power from Victoria at times, such as during droughts when Tasmania’s hydro dams are constrained. It may even need to burn a small amount of gas as a backup.

This means the 200% renewable energy target is really a “net 200% renewables” target.

Meanwhile, the Greens are campaigning for 700% renewables. This, too, is based on today’s electricity demand.

In the future, demand could be much higher due to electrifying our transport, switching appliances from gas to electricity, and potentially exporting energy-intensive, renewable commodities such as green hydrogen or ammonia.

Targeting net-zero emissions

These “more than 100% renewables” targets set by individual jurisdictions don’t necessarily imply all electricity Australians use will be emissions free.

It’s possible — and potentially more economical — that we would meet almost all of this additional future demand with renewable energy, but keep some gas or diesel capacity as a low-cost backstop.

This would ensure continued electricity supply during rare, sustained periods of low wind, low sun, and high demand, such as during a cloudy, windless week in winter.

Read more: Carry-over credits and carbon offsets are hot topics this election – but what do they actually mean?

The energy transition is harder near the end — each percentage point between 90% and 100% renewables is more expensive to achieve than the previous.

That’s why, in a recent report from the Grattan Institute, we recommended governments pursue net-zero emissions in the electricity sector first, rather than setting 100% renewables targets today.

For example, buying carbon credits to offset the small amount of emissions produced in a 90% renewable NEM is likely to be cheaper in the medium term than building enough energy storage — such as batteries or pumped hydro dams — to backup wind and solar at all times.

The bottom line is governments and companies must say what they mean and mean what they say when announcing targets. It’s the responsibility of media and pundits to take care when interpreting them.

– ref. A ‘100% renewables’ target might not mean what you think it means. An energy expert explains – https://theconversation.com/a-100-renewables-target-might-not-mean-what-you-think-it-means-an-energy-expert-explains-160619

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renae Barker, Senior Lecturer, The University of Western Australia

The New South Wales government has put a temporary ban on Sikh students carrying a kirpan in public schools. The kirpan is a ceremonial dagger baptised Sikhs carry to symbolise their duty to stand up against injustice.

The ban was put in place after a 14-year-old boy used a kirpan to stab a 16-year-old at a high school in Sydney.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said “students shouldn’t be allowed to take knives to school under any circumstances”.

But framing the controversy as whether or not students should be allowed to take knives to school oversimplifies a complex issue.

This issue is not just about knives in schools. It is also about what it means to be a secular school in a multicultural and multi-faith Australia.

Denied the ability to practise their faith

There is a long history of controversy over wearing religious symbols in Australian schools, both religious and secular.

In 2017 the family of a Sikh boy launched legal action against his school after the Christian college banned the boy from wearing a patka (a turban worn by children). The Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal later ruled the school breached the Equal Opportunity Act.

Read more: School uniform policies need to accommodate students’ cultural practices

In 2018 the Secular Party of Australia brought a case against the Victorian education department alleging the department had discriminated against a child by permitting her to wear “religious style clothing that covered her body, leaving only her face and hands exposed”. The case failed.

And in 2019 a Western Australian Catholic high school banned a Hindu girl from attending class after she had her nose pierced for cultural and religious reasons. After six weeks and many meetings, the school appeared to back down and allow the student back to class.

While some of these cases occurred in private and specifically religious schools, they all raise the same issue — to what extent do we accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of minority groups in our community?

In NSW, section 11C of the Summary Offences Act 1988 makes it an offence to carry a knife in a public place or school. The act provides a number of exceptions such as for the preparation of food, or for recreation or sport. Carrying a knife for “genuine religious purposes” is also an exception.

This exception is currently under review by the NSW government. In the meantime, a temporary ban has been put in place. As a result Sikh school children are being denied the ability to fully practise their faith.

What is a secular country?

Controversies like the kirpan ban often occur due to a fundamental disagreement about what a secular education looks like. Western secular democracies have taken two different approaches.

Australia’s government school system is secular. This does not mean it is, nor should be, religion free. Instead Australian secular education means a space where religion is one of many options. Countries that conform to this version of secularism are religiously plural.

Read more: Is Australia a secular country? It depends what you mean

In France, secular education means it is religion free. Since 2004 all religious symbols have been banned from state schools. The aim is to create a religiously neutral environment that supports state secularism.

Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom have adopted a similar approach as Australia. In these countries, secularism means to permit, or even encourage, the expression of multiple faiths in schools to various degrees. The aim is to create a multicultural environment.

The kirpan is fundamentally a religious symbol. It is one of five markers of faith worn by baptised Sikhs, including kesh (unshorn hair symbolising respect for God’s will). Wearing the kirpan is not optional for baptised Sikhs.

The kirpan is similar to the hijab worn by some Muslim women, the kippah worn by Jewish men or the cross or crucifix worn by some Christians.

As the Supreme Court of Canada put it, describing the kirpan as a knife is “indicative of a simplistic view of freedom of religion”.

Banning the kirpan because it resembles a knife heads Australia down a path of religion-free schools. This would be inconsistent with Australia’s commitment to multiculturalism.

Read more: Should school uniforms be compulsory? We asked five experts

There are other options besides a ban

Instead of an outright ban, the NSW government and Australian schools more generally need to find ways to safely accommodate this important religious symbol. This does not mean there should be no restrictions.

In 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada found that a school had discriminated against a Sikh boy when it banned him from wearing his kirpan. A fundamental part of the court’s decision was there were alternatives available to the school.

The student was prepared to accept restrictions on how he wore his kirpan to ensure it could not be used as a weapon. The restrictions included wearing it enclosed in a wooden sheath sewn inside a cloth envelope, which must itself be attached to a shoulder strap worn under the student’s clothing.

Similar restrictions could be implemented in Australia.

The current debate about the kirpan in schools is an opportunity to educate both school children and the wider public about Australia’s secular multicultural society. As the Constitutional Court of South Africa noted in a case about wearing nose studs for religious and cultural reasons:

Granting exemptions will also have the added benefit of inducting the learners into a multi-cultural South Africa where vastly different cultures exist side-by-side.

Allowing kirpans, and other symbols of faith, to be worn in Australian schools is an important part of a multicultural secular education.

– ref. A religious symbol, not a knife: at the heart of the NSW kirpan ban is a battle to define secularism – https://theconversation.com/a-religious-symbol-not-a-knife-at-the-heart-of-the-nsw-kirpan-ban-is-a-battle-to-define-secularism-161413

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Shi, Senior Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University

Australia’s COVID vaccine rollout has reached its next phase, now people aged 50 and over are officially eligible to receive their shot from a GP, respiratory clinic or mass vaccination hub. People under 50 are also getting vaccinated in some states.

