Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bill Corcoran, Lecturer & Research Fellow, Monash Photonic Communications Lab & InPAC, Monash University

Our internet connections have never been more important to us, nor have they been under such strain. As the COVID-19 pandemic has made remote working, remote socialisation, and online entertainment the norm, we have seen an unprecedented spike in society’s demand for data.

Singapore’s prime minister declared broadband to be essential infrastructure. The European Union asked streaming services to limit their traffic. Video conferencing service Zoom was suddenly unavoidable. Even my parents have grown used to reading to my four-year-old over Skype.

In Australia telecommunications companies have supported this growth, with Telstra removing data caps on users and the National Broadband Network (NBN) enabling ISPs to expand their network capacity. In fact, the NBN saw its highest ever peak capacity of 13.8 terabits per second (or Tbps) on April 8 this year. A terabit is one trillion bits, and 1 Tbps is the equivalent of about 40,000 standard NBN connections.

Read more: Around 50% of homes in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane have the oldest NBN technology

This has given us a glimpse of the capacity crunch we could be facing in the near future, as high-speed 5G wireless connections, self-driving cars and the internet of things put more stress on our networks. Internet traffic is growing by 25% each year as society becomes increasingly connected.

We need new technological solutions to expand data infrastructure, without breaking the bank. The key to this is making devices that can transmit and receive massive amounts of data using the optical fibre infrastructure we have already spent time and money putting into the ground.

A high-speed rainbow

Fortunately, such a device is at hand. My colleagues and I have demonstrated a new fingernail-sized chip that can transmit data at 40 Tbps through a single optical fibre connection of the same kind used in the NBN. That’s about three times the record data rate for the entire NBN network and about 100 times the speed of any single device currently used in Australian fibre networks.

The chip uses an “optical micro-comb” to create a rainbow of infrared light that allows data to be transmitted with many frequencies of light at the same time. Our results are published in Nature Communications today.

This collaboration, between Monash, RMIT and Swinburne universities in Melbourne, and international partners (INRS, CIOPM Xi’an, CityU Hong Kong), is the first “field-trial” of an optical micro-comb system, and a record capacity for such a device.

The internet runs on light

Optical fibres have formed the backbone of our communication systems since the late 1980s. The fibres that link the world together carry light signals that are periodically boosted by optical amplifiers which can transmit light with a huge range of wavelengths.

To make the most of this range of wavelengths, different information is sent using signals of different infrared “colours” of light. If you’ve ever seen a prism split up white light into separate colours, you’ve got an insight into how this works – we can add a bunch of these colours together, send the combined signal through a single optical fibre, then split it back up again into the original colours at the other end.

Read more: What should be done with the NBN in the long run?

Making powerful rainbows from tiny chips

Optical micro-combs are tiny gadgets that in essence use a single laser, a temperature-controlled chip, and a tiny ring called an optical resonator to send out signals using many different wavelengths of light.

Optical combs have had a major impact on a massive range of research in optics and photonics. Optical micro–combs are miniature devices that can produce optical combs, and have been used in a wide range of exciting demonstrations, including optical communications.

The key to micro-combs are optical resonator structures, tiny rings (see picture above) that when hit with enough light convert the incoming single wavelength into a precise rainbow of wavelengths.

The demonstration

For our demonstration transmitting data at 40 Tbps, we used a novel kind of micro-comb called a “soliton crystal” that produces 80 separate wavelengths of light that can carry different signals at the same time. To prove the micro-comb could be used in a real-world environment, we transmitted the data through installed optical fibres in Melbourne (provided by AARNet) between RMIT’s City campus and Monash’s Clayton campus and back, for a round trip of 75 kilometres.

This shows that the optical fibres we have in the ground today can handle huge capacity growth, simply by changing what we plug into those fibres.

What’s next?

There is more work to do! Monash and RMIT are working together to make the micro-comb devices more flexible and simpler to run.

Putting not only the micro-comb, but also the modulators that turn an electrical signal into an optical signal, on a single chip is a tremendous technical challenge.

There are new frontiers of optical communications to explore with these micro-combs, looking at using parallel paths in space, improving data rates for satellite communications, and in making “light that thinks”: artificial optical neural networks. The future is bright for these tiny rainbows.

We gratefully acknowledge support from Australia’s Academic Research Network (AARNet) for supporting our access to the field-trial cabling through the Australian Lightwave Infrastructure Research Testbed (ALIRT), and in particular Tim Rayner, John Nicholls, Anna Van, Jodie O’Donohoe and Stuart Robinson.

– ref. Internet traffic is growing 25% each year. We created a fingernail-sized chip that can help the NBN keep up – https://theconversation.com/internet-traffic-is-growing-25-each-year-we-created-a-fingernail-sized-chip-that-can-help-the-nbn-keep-up-138620

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Zwi, Professor of Global Health and Development, UNSW

This week the World Health Assembly, the governing structure of the World Health Organization, endorsed a resolution that comprehensively addressed the global COVID-19 response.

Buried almost at the end, in the penultimate clause of the seven-page document, was the outcome several nations (including Australia) have been clamouring for – or a version of it, at least. The resolution calls for a global investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 outbreak, albeit not in the strongest of terms.

With noticeable caution, it calls on the WHO to:

…initiate, at the earliest appropriate moment, and in consultation with Member States, a stepwise process of impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation, including using existing mechanisms, as appropriate, to review experience gained and lessons learned from the WHO-coordinated international health response to COVID-19.

Read more: The World Health Organization must answer these hard questions in its coronavirus inquiry

Specifically, the inquiry will investigate:

1. the effectiveness of the mechanisms at WHO’s disposal to deal with pandemics

2. the functioning of the International Health Regulations – a globally agreed set of rules for controlling diseases across borders – and whether prior recommendations had been implemented

3. WHO’s contributions to the United Nations’ disease control efforts

4. the specific actions taken by WHO and the timeline of the pandemic response.

The inquiry will also seek recommendations to improve future pandemic preparedness and responses, including potentially strengthening WHO’s powers.

Vindication for Australia?

Some media and politicians hailed the resolution as a vindication of Australia’s call for a deep and searching independent investigation, with a particular spotlight on China’s role in containing the initial outbreak. But China has branded this claim “a joke”.

So what does the resolution actually add, and is it likely to deliver anything concrete?

It is a great example of well-constructed UN “bureaucratese”. It has something for everyone but demands little from anyone. But buried in the verbiage are some important considerations, which suggest how to forge the way ahead.

Australia can take comfort that there is to be an “impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation”. But it’s not exactly what Australia had in mind. It is left to the WHO’s director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (himself a target of criticism by the United States), to initiate such an enquiry. The timing is vague, although a report on progress (which presumably could include delaying the inquiry altogether), is expected a year from now.

Many countries, including China and several European states, argue such an investigation is needed, but not now. They would like the pandemic to be under control first. But when might that be? It might yet intensify, and could grind on for years. Even if an effective vaccine is developed, getting it to the people of the world will take years, and until almost everyone is vaccinated, nobody will be entirely safe.

Previous efforts

The WHO has previously set up investigations into the H1N1 epidemic in 2009 and the 2015 Ebola outbreak. These were led by respected, independent, evidence-driven global health leaders. So we can be confident the WHO has access to people of the right calibre to mount a rigorous and critical inquiry.

Australia will presumably also be gratified by another clause of the resolution, which calls on the WHO, alongside the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), to identify the animal source of the virus and its route of introduction to the human population. Australia’s deputy chief medical officer, Paul Kelly, has cited the risk of such “zoonotic diseases” as a major concern.

Sitting outside the broader evaluation of the WHO response to the pandemic, Australia should actively support an in-depth study of the interfaces between animal and human diseases. Facilitating and resourcing such an investigation in relation to COVID-19, leading to evidence-informed guidance, would be a solid global contribution.

Australia and others can also draw satisfaction from a clause in the resolution calling on all countries to provide the WHO with “timely, accurate and sufficiently detailed” information on the COVID-19 pandemic. Improving incentives to report early and promptly, such as the offer of financial support to offset any recommended travel or trade restrictions, would sharpen the International Health Regulations which frame such action.

Despite being the source of the pandemic, the resolution does not single out China (or indeed any country) for particular scrutiny or accountability. Several clauses refer instead to “national context”, a commonly used piece of diplomatic language that glosses over political contentions.

Read more: Yes, we need a global coronavirus inquiry, but not for petty political point-scoring

With more than 5.1 million people infected and 332,000 deaths so far, the world needs cooperation, collaboration and coordination. The resolution offers important elements, and reinforces important values: balancing public health measures alongside human rights and economic concerns; transparency of information; solidarity with the people most affected; a focus on the most vulnerable; support to health workers; and global equity in access to testing, PPE and, ultimately, a vaccine.

All nations must play a part in the global push to curb COVID-19. The political blame games and the United States’ threat to cut funding to WHO are unhelpful.

The WHO should be supported and strengthened to puruse its vital work, and to overcome the weaknesses in current and previous epidemic responses. It needs to be better resourced, better structured and better respected to fulfil the roles we expect and demand of it.

Wealthy countries like Australia should do more to bolster multilateral institutions like the WHO as well as to support low and middle income country health systems. Since 2012 Australia’s official development assistance to health has fallen from almost A$1.8 billion in 2012 to A$1.1 billion in 2018. If Australia really wants its voice to be heard in a forum such as the World Health Assembly, it should step up and let others follow its example.

– ref. The WHO’s coronavirus inquiry will be more diplomatic than decisive. But Australia should step up in the meantime – https://theconversation.com/the-whos-coronavirus-inquiry-will-be-more-diplomatic-than-decisive-but-australia-should-step-up-in-the-meantime-139030

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Pallant, Lecturer of Marketing, Swinburne University of Technology

Wesfarmers’ decision to close or rebrand up to 167 of its 284 Target and Target Country stores should not come as too much of a surprise.

The once popular store has been ailing for years, outmanoeuvred by its successful and popular sister business, Kmart.

Up to 75 Target and Target Country stores will be closed, with the balance being converted to Kmart stores.