These are the first age groups to be vaccinated in Australia likely to be in paid work. Until now, most people to have received their shot will have been over 70, and probably retired. So people eligible now might wonder how to fit in a vaccine appointment around work commitments.

If you need, or want, to be vaccinated during work hours, do you take a day’s leave or a sick day? And if you’re ill with side-effects, can you take a sick day to recover?

Read more: I’m over 50 and can now get my COVID vaccine. Can I talk to the GP first? Do I need a painkiller? What else do I need to know?

Let’s assume you’re not a doctor or nurse, or have some other occupation with a workplace, on-site vaccination clinic. This means the vast majority of Australians will need to factor in time travelling to the clinic, administration (such as filling in consent forms), the shot itself, 15-30 minutes waiting in case there are any immediate side-effects, and travelling back to work.

Let’s assume for now you’re an employee, entitled to paid annual leave and paid personal leave (which includes sick leave). If you’re a casual or independent contractor, the situation’s different and explained below.

Can I get time off work to get my COVID vaccine?

Whether you’re a full- or part-time employee, taking time off to get the COVID vaccine is similar to taking time off for the flu vaccine. You will usually need to take paid annual leave.

Unless your employment contract says otherwise, you are not entitled to take paid sick leave to get vaccinated. Sick leave is only for when you’re ill or injured. Being vaccinated is not considered an illness or injury.

Despite this, employers can exercise their discretion to allow you to take paid sick leave to get vaccinated.

Can I take sick leave if I feel unwell afterwards?

As a full- or part-time employee, you are entitled to take paid sick leave if you feel unwell after being vaccinated and can’t work.

You may need to provide reasonable evidence you are unfit for work, such as a medical certificate.

What if I’m a casual employee or an independent contractor?

Casual employees and independent contractors are not entitled to paid annual leave or paid sick leave.

However, if you are a casual employee and are feeling unwell after receiving your vaccine, check if your organisation has a provision for “special paid sick leave”. Some do.

This type of special leave is not a mandatory legal entitlement. But if your organisation doesn’t provide it, you may be able to negotiate it. Independent contractors can also negotiate with the business that contracts them.

To address the hardships casuals and independent contractors face, Victoria has announced a two-year trial of its Secure Work Pilot Scheme, which is due to begin by 2022.

This will provide up to five days of paid sick leave and carer’s leave at the national minimum wage for casual or insecure workers in sectors with high rates of casual employment, such as aged care, cleaning and hospitality.

What if I work in retail or hospitality?

If you work in retail, hospitality or some other sector that puts you at higher risk of COVID due to increased customer contact, you might be wondering if there are special provisions for you.

Under workplace health and safety laws, your employer must, so far as is reasonably practicable, provide and maintain a work environment that is safe and without risks to health.

But that doesn’t mean your employer has to give you paid time off during working hours to get vaccinated. That’s different to, say, the employer of a construction worker who has to provide a hard hat or other personal protective equipment for safety reasons.

Vaccines and hard hats seem to be treated differently, even though you could argue they both protect workers from serious illness or injury.

Read more: Can my boss make me get a COVID vaccination? Yes, but it depends on the job

What other options are there?

If you’ve used up all your paid annual leave, you can request unpaid leave to get your vaccine.

Then there’s the alternative of booking an appointment for one of your days off, with some clinics offering extended hours, including evenings and weekends.

The Fair Work Ombudsman has more information about your workplace rights and obligations when it comes to COVID vaccines.

– ref. Do I get time off work for my COVID shot? Can I take a sick day? – https://theconversation.com/do-i-get-time-off-work-for-my-covid-shot-can-i-take-a-sick-day-161279

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Manying Ip, Emeritus Professor of Asian Studies, University of Auckland

News of a revised New Zealand history curriculum was welcomed by many, including me as an historian and someone who has worked closely with high schools and the education sector.

In particular, this seemed like an opportunity to extend the breadth of history taught, including the important stories of Aotearoa’s migrant and refugee communities.

In its present form, however, the Ministry of Education’s history curriculum consultation document falls well short.

Allowing for the fact the draft curriculum proposal is meant as “a framework” for “setting directions” and not a detailed prescription, aspects of it are nonetheless deeply worrying — not least the invisibility of the Chinese story.

With the public consultation process ending on May 31, it’s vital this gap is addressed.

The other New Zealand stories

The aim of history teaching should be to empower learners to think critically about the past. This equips them to understand the present and deal with the complexities of the future.

History is an interpretation of past events in as comprehensive and unbiased a way as possible. Sound history needs to have accuracy and integrity.

Quite rightly, Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a founding document legitimising the relationship between Māori and the Crown is central to the draft curriculum.

However, there is little mention of tauiwi, the many communities who have come to call Aotearoa home, but who do not identify as Māori or Pākehā.

The Chinese as ‘other’

I write from the experience of researching and writing New Zealand Chinese history. The Chinese have been in Aotearoa New Zealand for close to 180 years and have never been part of the binary frame of colonisers and colonised.

They were itinerant workers brought to the Otago goldfields and subjected to a series of anti-Chinese laws from 1881 onwards. Since the Chinese were prevented from applying for naturalisation from 1908 onwards, they could never be British subjects or be represented by the Crown.

Neither Pakeha nor Māori, the Chinese are still labelled “others”.

Relegated to the fringe of society, they had no say in the nation’s policies and could not even expect the most basic rights, from miners’ accident benefits and family reunion to health care.

Read more: Teaching Chinese politics in Australia: polarised views leave academics between a rock and a hard place

They were the only ethnic group to pay a £100 poll tax for entry and had to be thumb printed on arrival and departure. Many of the arbitrary policies targeting Chinese were applied to local-born Chinese, confirming they were about race, not nationality.

Governor George Grey favoured New Zealand’s development as a “better Britain of the South Pacific” and successive New Zealand governments continued to build a white nation.

Chinese immigration was strictly controlled by tonnage ratios, quota systems, poll taxes and an English test. From the 1860s to the 1950s, the Chinese endured forced family separation in the interests of that unofficial white New Zealand policy.

A history of suspicion

The reception and treatment of the Chinese as a community is an interesting social barometer of New Zealand as a whole.

In the post WWII era of comparative plenty, New Zealand accepted refugees and orphans from many parts of war-ravaged Europe. During this period, a few hundred Chinese women and children who escaped the Japanese occupation of China in 1939-40 were allowed to stay in New Zealand.