Its decline is due to a combination of poor market positioning, confusing product strategies, a declining middle class consumer market and too much similarity with Kmart. The impacts of COVID-19 are just the icing on the cake.

Read more: How Kmart ate Target: a story of retail cannibalism

Spiralling sales and profit

Wesfarmers acquired both retail chains when it took over the Coles Group in 2007. At the time Target looked the stronger business, and Wesfarmers considered selling all or part of Kmart, or converting stores to the Target brand.

Just as well it decided to invest in Kmart instead.

Since 2012, Target’s profits and sales have deteriorated with Target realising its first loss of A$195 million in 2016.

How Target has performed since then has been obscured by Wesfarmers combining the business into a Department Stores Division including Kmart and Kmart Tyre and Auto Service. Target’s results were thus no longer reported separately.

But Wesfarmers’ 2019 annual report noted its trading performance highlighted “the need for ongoing repositioning to further elevate quality and style, expand its digital capabilities, and differentiate the business from Kmart and other competitors”.

High couture and cheap kettles

One way Target confused shoppers was to offer collaborations with high-end fashion designers like Missoni, Stella McCartney, Dion Lee and Dannii Minogue, alongside $2 kids’ tops and cheap kitchenware.

The move frustrated customers unable to secure designer pieces and disenfranchised “value-seeking” customers. Many voted with their wallets, moving to Kmart.

Wesfarmers’ plans to differentiate Target from Kmart involved focusing on higher quality apparel, soft homewares and toys to compete against more specialty and middle market offerings.

But the middle market is a challenging sector. It is now dominated by “fast fashion” players offering on-trend clothing and home furnishing. The pressures have led to the collapse of other middle market chains.

Wesfarmers was very aware of the risks associated with this strategy.
Its 2017 annual report stated:

“Target’s strategy has been reset and the business is now focused on progressing changes to the operating model to better position the business to grow earnings into the future. This journey will be undertaken in an increasingly competitive apparel and general merchandise environment”.

Death of department stores

The attempted shift in focus to a middle market department store only created more problems.

Department stores worldwide have faced challenging times in recent years. The past year alone has seen department store icons including Barney’s, Debenhams and JCPenney file for bankruptcy or close for good. Closer to home, Harris Scarfe went into receivership in December 2019, while Myer and David Jones have looked to consolidate stores.

Department stores face many challenges from competition and changing consumer behaviour. However, a broader challenge is a declining middle class that has been the cornerstone of the sector’s customer base.

Target’s strategy to move further into the middle market was always doomed for limited success.

Read more: Death of the department store: don’t just blame the internet, it’s to do with a dwindling middle class

Pandemic impacts

Adding to department store woes is the COVID-19 pandemic.

Already reeling from a weak Christmas period and the effects of the bushfires, retailers were hoping for a return to spending. Instead, they have been faced with store closures and possibly permanent shifts in consumer behaviour.

While some retailers have simply tried to survive the lockdowns, others are re-evaluating their future. For Wesfarmers, this means shifting focus from the struggling Target to the more popular and profitable Kmart.

But though the pandemic has undoubtedly had an unprecedented and substantial impact on the retail industry, in some cases it only accelerating outcomes already on the cards.

So Target is unlikely to be the last retailer to undergo radical surgery. Retailers like the Accent Group and PAS Group have flagged similar plans.

Expect further announcements as retailers evaluate how to survive.

– ref. Don’t blame COVID-19: Target’s decline is part of a deeper trend – https://theconversation.com/dont-blame-covid-19-targets-decline-is-part-of-a-deeper-trend-139205

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julia Horne, University Historian and Principal Research Fellow, History, University of Sydney

This essay is based on an episode of the University of Technology Sydney podcast series “The New Social Contract”. The audio series examines how the relationship between universities, the state and the public might be reshaped as we live through this global pandemic.

It’s sad times for public universities as they fight for their survival. Most are reeling from a severe financial hit due to the loss of international students.

Universities are estimated to lose around A$3-4.6 billion in revenue from international student fees in 2020 alone, and more in 2021.

The government has locked universities out of JobKeeper – its COVID-19 wage subsidy scheme – despite the fact the sector is projected to lose around 21,000 jobs, of which 7,000 are estimated to be research-related.

International onshore student revenue was, as a share of all universities’ revenue, 26.2% on average in 2018, just shy of A$9 billion. For some universities, the dependency on international students is even greater, at around 30-40%.

Read more: Why is the Australian government letting universities suffer?

Many in the government criticise universities for relying so heavily on international students for revenue. For instance, Senator James Paterson recently told the Senate:

Over the last few decades our universities have bet big on the international-student dollar. Their institutions have boomed from what has been a very lucrative business, but they have become badly overexposed […] Universities argue they have pursued this market by necessity. They argue insufficient government funding pushed them down this path. It’s a convenient story that attempts to absolve universities of responsibility for the decisions they have made, and it is a false one.

But such views are false. And they ignore the history of international students from Asia studying in our universities.

A history of international education

In 1923, Sydney University accepted its first Chinese overseas student, N.Y. Shah from Wuhan, who was studying to become a teacher back in China.

From the 1950s, children of Chinese diaspora parents from countries such as Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong began to arrive in Australia to study.

This rarely mentioned cohort of private overseas students studied alongside students supported by the well-known Colombo Plan – an intergovernmental effort to strengthen economic and social development of member countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

In fact, so prominent was the Colombo Plan’s efforts in bringing students to study in Australia, it is still incorrectly believed to be the first major source of overseas students.

Historian Lyndon Megarrity estimates the Colombo Plan brought less than one-fifth of overseas students to Australia in the 1950s and 1960s. The vast majority came as private overseas students.

They went to Australian schools, sat for university matriculation and for those who passed, proceeded to university either funded by the generous Commonwealth scholarship scheme or by paying substantially subsidised university fees, just like Australian citizens.

By 1966, archival research shows private overseas students constituted 8.9% of full-time university enrolments and their numbers were growing. Immigration restrictions were also loosened to mean citizenship was available to private overseas students who had lived in Australia for at least five years.

Subscribe to the New Social Contract podcast on your favourite podcast app: Apple Podcast, Spotify, Stitcher

Most met the conditions after attending two years of high school and the three year minimum for a degree.

While some stayed, of those I interviewed for a UNSW survey of overseas students who studied at the university in the 1950s and 1960s, it seems most returned to their home countries where an Australian university degree promised excellent career prospects.

There was obviously something about Australian education and society that appealed to our Asian neighbours, and pulled them to Australia where they lived for five years and more.

An unofficial government policy

In 1990 the Australian government introduced full fees for all international students. John Dawkins, the then Minister for Employment, Education and Training, saw an opportunity to establish university education as an export industry.

The year 1990 is significant because the Australian government was in the process of implementing the Dawkins reforms which reorganised the once diversified public higher education sector into a single national system.

The aim of the Dawkins reforms was to encourage more Australian school leavers to attend university and, on graduation, become part of a highly-skilled and educated national workforce.

To help fund this vastly expanded system and rein in costs, the government introduced HECS. Students could postpone subsidised and interest-free fees until their salary reached a certain level when they would repay the loan through the taxation system.

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

International student fees at this stage were not a significant source of university income. But they became so from the early 2000s after a decade of reduced government funding and a significant expansion of local student numbers.

Since government funding no longer covered the full costs of expensive research or the strong growth in domestic students, universities had to find funds from elsewhere.

It can be said that international student fees have become an unofficial part of the funding policy of consecutive federal governments.

Government actions and inactions that led to such a reliance on international fee income have created a system that challenges a belief many of us hold dear – public universities should be able to draw on public funds for their operations.

Where in 1989 universities derived more than 80% of their operating costs from the public purse, now it is estimated to be less than 40% – a figure well below the OECD average for public investment in tertiary education.

Where to from here

Since the 2000s, the shortfall has been largely made up by international student fees which have enabled universities to punch above their weight. On a population parity basis we have more universities in the world’s top 500 (by some metrics) than Canada, the United Kingdom and United States.

And 2018 figures show we have some of the highest participation rates of school leavers in the world, at least 30% higher than is the case in the United Kingdom.

Our universities also contribute enormously to national research and development – international student fees help sustain this. The Australian Bureau of Statistics confirmed this week more than half of the A$12 billion universities invest in research each year comes from a pool of funds that relies on international student fees.

Read more: More than 10,000 job losses, billions in lost revenue: coronavirus will hit Australia’s research capacity harder than the GFC

International students, however, should not simply be measured by the fees they pay. Evidence shows while here, students contribute to the well-being of Australians by fuelling economic growth and prosperity that provides jobs for Australians.

University doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows are a large component of Australia’s research and development workforce. International students make up 37% of this vital group, working on important projects like breeding drought resilient crops, developing cures for diseases like COVID-19, and world-leading efficient solar and plastic recycling technology.

Some international students remain in Australia as our largest single source of skilled migrants. Others return to their home country to become leaders in business, politics and cultural industries with a respect and appreciation of Australian culture. We should nurture this good will, not trash it.

The next article linked to the podcast will look at universities and the climate.

Context of the Crisis was made by Impact Studios at the University of Technology, Sydney – an audio production house combining academic research and audio storytelling.

– ref. How universities came to rely on international students – https://theconversation.com/how-universities-came-to-rely-on-international-students-138796

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

You can almost hear the collective sigh of relief as coronavirus restrictions are eased across Australia.

But as we emerge from our bunkers and dust off our social skills, we must think about how to navigate this transition safely.

Read more: As restrictions ease, here are 5 crucial ways for Australia to stay safely on top of COVID-19

The winding back of restrictions does not mean the pandemic is over, although it is a recognition of how well we have done to control the spread of COVID-19 in Australia. There is still a long way to go, and it’s everyone’s responsibility to limit the chances of the coronavirus spreading.

So what should a social gathering look like now we’re allowed to get together? Here are answers to some common questions.

How big should my gathering be?

At the time of writing, you can have five visitors in your home and gatherings of up to ten outdoors in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. In Tasmania you can only have two visitors to your home; in the ACT, South Australia and the Northern Territory you can have ten, while in Western Australia you can have 20.