This modest group formed the nucleus of the Chinese New Zealand community, and the Chinese finally became families instead of cohorts of bachelors.

Read more: In an age of digital disinformation, dropping level 1 media studies in NZ high schools is a big mistake

The arrival of the “new Asians” after 1987 was a rude awakening for everyone concerned. They seemed a far cry from the low-key, docile and polite local-born Chinese New Zealanders.

Auckland suburban newspapers splashed a sensational two-page story about “The Inv-Asian” in 1993. In 2006, the magazine “for thinking New Zealanders”, North & South, featured a story titled “Asian Angst: Is it time to send some back?”

A curriculum for all New Zealanders

The proposed curriculum risks continuing this unfortunate legacy of treating Chinese New Zealanders as perpetual migrants, a label not applied to the British people who have settled in Aotearoa.

A sound history curriculum should ensure all New Zealand’s children see history as a truly relevant subject. It needs to be everybody’s story. The linkages of non-Pakeha, non-Māori history must be established within the national history framework.

Read more: The model minority myth hides the racist and sexist violence experienced by Asian women

The relationship between the Chinese (as the most distinctive, “undesirable” or “despised” immigrant group) and Māori (as tangata whenua) is arguably the most essential relationship to tease out.

The draft curriculum proposal does not specifically recognise the diversity of New Zealand society in the past or present. Without significant and explicit guidance on the histories of the many diverse communities that call Aotearoa home, the risk is they and their children will fail to see themselves in their country’s histories.

And that will make it all the harder to see themselves as an important part of their country’s future.

– ref. The New Zealand Chinese experience is unique and important — the new history curriculum can’t ignore it – https://theconversation.com/the-new-zealand-chinese-experience-is-unique-and-important-the-new-history-curriculum-cant-ignore-it-160782

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Godfrey, Lecturer, College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Flinders University

Review: My Name is Gulpilil, directed by Molly Reynolds

Since the start of his cinematic career, David Gulpilil has occupied the living embodiment of Indigenous Australia on screen. This is a significant responsibility — as is the task of doing justice to Gulpilil’s considerable legacy.

Molly Reynolds’ new documentary portrait, My Name is Gulpilil, allows us to spend time with the man in quiet moments of reflection as he nears the end of his life. Reynolds’ unobtrusive direction provides a platform from which Gulpilil reflects on his work, and shares his philosophy in his own words.

Candid, dreamlike and introspective, this film invites us to join Gulpilil as he searches his memories and tells us his story.

The face of Australian cinema

Gulpilil displays no false modesty when discussing his credentials as a performer in this film. Indeed, to chart Gulpilil’s career is to map the contours of the last 50 years of Australian cinema.

He made his acting debut as a teenager in Walkabout (1971). His performance displayed the lithe physicality that would define Gulpilil’s magnetic cinematic persona, his demeanour by turns taciturn and inscrutable.

Gulpilil became a fixture of the Australian New Wave with roles in Storm Boy (1976), The Last Wave (1977), and alongside a crazed Dennis Hopper in Mad Dog Morgan (1976). He was present for Australian cinema’s brief commercial peak, in Crocodile Dundee (1986), and for Phillip Noyce’s emblematic homecoming, Rabbit Proof Fence (2002).

Gulpilil’s creative partnership with Rolf de Heer, a producer on this new documentary, began with 2002’s The Tracker, and extended through the ambitious Ten Canoes (2006) and Charlie’s Country (2013), for which he won the Un Certain Regard prize for Best Actor at Cannes.

More recently, Gulpilil appeared in Ivan Sen’s Goldstone (2016) aligning with a group of new filmmakers reinterpreting genre from an Indigenous perspective, and producing compelling work in the process.

Read more: Ivan Sen’s Goldstone: a taut, layered exploration of what echoes in the silences

Early prejudice

Reynolds previously followed Gulpilil for Another Country (2015), a companion documentary to Charlie’s Country which observed life in Gulpilil’s Ramingining community in Arnhem Land.

Another Country was a stark condemnation of culture clash and social disadvantage, a cry for self-determination in the face of destructive government intervention. That film was incendiary in its political outlook. My Name is Gulpilil is a more muted, introspective work.

Tania Nehme’s deft editing blends Gulpilil’s present day musings with historical interviews and memorable clips from his cinematic appearances. We hear of Gulpilil’s early life in a mission home, and his casting for Walkabout by director Nicolas Roeg on the basis of his dance prowess.

Excerpts from the Cinesound newsreel Walkabout: Star in London chronicle the teenage Gulpilil’s first trip to London and his encounters with prejudice and colonial condescension there: attitudes he countered with humour and grace.

Defying the odds

The film’s most affecting material is its depiction of Gulpilil’s current life, spending his days modestly in Murray Bridge, southeast of Adelaide, and travelling to the city to receive cancer treatment.

When the film was commissioned by the Adelaide Film Festival following his 2017 cancer diagnosis, it was expected the documentary production would chronicle his final months, and stand as his epitaph. But Gulpilil has surprised everyone by defying the odds.

In his home, Gulpilil prepares himself for hospital visits, and shares humorous interactions with his dedicated live-in carer, Mary.

Read more: Charlie’s Country: David Gulpilil confounds our romantic fantasies

The film trades in resonant contrasts: the quietude and miniscule scale of his current world; the effort it takes for him to walk from his front door to his letterbox. His suburban back yard is juxtaposed with the enormity of the landscape he inhabits in his onscreen roles, and the distant land he longs for.

The camera accompanies Gulpilil while he returns to locations from his life and his films. Family members visit him at his new home for what will likely be the last time.

Struggles

My Name is Gulpilil does not shy away from Gulpilil’s brushes with the law, his struggles with addiction, and the physical toll of the gruelling treatments he now receives. Gulpilil speaks openly about his impending death, his loneliness, and his plans for his funeral.

As it goes on, My Name is Gulpilil becomes a sensitive portrait of displacement, inviting us to consider both literal and metaphorical separation from ancestral lands, the possibility and impossibility of an eventual, final homecoming.

The film creates deft visual matches, woozily crossfading from aerial drone footage and starscapes to Gulpilil’s paintings and ultrasounds of his body. Reynolds draws an equivalence between the eternal, youthful vigour of Gulpilil in his early films, and the musings of his voiceover in the present day.

More than just a documentary meditation on mortality, the film is a collaborative cinematic self-portrait, including footage shot by Gulpilil on his camera phone.