Whatever the restrictions in your state or territory, it’s important not to crowd too close together. You need to use common sense in deciding how many people to invite.

Do we still need to socially distance and wash hands regularly?

We should carry on doing the things that have so far proved successful in curbing the coronavirus.

This includes staying at least 1.5 metres from other people, and being vigilant about hand hygiene.

Make sure you have plenty of hand sanitiser available if you are hosting or attending a social gathering, so you can disinfect your hands regularly without having to go to the bathroom repeatedly.

Read more: Economists back social distancing 34-9 in new Economic Society-Conversation survey

How should we greet each other?

The same rules about physical contact still apply, so we should not be hugging for now. We could adopt some of the new ways of greeting, such as the elbow bump or the foot shake. Or just stick to saying hello for the moment.

Read more: Miss hugs? Touch forms bonds and boosts immune systems. Here’s how to cope without it during coronavirus

Should I bring my own cutlery to a dinner party?

Assuming you trust the general hygiene standards of your friends (which I sincerely hope you do), this is not necessary. Cutlery should be washed properly with detergent in hot water and handled only with freshly washed hands.

Cutlery is no different to any other food surface such as crockery, glassware or chopping boards – just make sure it’s as clean as possible.

Can we share food?

Although there is no evidence coronavirus is spread through food, there is still a risk of cross-contamination while eating food from a shared plate. So this is probably not a sensible thing to do right now.

While it might feel less sociable, avoiding shared grazing plates is a simple tactic to limit the risk of virus transmission. It might even stop your friend scoffing all the dip.

Similarly, avoid the temptation to clink glasses with your friends. It’s only a small risk but we should take every opportunity to reduce the virus’s chances.

Should I wear a mask?

A mask is not essential for social gatherings, assuming you maintain a safe distance and wash your hands regularly. Having said that, a mask can give people some extra reassurance so they can relax a bit more.

That’s assuming it is worn (and taken off) correctly, and that people understand a mask does not guarantee protection from infection. There is no harm in wearing one, but remember to be extra friendly as your friends can’t see your smile!

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

I don’t feel 100% – should I take a raincheck?

It is important to factor in your personal health and risk factors in determining how you navigate your newly reinstated freedoms. For example, a 75-year-old with a pre-existing health condition, such as a heart condition or asthma, should still be very careful about limiting their contact with others, as the implications of getting sick are very serious.

You should also consider your responsibility to other people. A 25-year-old who feels slightly unwell should err on the side of caution and not socialise, to protect others.

Despite the lockdown lifting, we still need to take responsibility for our own health and also be considerate about the health of others. That way we can all start to enjoy one of the most rewarding aspects of humanity: being sociable.

– ref. 7 questions answered on how to socialise safely as coronavirus restrictions ease – https://theconversation.com/7-questions-answered-on-how-to-socialise-safely-as-coronavirus-restrictions-ease-139109

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Stewart, John Bray Professor of Law, University of Adelaide

A much-awaited ruling from the Federal Court has confirmed long-term casual workers can dispute their status and seek payments for entitlements such as annual leave.

The decision has been attacked by employer groups for allowing casual workers to “double dip” – because they are paid a loading to compensate for the lack of such benefits.

In response, federal industrial relations minister Christian Porter, has indicated the government will consider legislation to address these concerns.

The most likely response will be changing how casual work is defined in the Fair Work Act. This is an issue long overdue for resolution. Despite millions being employed on a casual basis, Australian labour laws provide no solid definition of casual work.

Proliferating ‘permanent casuals’

About a quarter of Australian workers – more than 2.6 million people – are employed as casuals (or at least were before COVID-19).

They get no annual leave, personal leave, notice of termination nor redundancy pay. To make up for that, they are generally entitled to a 25% pay loading.

Casual work is usually thought of as temporary, irregular or uncertain in nature. Some casual positions do fit that description. But research quoted in a 2017 Fair Work Commission case found 60% of casuals had regular rosters and were employed for at least six months. Just over a quarter (28%) had jobs lasting more than three years.

Read more: Self-employment and casual work aren’t increasing but so many jobs are insecure – what’s going on?

One reason for so many “permanent casuals” is that awards and enterprise agreements typically define a casual as anyone engaged and paid as such. This has encouraged the belief that, so long as a worker is labelled a casual by their employer, that’s what they are – no matter how stable and predictable their job.

Looking past the casual label

The Federal Court, however, has decided otherwise.

While the Fair Work Act does not define the term “casual”, the court affirmed previous rulings by deciding it should be given its “general law” meaning, with the “essence of casualness” being the:

“absence of a firm advance commitment as to the duration of the employee’s employment or the days (or hours) the employee will work”.

Its ruling this week against labour-hire company WorkPac is tied to a 2018 ruling against the company.

That case was brought against Workpac – which employs more than 6,000 workers on behalf of companies including Rio Tinto, Glencore, Wesfarmers, Anglo American and BHP Billiton – by fly-in-fly-out worker Paul Skene.

Skene worked for two years as a dump truck operator at two Queensland coal mines. Although engaged as a casual, he successfully argued his set rosters – working 12-hour shifts on a “seven days on, seven days off” basis – meant he should be treated as a permanent worker. As such, he was entitled to annual leave, and to be compensated for not getting it.

This week’s decision

Rather than appealing that decision to the High Court, Workpac took the unusual step of funding another former mine worker, Robert Rossato, to pursue similar claims against it for unpaid leave and public holiday pay. It did this to test out some defences it had failed to run in the Skene case.

Workpac argued, with the support of the federal government, that even if Rossato was really a permanent worker. it could “set off” the casual loading Rossato had been receiving. In other words, if he was entitled to the benefits he claimed, he had already been paid for them.

The Federal Court has rejected this argument conclusively, ruling Rossato, like Skene, should have been treated as a permanent worker.

Read more: Five questions (and answers) about casual employment

The central problem, the judges said, was that Workpac was effectively seeking permission to “prepay” entitlements that, under the Fair Work Act, are meant to be given or paid for in very different ways.

After the Skene decision, the Morrison government introduced a regulation it claimed would clarify the legal position on the “set off” argument.

However, the Federal Court found the regulation had no legal effect – an unsurprising ruling given the government’s own official explanation always made this clear!

Where to from here?

It seems highly likely Workpac and/or the Commonwealth will appeal the Rossato decision to the High Court.

If so, the main issue will probably be whether casual status should be determined according to the “essence” of a work arrangement, or the label an employer has chosen to put on it.

In the meantime, the many businesses with long-term casuals will be worried about the prospect of retrospective claims for unpaid entitlements that could run into billions of dollars.

But it’s important to keep those concerns in perspective.

If long-term employees have fluctuating patterns of work, that may be enough to justify their casual status, even if they have an expectation of ongoing employment. A 2019 ruling by the Federal Court confirming the casual status of an aircraft engineer suggests as much.

Whatever the position in the mining industry, where casuals often work full-time under set rosters, it may be easier to defend the labels placed on the much larger number of casuals who work in sectors such as retail and hospitality.

Read more: If we want workers to stay home when sick, we need paid leave for casuals

There is no excuse for the failure of the current and previous governments (both Coalition and Labor) to define casual employment and put appropriate limits on its use.

Opinions will reasonably differ on how the complex issue of long-term casual employment is to be addressed. But both businesses and workers deserve better than the present state of uncertainty.

– ref. What defines casual work? Federal Court ruling highlights a fundamental flaw in Australian labour law – https://theconversation.com/what-defines-casual-work-federal-court-ruling-highlights-a-fundamental-flaw-in-australian-labour-law-139113

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron Burton, Lecturer in Media Arts, University of Wollongong

Coronavirus & Me is the kind of hybrid user-generated television production we can expect to see more of in coming months.

With the majority of Australia’s film and television industry shut down, and essential production shifting to bedrooms, YouTube style content is elbowing in to the free-to-air and subscription-video-on-demand (SVOD) experience.

Tinkering with whatever is at hand to produce media content reflects the emergence of “bricolage” culture into the mainstream.

Picking and choosing

Curating experiences is all the rage, from takeaway fine dining with Spotify playlists to delivered cheese platters and handpicked reading. But curation suggests a purposeful selection from premium products. Bricolage, on the other hand, makes the most out what’s within reach.

The French verb bricoler and noun bricoleur roughly translate as DIY tinkering and a professional handyman respectively. In fine art circles, bricolage refers to art made out a diverse range of non-traditional materials. Unlike collage or montage, the combined elements are unexpected and wouldn’t normally sit together.

The artistry of bricolage is how individual elements maintain their cultural and material provenance but the final arrangement invites new meanings and connections from the viewer.

Stories from home

New streaming platform, iWonder, was quick to respond to COVID-19, calling in March for short user-generated documentaries about Australians’ experiences. The initial 14-minute Coronavirus & Me compilation featuring five short stories was picked up by 7plus and aired at the end of April.

The appeal of user-generated content (UGC) to broadcasters is in the heightened authenticity of unmediated video diaries, remote production, and low costs. Amateur content on television isn’t new – see the 25-year legacy of Australia’s Funniest Home Videos – but it’s usually fronted by a charismatic host with theatrical music to smooth over imperfections.

Coronavirus & Me offers heartfelt video diaries from diverse and enjoyable personalities. There’s a little touching up, such as stock music and imagery, but no host.

Sydney-based director producers, Alex and Catherine Weinress of Hixon Films, have arranged the submissions into a meaningful journey: fleeing home to Sydney from Wuhan; a mortuary worker’s fears; a performing artist’s coping strategies; an Instagram-inspired parody of Tom Hanks’ Castaway; and a refined short film called Oma that documents a family’s trials in isolation with a grandma with Alzheimer’s disease.

A mixed bag of professional and amateur stories, Coronavirus & Me would usually inhabit far corners of the online universe. As a compilation, it contributes to a common understanding of shared adversity and community.

Expect the unexpected

ABC’s At Home Alone Together, an eight-part parody series hosted by Ray Martin, is another example of bricolage production. Supported by Screen Australia, the series provides opportunities for emerging writers and performers during lockdown.