A testament to cinema’s function as preservation, commemoration and memorial, My Name is Gulpilil celebrates its subject’s legacy — and the imprint he leaves as the star that brought Indigenous Australia to the world.

My Name is Gulpilil is in cinemas from May 27.

– ref. My Name is Gulpilil: a candid, gentle portrait of one of Australia’s best actors – https://theconversation.com/my-name-is-gulpilil-a-candid-gentle-portrait-of-one-of-australias-best-actors-160542

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Haskell-Dowland, Associate Dean (Computing and Security), Edith Cowan University

If you’re an iPhone user, check your storage now by selecting Settings, then General and then iPhone Storage.

You’ll probably see a lot of recognisable categories eating up your storage — apps, photos, and so on. But there is one, often rather large category, that may raise concerns: “Other”.

It’s shaded light grey and often represents a significant proportion of the overall storage available.

What is ‘Other’?

For more detail, scroll down and tap the “Other” category (right at the end). It doesn’t say much — just that it includes caches, logs and other resources in use by the system. Not very illuminating.

Logs are records of actions undertaken on, or by, our phones. A phone may, for example, log that it connected to a WiFi network, established a Bluetooth connection with a device, backed up some data or opened a web page. In most cases, the log files are simple records that do not occupy much space — often only a few megabytes.

Caches, however, can be a much greater problem for clogging up your “Other” storage.

When we stream media such as movies and music on an iPhone, the phone will download as much of the content as possible. One of the main reasons for this is to minimise the dreaded spinning wheel you see when content is buffering.

All this content (referred to as a “cache”) needs to be stored somewhere and it rapidly fills up your device.

This cached content extends to a wide range of applications including your web browser (such as Safari, Chrome or Firefox) and apps like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and TikTok.

Why is it taking up so much space?

While cached data may not seem to need much space, it is surprising how large streamed media content can be – not to mention the image-rich social media apps we love so much.

Looking through the list of apps and their storage allocations will quickly show how storage is being consumed. In this screenshot above, for example, you can see Facebook is consuming 2.17 gigabytes.

However, if we look on the App store, it says the Facebook app only requires 255.4 megabytes. So somehow the app is occupying an additional 1.9GB. Where is this extra 1.9GB coming from? It’s likely caches of images, videos and other content your phone had to store in it’s own memory storage so you could scroll through Facebook without encountering the dreaded “buffering” spinning wheel.

How do I clear ‘Other’ or get rid of it?

The most effective solution is also the most radical. To truly minimise “Other” storage, you would need to backup your phone, reset it and, finally, restore your phone from the backup.

This process will remove most of the “Other” storage being used on your iPhone, but takes a bit of time and effort.

How can I stop it getting so large in the future?

Unfortunately, cached files will be recreated with most common iPhone usage. But there are some things you can do to reduce storage consumption.

If you’re not keen to reset, try exploring the apps using up cache space on your iPhone.

Social media apps are a good starting point as they often cache lots of images and videos. While most don’t provide an option to delete their cached data, removing and reinstalling the app will remove all cache files.

Another likely culprit is your web browser (typically Safari on most iPhones).

From the Settings menu, scroll down to Safari and select “Clear History and Website Data”. This will remove most cached data associated with your web browser.

If you’re using another browser, such as Chrome or Firefox, repeat the steps with that browser in Settings.

Great. Any other iPhone storage tips and tricks?

If you want to keep going, consider removing old SMS and iMessages.

Standard written text messages occupy minimal storage, but photos and videos shared between family and friends can consume significant storage over time.

Under Settings, scroll down to Messages, then to the Message History option. The default is to keep messages “forever”. Changing this to a shorter duration can reduce space requirements considerably.

A final option is to consider offloading apps. Modern iPhones let you remove infrequently used apps. While this will not necessarily reduce your use of cache storage, it can free up valuable space.

There is no simple solution to managing iPhone storage usage. Minimising photos and videos will help, but there is a lot of space allocated to apps and their cached data.

But with careful tending, we can try to keep on top of unexpected storage usage without having to wipe our devices

– ref. What is ‘Other’ in my iPhone storage, why is it taking up so much space and how do I clear it? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-other-in-my-iphone-storage-why-is-it-taking-up-so-much-space-and-how-do-i-clear-it-160994

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vinh Bui, Lecturer, Southern Cross University

Tech giant Microsoft recently announced the retirement of its longstanding web browser, Internet Explorer, in favour of its newer product, Microsoft Edge. With support for Internet Explorer only set to last until June 15, 2022, its remaining users have just over a year to find an alternative. But of course, most web users already have.

While the eventual downfall of Internet Explorer was seen as a foregone conclusion by those who monitor web trends, the news might come as an unwelcome surprise for those who are somewhat less up-to-date.

For the most part, though, this news is a whimper rather than a bang — a footnote at the end of an iconic story spanning more than 25 years.

As a current professional in the IT industry, I’ll break down some possible reasons for this decision, and what we can learn from it.

Searching for the answer

Almost everyone is familiar with the idea of “googling” something, but there’s no such thing as “microsofting” something. How did Google manage to become synonymous with web searching, while Microsoft, despite its long and pioneering history, failed to become synonymous with anything?

The answer is market share. Google handles 92.24% of web searches — more than 3.5 billion requests a day. Microsoft’s own search engine, Bing, has a paltry 2.29%.

It’s easy to see why users prefer Google’s own web browser, Chrome, over Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, which uses Bing as its default search engine. Users who prefer searching via Google (which is almost everyone) can make Google the default search engine in Internet Explorer. But it’s probably easier just to install Chrome and use Google from there.

Success breeds complacency; complacency breeds failure

Microsoft wasn’t always a bit player. Back when the web was in its infancy, it was a market-leading pioneer. Before there were app stores, or 5G, or even widespread personal computers, there were large mainframe computers with “unfriendly” Unix-based operating systems developed in the 1970s.

These systems were about as bare-bones as you can get, with little consideration given to graphics or usability. Unix’s original web browser, Netscape, was similarly no-frills.

This is where Microsoft came in, by focusing on making “personal computers” more personal. With much nicer designs and more intuitive user interfaces, by the time Internet Explorer launched in 1995, Microsoft had cemented itself at the forefront of the digital world.

But as US Baptist minister and civil rights leader Benjamin E. Mays famously warned, “The tragedy of life is often not in our failure, but rather in our complacency.”

Having established its reputation, Microsoft stopped pushing Internet Explorer’s development, and started venturing elsewhere, continually improving Windows but not its web browser. From that point on, Internet Explorer was always late to the party in introducing innovations such as tabbed browsing and search bars. It fell further into irrelevance and obsolescence.