Again, the mixed offering might not normally reach production, but its appeal is in the incongruous situation we all share. It’s hard to know what to expect from one segment to the next – an unusual quality to see in broadcast genres.

Making the most of whatever’s at hand during lockdown is producing some gems. Maria Albiñana and Luke Eve from More Sauce have launched a 10-part web series aptly titled Cancelled, which follows the actor and producer couple cancelling their wedding in Spain as they face lockdown away from home. The docu-drama strikes an elegant balance between the rawness of a smart phone diary and the artful storytelling of professional production.

Orange Is The New Black creator Jenji Kohan is working on quarantine series Social Distance for Netflix. Writing and production will be done virtually and the cast will act and film themselves at home.

Stories in uncertain times

Understanding human experience is an important aspect of these emerging shows, streams and ways of watching. The process of reflecting and sorting experiences is inherent to the traditional written diary, addressing oneself in the future.

In Italy, director Olmo Parenti reversed this idea to capture the reported lag of other countries. He asked Italians in lockdown to record a message to their past self of 10 days prior.

America’s Public Broadcasting Service is providing an incredible bricolage of citizen experiences via text, video diaries, images, and gifs as American Portrait.

Meanwhile, the State Library of NSW has partnered with ABC Radio Sydney to collate written reflections in The Diary Files. The intention is to create a time capsule for future interpretation.

A decade ago, the promise of YouTube and other online media was to foster a more participatory culture. The pandemic and new examples of isolation content reveal the essential role of editors and producers as bricoleur – vital to piecing together our stories.

– ref. New shows tell our isolation stories on screen – making the most of what’s at hand – https://theconversation.com/new-shows-tell-our-isolation-stories-on-screen-making-the-most-of-whats-at-hand-138112

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jake Whitehead, Advance Queensland Industry Research Fellow & Tritum E-Mobility Fellow, The University of Queensland

Energy Minister Angus Taylor yesterday released his government’s emissions reduction technology plan, setting out priorities for meeting Australia’s climate targets while growing the economy.

The long-awaited Technology Investment Roadmap examined more than 140 technologies for potential investment between now and 2050. They include electric vehicles, biofuels, batteries, hydrogen, nuclear and carbon capture and storage.

Read more: Morrison government dangles new carrots for industry but fails to fix bigger climate policy problem

The discussion paper builds on the need for a post-pandemic recovery plan. It sets a positive tone, and highlights Australia’s enormous opportunities to support investment in low-emission technologies, while increasing prosperity.

But it’s not clear whether the government grasps the sheer scale of infrastructure and behaviour change required to meet our climate goals – nor the urgency of the task.

So let’s take a closer look at where the report hits the mark, and where there’s room for improvement.

Positive signs

The paper gives a reasonably comprehensive overview of new and emerging technologies, and builds on a significant body of prior work and investment. This includes the CSIRO’s Low Emissions Technology Roadmap and ARENA’s Commercial Readiness Index.

Crucially, the paper recognises the need for government funding to help share the financial risks of deploying technologies in their early stages. It also acknowledges the need for partnerships between government, industry and research institutions to drive innovation.

Encouragingly, the paper recognises Australia’s responsibility to support our neighbours across the Indo-Pacific, to help reduce international emissions.

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

The paper is a “living” document, designed to be updated in response to future developments in technology, domestic demand, international markets and so on. Progress will be reported through annual “low emissions technology statements”, and the roadmap can be adjusted as certain technologies flourish and others fail.

This process recognises the considerable uncertainties around the performance and costs of future technologies. It will allow ongoing assessment of where future technologies should be deployed, and can ultimately deliver the greatest emission reduction benefit.

The paper considers the role of both coal and natural gas in Australia’s transition to net-zero emissions. We don’t object to the inclusion of these energy sources, as long as they’re decarbonised, for example using carbon capture and storage or verifiable carbon offsets.

Room for improvement

The paper’s emphasis on technology and investment is clear. But what’s less clear is an appreciation of the sheer scale of change needed to support a low- or net-zero emissions future.

The roadmap would benefit from an assessment of the scale of investment and infrastructure needed to meet the long-term emissions goals of the Paris Agreement. This will require nations including Australia to reduce economy-wide emissions to net-zero.

We believe the lack of clarity around mid-century (and intermediate) emissions targets is a significant gap in the roadmap. It obscures the scale and pace of technological change required across all sectors, and has already prompted criticism.

The energy transition must start as soon as possible. It will involve unprecedented levels of behaviour change, infrastructure investment and technology deployment, which must be maintained over several decades.

The deployment of new technologies affects communities and natural landscapes. The paper touches on these issues, such as the use of water resources to produce renewable hydrogen.

But it does not sufficiently emphasise the need to consult a broad range of stakeholders, such as community, environment and business groups. This should happen before investment begins, and throughout the transition.

The paper also omits notable low-emission technologies already deployed in Australia. This includes zero-emission electric heavy vehicles such as buses, trackless trams and trucks. Future consultation on the paper will help fill these gaps.

Planning for an uncertain future

The roadmap process should explore the various technology pathways that could plausibly emerge between now and 2050, depending on how technologies progress and costs evolve, levels of public acceptance, and the nature of policies adopted.