Compatibility issues

Having spent much of my life as a web developer, one of my biggest gripes is the incompatibility of some web browsers. It’s exhausting and demoralising spending hours polishing web pages, only for them not to run properly on some browsers.

This concern even spread to Microsoft’s own in-house developers. In a 2019 blog post titled “The perils of using Internet Explorer as your default browser”, Microsoft’s Chris Jackson warned:

[…] developers by and large just aren’t testing for Internet Explorer these days. They’re testing on modern browsers.

The message was clear: web developers don’t get on well with Internet Explorer, so sites that work well on other browsers might not work here — and that problem is only going to get worse.

With Microsoft having lost interest in making sure Internet Explorer keeps up, it has transferred its attention to its new browser, Microsoft Edge. But the horse may already have bolted. The marketplace is crowded with Google’s Chrome, Apple’s Safari, Mozilla’s Firefox, and numerous open source browsers.

Read more: Battle of the browsers: how the web was won

Phoning it in

Here’s another key stat that illustrates Internet Explorer’s decline: in 2020, more than two-thirds of all website visits were via a mobile device.

Now, a browser that can sync across multiple platforms is a necessity. In a world of Apple and Android devices, the term “Windows phone” sounds prehistoric — because it pretty much is. Operating system support for Windows phones ended in 2017, just seven years after Microsoft first launched the range.

So, having existed since the dawn of the internet age (or least since the internet went truly mainstream), Internet Explorer has failed in many ways to keep up.

Despite the success of its Surface tablets, Microsoft failed to maintain a foothold in the smartphone market, which may explain its unwillingness to keep developing Internet Explorer. Or maybe it’s the other way around, and Internet Explorer’s clunkiness is the reason no one uses a Windows phone.

But the bottom line is Internet Explorer just lacks the versatility needed by web-savvy users. And as of next year, even the non-savvy users will stop relying on it too.

Read more: We spent six years scouring billions of links, and found the web is both expanding and shrinking

– ref. We’re just not compatible any more: why Microsoft finally dumped Internet Explorer – https://theconversation.com/were-just-not-compatible-any-more-why-microsoft-finally-dumped-internet-explorer-161416

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Surinder S. Jodhka, Professor of Sociology, School of Social Sciences., Jawaharlal Nehru University

For six months now, images of Indian farmers protesting on Delhi’s roads have been beamed around the world.

Farmers have been protesting changes to India’s agricultural laws they say would undermine their autonomy as cultivators.

The new laws would create monopolies in the grain markets and trap farmers into contract farming arrangements with corporate buyers.

But after six months of protests, has anything changed?

Read more: Indian farmers’ strike continues in the shadow of COVID-19

What’s happening in Delhi?

Beginning with the north-western state of Punjab in July 2020, the protests gradually spread to other regions of the country. The most spectacular of these protests occurred when farmers arrived in large numbers at the borders of the national capital in late November, 2020.

Estimates of their numbers at this point vary, but they were certainly in excess of 50,000, and their numbers swelled to around 300,000 within a week or so. It peaked in January, when nearly a million more of them arrived from across the country and drove their tractors on the roads of the Indian capital.

They have been sitting on the roads since their arrival, surrounding Delhi from all four sides, and occupying the major highways connecting the national capital to different parts of the country. Their sit-ins covered so large an area they began to look like distinct townships, covering an area of 10-15 kilometres at each site.

Read more: Women take lead roles in India’s farmers’ protest

They have been sleeping in the trolleys they brought along tied to their tractors and have set-up huge pandals (temporary auditoriums made of canvas tents) for their protest speeches. They also play protest music, most of which is composed and sung by their own, the Punjabi singers from Punjab, Bombay and Canada.

Their resilience has been remarkable. They have sat through the harsh winter, when night temperatures in Delhi are as low as 1-2℃. They are now sitting in protest in the scorching heat, undeterred by a deadly second wave of COVID raging across India.

This has been no picnic, as has been reported by some news channels in India. More than 400 protesting farmers have died, mostly at the protest sites around Delhi, unable to bear the hardships of the weather and living conditions.

Some have also died at the local protest sites in different states, and a few in road accidents while travelling from their villages to the protest sites on Delhi’s borders.

Remind me, what are they protesting about?

The national government of India introduced a set of new laws that would change the way farmers sell their farm produce. Affairs relating to agriculture are legally a domain of the provincial or state governments. But the national government took the extraordinary step of pushing these three new laws through as trade and commerce bills.

The government not only ignored all objections raised by the opposition parties, they also held no meaningful discussions with the farm unions and other stakeholders to allay their concerns.

The professed motivation behind the introduction of these laws was the liberalisation of the agricultural market by incentivising large corporates to engage with farmers and farm produce directly.

Read more: India’s farmers are right to protest against agricultural reforms

The first of the new laws proposes to deregulate the purchase of agricultural goods, bypassing the existing marketing arrangements where grains such as wheat and rice could not be sold below a certain price.

The second provides a framework for “contract farming” where the farmer enters an advanced contract with a buyer and the buyer gets to decide what seeds to use and how to grow the crop.

The third is an amendment to a pre-existing law, which abolishes the previous restrictions on the storage of food grains and other agricultural goods to discourage large-scale hoarding.

Together they open up the agricultural sector of India to active commercial engagement by the big corporates, enabling them to purchase and hoard produce and sell it later at a much higher price than what they pay to the farmers for their crops. It also means these large corporates could be in charge of deciding what crops a farmer must produce.

More than 85% of Indian farmers have small holdings, less than two hectares. This means it would be hard to engage, and compete, with the large corporates.

The farm unions see these laws as the Indian government pandering to the corporates, and fear the end of independent farmers.

Indian agriculture has been in a state of crisis for the past two decades or more. The most painful manifestation of this has been the rising rate of suicides among farmers across the country (28 per day in 2019), many of whom are indebted to informal sources such as relatives or usurious money lenders.

Various governments over the years have promised to help agriculture by raising farm incomes. The current government, led by Narendra Modi, promised to double farm incomes by implementing the recommendations of a 2006 pro-farmer report prepared by a government-appointed committee.

Read more: India farmers’ protests: internet shutdown highlights Modi’s record of stifling digital dissent

Have the protesters achieved anything so far?

The farm unions have had 11 rounds of talks with representatives of the central government, but the stalemate continues.

Farmers hope if they keep the pressure on, the government will be forced to concede to their demands. But perhaps their biggest achievement so far has been putting farming back on the national agenda.

Read more: India protests: farmers could switch to more climate-resilient crops – but they have been given no incentive

Where to now?

The second wave of COVID-19 has dampened the farmers mobilisations. But they continue to sit on the borders of the national capital, just in lesser numbers.

Farmer leaders campaigned against the BJP (the current ruling party) during the recent state elections in West Bengal. They see the BJP’s defeat as their victory.

Their protests continue locally, across the states of Haryana, Punjab, western Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and elsewhere.

They have said they will protest until the next national election in 2024 if they have to, where they would be hoping their campaigning would defeat the Modi government. If West Bengal is anything to go by, perhaps Prime Minister Modi would do well to heed their demands.

Read more: Why Indian farmers’ protests are being called a ‘satyagraha’ – which means ’embracing the truth’

– ref. Farmers in India have been protesting for 6 months, have they made any progress? – https://theconversation.com/farmers-in-india-have-been-protesting-for-6-months-have-they-made-any-progress-161101

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharynne Hamilton, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow Aboriginal Health, Telethon Kids Institute

On February 13, 2008, then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said “we are sorry” to members of the Stolen Generations. This was a significant moment in the shameful history of Australia’s treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Apology represented a formal acknowledgement that the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children was based on racist policies that caused unspeakable harm to our communities.

Children were forced off their lands. They were disconnected from their kin, Country, traditional languages and culture.

Today on Sorry Day, 13 years since the Apology, our Elders, families and communities still grieve these losses. And many families are being repeatedly traumatised by contemporary child removal practices. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are nearly 10 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be in out-of-home care.

To find new ways to confront this problem and promote community-identified solutions, the Ngulluk Koolunga Ngulluk Koort (Our Children, Our Heart) project conducted consultations with over 100 Elders and senior Aboriginal community members in Perth.

The Elders and community members repeatedly expressed concerns they were not being consulted or included in decisions being made about child protection interventions.

Families still being separated

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children have a right to be kept safe and free from harm. Removing them from their families has been proven to have devastating consequences. They are vulnerable to a lifetime of grief and loss, shattered identities, poor health outcomes and intergenerational trauma.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families involved with the child protection system represent some of the most marginalised and stigmatised members of our community. We are witnessing child removals across multiple generations, yet policymakers are not making connections between the past harms of the Stolen Generations and the current problems families are experiencing.

This leaves little room to redress the harm that past policies have inflicted.

We need a new strategy for creating a more responsive and just child protection system.

This requires a public debate about the thresholds for child removal and for clearly defining what it means to be a “good enough” parent to maintain guardianship of a child. And we need to reassess what actually constitutes risky parenting.

There is a lack of national leadership and coordinated, inclusive and culturally secure practice in the child protection system. Decisions are no longer made explicitly based on race, but there are enduring problems with how the actions taken by authorities affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families.

Read more: First Nations families need support to stay together, before we create another Stolen Generation

The role of Elders bringing families together

In the Ngulluk Koolunga Ngulluk Koort project, most of the Elders were either part of the Stolen Generations themselves, or have directly experienced the effects of that era.

They called for a recognition of the harm these past policies caused, and for this to be used as a foundation for formulating future policies and practices. They highlighted the deep distrust of “the welfare” (child protection services) that continues to flow through communities.

The Elders also discussed the ongoing disregard of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are disproportionately being placed with non-Indigenous carers, despite the placement principle’s recommendation against this.

As part of the project, the Elder co-researchers developed principles and practice recommendations of their own.

These call for child protection services to harness resources from the vast social networks that exist in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community and communicate respectfully with these community members. By doing this, trust can begin to be restored to families and damaged relationships can begin to heal. Hope can be cultivated, and the need for removing children in the future can be reduced.

What the Elders call for resonates with the concept of responsive regulation. This means that regulators — in this case the child protection authority — need to take into account the cultures, behaviours and environments of the people they are regulating.

Read more: Friday essay: ‘I am anxious to have my children home’: recovering letters of love written for Noongar children

Responsive regulation promotes restorative practices that are relationship-centred and geared toward solving problems. These practices involve future-focused conversations that draw on the skills and insights that exist in communities.

Principles of responsive regulation and those developed by the Elders offer a counter-balance to the current formalistic approaches of child protection services, such as mandatory reporting, forensic investigations, court hearings, timelines for termination of parental rights, and the adoption of children in care.

Nationally, we need a greater commitment to using family group conferencing forums that prioritise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander decision-making.

Elders have deep knowledge from lived experience and their voices must be heard. Their principles and practice recommendations, as well as their values and beliefs about raising strong children, give us a pathway to positive change.

The Elders advocate community-led, place-based solutions to child protection concerns. They stress this is the only way we can move forward and repair the harms from past policies that have wreaked havoc in our communities. We must do better for our children.

– ref. Thirteen years after ‘Sorry’, too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are still being removed from their homes – https://theconversation.com/thirteen-years-after-sorry-too-many-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-children-are-still-being-removed-from-their-homes-159360

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Blackwell, Research Fellow (Indigenous Policy), UNSW

Foreign policy is an expression of a state’s fundamental values. It’s the outward face of every government, representing its aspirations in the international system. A state’s foreign policy can often convey strength, but also reveal weakness.

While Australia has enjoyed a strong international standing in recent decades, there has been no real recognition within our foreign policy of the diverse First Nations that have long inhabited this land.

First Nations people are excluded from this external dialogue, and it is well past time this changed.

A history of exclusion

As a proud Wiradjuri man, I know all too well this feeling of exclusion for First Nations people, both here and overseas. Our views on foreign policy are routinely considered irrelevant, our contributions not valued, and our issues ignored.

Yet, First Nations people have so much to offer. We have 80,000 years of diplomatic practice on this continent, conducting effective foreign policies long before there were states or even the concept of foreign policies. We have a strong value system centred in country, community, and culture.

This is why Australia should consider a foreign policy approach centred on Indigenous people and perspectives. It would reset the tired approach we currently take on the world stage and give weight to First Nations desires and aspirations.

These desires are the same ones that guided the Uluru Statement From the Heart four years ago today, and the call for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament — the desire to be heard and for our ideas and views to help shape the overall direction of this nation.

Read more: The Voice to Parliament isn’t a new idea – Indigenous activists called for it nearly a century ago

Moving towards an Indigenous foreign policy

In a step forward, the Department of Foreign Affairs has launched a new Indigenous Diplomacy Agenda, which represents one of the first examples of Australia attempting to increase the First Nations presence within our foreign policy.

The agenda, unveiled by DFAT Secretary Frances Adamson, soon to be governor of South Australia, has the broad goal of “elevating Indigenous issues in our foreign policy” and taking a more systematic approach to doing better globally by “doing better at home”.

To achieve this, the agenda focuses its practical steps and recommendations around four main pillars:

• shaping international norms and standards to benefit Indigenous peoples

• maximising opportunities for Indigenous Australians and Indigenous peoples in a globalised world

• promoting sustainable development for all Indigenous peoples

• deploying Indigenous Australian diplomats to advance our national interests.

These broad themes are consistent with what we hope to see within an Indigenous foreign policy approach. The agenda is highly pragmatic, and there is much to be touted here as steps in the right direction.

The dual focus on specific goals for First Nations people, as well as broader aims across the portfolio, is particularly commendable. The focus on the diplomatic strengths of First Nations people is also worthwhile and long overdue.

In many regards, this document represents a strong move in the right direction for Australian foreign policy.

Examples from our neighbours

Looking at the approach our neighbour New Zealand has taken, however, shows how we could be viewing things differently.

Earlier this year, New Zealand launched a new foreign policy centred around Indigenous values. By strongly embedding Maori worldviews, tirohanga Maori, in its outlook, the government articulated a much larger and more encompassing proposal of an Indigenous foreign policy than Australia has put forth with this agenda.

As I said at the time, New Zealand’s approach was an

expression of the interconnectedness and purposefulness to which all Indigenous foreign policy aspires.

New Zealand’s new foreign minister, Nanaia Mahuta, has talked both about her own “base of lived experience” as a proud Maori woman, as well as how her goal was to

not only contribute to building a better society [within New Zealand], but a global community.

It is this kind of overall vision which Australia should aspire to, but which is somewhat lacking from its Indigenous Diplomatic Agenda.

The way forward

There is indeed a failure of ambition with Australia’s plan. The focus is mostly around increasing the involvement of Indigenous people and strengthening specific Indigenous areas within the portfolio.

But this is mostly a continuation of good practices in existing policy. The claim to be a “systematic approach” for change is somewhat unfulfilled. There’s a lack of vision that misses the bigger picture.

First Nations people and perspectives appear mostly confined to areas related to our Indigeneity. Unlike in New Zealand, there is no recognition of Indigenous worldviews having something to offer our broader foreign policy outside of Indigenous-specific work. We are only useful when leveraging our identity.

The real potential of an Indigenous foreign policy approach is to create new dynamics in how Australia sees the world and new perspectives on how we act within the international system. We need to transform our overall thinking, rather than just seeking to place First Nations people within existing structures.

Of course, the research on this is still very much out. Without tangible goals, it remains to be seen whether New Zealand is seriously committed to substantial change, or whether its new approach is merely an idealistic aspiration.

It also remains to be seen if Australia can use its new departmental reforms to work from the ground up and create a truly ambitious foreign policy.

New Zealand may have kick-started an “Indigenous moment” in foreign policy, but Australia has a chance to truly embrace it and transform our place in the world. We have concrete plans from our government, now we need vision.

Read more: Can New Zealand’s most diverse ever cabinet improve representation of women and minorities in general?

– ref. Australia is pursuing a more Indigenous-focused foreign policy. But does it miss the bigger picture? – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-pursuing-a-more-indigenous-focused-foreign-policy-but-does-it-miss-the-bigger-picture-161189

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Roux, Researcher, Curtin University

Health education frequently fails to teach the menstrual cycle in its full entirety, focusing mostly on the bleeding part of the story and glossing over the ovulation chapter. In other words, many girls* often only get half the story about how their bodies work.

That’s a shame because knowledge of your own reproductive function is useful for monitoring and making decisions about personal health. Focusing on the period part of the cycle is like skipping to the last chapter of a book. In reality, ovulation is the protagonist of the menstrual story rather than a minor character to skim over.

For those who want to get pregnant, understanding ovulation is clearly crucial but research shows few can accurately identify their fertile window.

Beyond that, however, understanding ovulation can help you understand more about your health in general.

Read more: Explainer: what is polycystic ovary syndrome?

What exactly is ovulation?

Ovulation occurs when an ovary releases an egg (sometimes more than one). A typical teaching describes a 28-day cycle with Day 1 as the start of period bleeding and ovulation around Day 14 or 15.

But this textbook 28-day cycle is not meant to be a one-size-fits-all and is not everyone’s experience. There are healthy ranges across the different stages of life (such as adolescence, adulthood and in the later years).

The simple skills for recognising ovulation have been around for over 40 years. Once taught what to look out for, most women find it easy to tell if they are likely ovulating. One tell-tale sign is changes in cervical mucus which a woman can recognise from different sensations at her vulva.

Understanding the cycle is a useful way to get the most out of exercising and supporting good mental health.

If cycle difficulties such as painful periods or pre-menstrual tension emerge, knowing the fixed days between ovulation and the next period gives a fair heads-up to put self-care strategies in place.

A practical example is the preventative use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen for primary period pain; in other words, taking painkillers before the pain arrives, because you know when it is coming.

Read more: 3 out of 10 girls skip class because of painful periods. And most won’t talk to their teacher about it

If cycle difficulties become more complex, understanding the cycle helps a woman work with doctors to get the care she needs.

A role for educators and teachers

When it comes to teaching cycles in schools, the period dominates the story; probably because it is bleeding obvious and you have to manage it.

Educating boys about the cycle needs more research. At this stage, it is task enough to give girls the knowledge and confidence they need.

A recent review found school programs tended to focus on menstrual problems.

While these are important topics, it would also help to frame the cycle in a positive light, explain it fully and talk about the connection between biology, psychology, and socio-environmental factors (what researchers call the “biopsychosocial” aspects).

It is a wise teacher who is vigilant about both misinformation and pedagogically appropriate information. But professional development support is often limited for teachers and the curriculum is overcrowded.

This may explain the tendency for schools to parachute in external facilitators for sexuality education teaching.

The problems with this approach are a lack of available specialist expertise, potential loss of capacity-building within the school and the infrequent learning opportunities for students. External facilitators are there to reinforce what is already taught rather than be a substitute for it.

A role for parents

One role for parents is to encourage their adolescent children to start taking responsibility for their own health. This includes adopting healthy lifestyle choices (such as nutritious eating, keeping fit and getting enough sleep).

Read more: Back to school: how to help your teen get enough sleep

These choices can impact the menstrual cycle. Parents can support their daughters’ discipline in tracking their cycles and understanding their unique patterns.

Knowing this information can also help young women advocate for themselves and make informed health-care choices if cycle difficulties arise.

A research team at Curtin University has worked on developing a program called My Vital Cycles, which is currently being trialled in Western Australia. This school-based ovulatory-menstrual health literacy program aims to give teachers, parents and teenagers the tools they need to understand the whole cycle, including ovulation’s place in it.

Given the span of years from menarche (a girl’s first bleed) to menopause, ovulatory-menstrual cycle knowledge and skills are useful over a lifetime. They are what women ought always to have had, and it is time for the whole story to be told.

The information in this article is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. The terms *girls, women, and daughters are used in relation to a person’s sex, namely their biological characteristics or reproductive organs. This may differ from gender identity. The author believes anyone who menstruates should have the knowledge and skills necessary to understand and manage their cycle.

– ref. It’s time to teach the whole story about ovulation and its place in the menstrual cycle – https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-teach-the-whole-story-about-ovulation-and-its-place-in-the-menstrual-cycle-158952

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sameer Deshpande, Associate Professor, Social Marketing, Griffith University

As Australia deals with growing levels of vaccine hesitancy, Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly has called for incentives to ensure as many people as possible get vaccinated against COVID-19.

Many countries around the world are offering benefits to encourage people to get vaccinated.

These incentives are built on the likelihood people who are hesitant, unmotivated or face barriers to getting vaccinated will embrace vaccination if they receive personal benefits which outweigh any perceived downsides to getting the vaccine, or upsides to not getting it.

Australia would do well to consider introducing some incentives. But they shouldn’t be blanket incentives — they should be part of a larger set of strategies and need to be tailored and targeted to particular groups.

From cash to cows and everything in between

Employers, service providers, and governments in the United States have offered a range of incentives.

Some are centred around entertainment. For example, New York is set to offer free tickets and cheap deals to city attractions, while Alabama residents could take two laps around the Talladega Superspeedway racetrack in their car. Meanwhile, Chicago’s Protect Chicago Music Series is open exclusively to vaccinated residents.

Some incentives have a raised a few eyebrows, like New Jersey’s “shot and a beer” campaign, which offers people a free beer if they’ve had the vaccine.

Some organisations are offering monetary incentives — supermarket chain Publix gives employees a US$125 Publix gift card (approximately A$160) after they receive both doses.

Read more: Beer, doughnuts and a $1 million lottery – how vaccine incentives and other behavioral tools can help the US reach herd immunity

Some incentives deliver smaller benefits with certainty, such as free Uber and Lyft rides to and from vaccination sites around the US.

Others offer a small chance at a big prize, like entry into a weekly US$1 million lottery (roughly A$1.29 million) in Ohio.

We also find incentives aligned with local culture, such as 100 free targets for trap, skeet or sporting clay shooting in Randolph County, Illinois.

And it’s not just the US offering incentives. For example, in India, vaccinated residents can enter a competition to win 5,000 rupees (A$89), while those in a district of northern Thailand could win a live cow.

Do incentives work?

Although it is too early to tell us how well these incentives are working, research on other vaccines has shown financial incentives increase adherence seven-fold.

The Thai region running the cow lottery reportedly saw vaccine registration numbers jump from hundreds to thousands after they announced the incentive.

Importantly, incentives work in tandem with other strategies such as good, clear communication about vaccine efficacy and safety.

Read more: Here are 9 ways we can make it easier for Australians to get the COVID-19 vaccine

Incentives shouldn’t be ‘one size fits all’

Our research shows understanding what motivates people to participate in health-promoting activities and then tailoring measures to encourage them accordingly improves the effectiveness of the interventions.

This means it’s vital to listen to the public. Australians love fun, sport, spending time with family and friends, and travelling. Any incentive or strategy should consider these values.

Here are five broad groups based on individuals’ willingness and ability to get vaccinated, and strategies which might appeal to each one.

1. The highly motivated

Those who are highly motivated and have good access to vaccination tend to be first to front up when they’re eligible. This group trusts science and the system and seeks information on where and when to get the vaccine.

These people don’t necessarily need additional incentives as they’re motivated by the desire to protect their family and get back to doing the things they enjoy.

That said, the government should specify a threshold of the population that needs to be vaccinated in order to open international borders.

2. A little hesitant

This group may be somewhat hesitant about vaccine efficacy, and want to take a wait-and-see approach. But they also want to be seen as looking after themselves and others in their community, including the vulnerable. They seek statistics on numbers vaccinated and social approval.

In Singapore, people receive a free #igotmyshot mask to show they’ve been vaccinated. As more people don these masks, people in this group would likely feel encouraged to get a vaccine.

In time, creating barriers to attending public events for those who haven’t been vaccinated, such as a cricket or football match, could also nudge this group.

3. The young and healthy

Young people and those without pre-existing conditions are often less concerned about the health benefits of vaccinations. So while they may not be hesitant, they might be less motivated.

Creative incentives that portray vaccination as fun, easy, and popular within their peer groups are likely to be beneficial. Offerings of free food and drinks, as we’ve seen overseas, could be a good example.

This group is also increasingly socially aware, as we see on the issue of climate change. Tapping into what’s important to them, such as being socially responsible, would be a key way to appeal to this demographic.

While people in this group are broadly not yet eligible to be vaccinated in Australia, the government should think ahead about appropriate initiatives. High vaccination levels in this group will be essential to reaching herd immunity.

4. Where access is challenging

A range of barriers can prevent certain people from being vaccinated. While we’re lucky in Australia the vaccine is free, some people may live in areas with fewer vaccination facilities or where they need to travel greater distances.

Setting up on-site vaccination clinics in workplaces or mobile vans at public transport hubs can assist this group. Offering money to compensate for travel time, fuel and childcare needs would make vaccination more attractive too.

5. Vaccine resisters

Some people resist vaccination due to questions on efficacy and distrust of the system. Incentives may not work for this group — they may even strengthen the determination not to vaccinate.

Communicating data on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines (as compared to the risks) and endorsement from trustworthy ambassadors could be helpful for this group.

Read more: I’m over 50 and hesitant about the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine. Should I wait for Pfizer?

There’s no “one size fits all” solution to motivate the entire population to get vaccinated. Instead, governments, non-profits and corporations need to consult with communities and create and target incentives accordingly, alongside other public health activities.

– ref. Incentives could boost vaccine uptake in Australia. But we need different approaches for different groups – https://theconversation.com/incentives-could-boost-vaccine-uptake-in-australia-but-we-need-different-approaches-for-different-groups-161363