The process should also seek to identify and deal with industrial, regulatory and social bottlenecks or constraints that might slow down technological efforts to decarbonise our economy, and those of our trading partners.

Read more: Wrong way, go back: a proposed new tax on electric vehicles is a bad idea

With Princeton University, we are co-leading such a project. Known as Rapid Switch, the international collaboration will determine the actions needed in various countries to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Our work highlights the need for most low-carbon technologies to be deployed at historically unprecedented rates. This wholesale transformation will have dramatic impacts on landscapes, natural resources, industries and current practices.

The road ahead

Overall, the Technology Investment Roadmap is a solid foundation for building a low-emissions future.

It should encourage the right technology investment, if supported by other policy mechanisms. These should include an expanded Renewable Energy Target and low-carbon fuel and material standards which, for example, would encourage the production of green hydrogen and steel.

But the divisive nature of Australia’s climate politics over the past decade shows that securing bipartisan support for this plan, and its implementation over the long term, is crucial.

The magnitude of the challenge of transitioning our economy must not be taken for granted. But with a few important changes, this roadmap could help get us there.

– ref. A pretty good start but room for improvement: 3 experts rate Australia’s emissions technology plan – https://theconversation.com/a-pretty-good-start-but-room-for-improvement-3-experts-rate-australias-emissions-technology-plan-132866

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip Russo, Associate Professor, Director Cabrini Monash University Department of Nursing Research, Monash University

As we emerge from lockdown, so does our sport. And many sporting bodies are grappling with the best way to do this while protecting their players, staff and fans from the coronavirus.

For instance, earlier this week, the International Cricket Council said using sweat to shine a cricket ball was OK, but not saliva.

The Australian Institute of Sport goes even further. It also bans using sweat.

But how realistic is this and other well-meaning advice? How do you stay 1.5m apart in a rugby scrum? And have we seen the end of communal showers?

Read more: Coronavirus: how long does it take to get sick? How infectious is it? Will you always have a fever? COVID-19 basics explained

All sports need to change

The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is transmitted via close contact with an infectious person, infectious droplets from coughs and sneezes, or contact with contaminated surfaces before touching your mouth or face.

So, all sports need to change how they operate by keeping these transmission methods in mind.

Transmission from person to person is more likely inside than outside; air changes dilute virus particles (the more air changes, the lower the risk).

For instance, a recent cluster of 112 COVID-19 cases in South Korea was linked to fitness dance classes held in confined and closed spaces. So if any sport can be played outdoors, it should be.

If players need to be inside, it’s best to avoid crowded and confined spaces. Players might want to change out of their kit or take a shower at home, rather than in a communal changing room.

Minimising the number of players and support staff who attend training and game days is also crucial. The fewer people around, the easier it is to socially distance and the less potential for transmission.

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

Of course, if players or staff have come into close contact with a known or suspected case of COVID-19 or are unwell, they need to stay away. The Australian Institute of Sport suggests staying away if you’ve been unwell in the past 14 days.

Regular coronavirus testing may be possible in some elite sports. But for community sports, clubs might consider checking players’ temperatures or being alert for symptoms, such as a high temperature, cough, sore throat or shortness of breath.

Read more: How long are you infectious when you have coronavirus?

Personal hygiene is the other major intervention. Players should wash their hands before and after the game, and during breaks.

For most sports, handwashing with soap and water is best as this not only removes grime, the soap also kills the virus. Alcohol-based hand sanitisers aren’t as effective if your hands are visibly dirty.

Nevertheless, clubs should provide alcohol hand disinfectant stations throughout venues, for players, staff and fans.

Read more: The NRL should reconsider its comeback: it’s too soon

Changing rooms need to be frequently cleaned, if used at all. Areas that are touched frequently (for instance, door handles, taps, chairs, benches) need to be regularly and thoroughly cleaned.

Players need to keep their hands away from their face and cough into their elbow. And no sharing water bottles.

Scrums, pack marks are OK but group hugs are out

Contact sports present the biggest challenge. Close contact in rugby (think scrum), and AFL (pack marks) are crucial aspects of the game and are unavoidable. So we need to think about minimising contact elsewhere.

Keep physical contact to within playing the game and training. Avoid celebrating goals or victories with group celebrations and hugs. Keep 1.5m apart in team meetings and at half time. After the match, go home.

Balls, gloves, half-time fruit

We know the coronavirus survives on surfaces for varying length of times. Exactly how long depends on the temperature, humidity, how much of the virus is present (viral load) and the type of surface.

The good news is the virus can easily be killed.

So wash your balls. Yes, really. To minimise the risk of the virus passing between players, wash balls with common detergent as regularly as possible and dry them thoroughly before using them again. Have extra balls available to allow for this cleaning and drying.

Don’t share equipment such as gloves, head protection, pads and bats. Each player should have their own, and ensure players clean them regularly.

As for shared food at half time, such as fruit or lollies, best to avoid these for now.

Read more: We know how long coronavirus survives on surfaces. Here’s what it means for handling money, food and more

How about community sport and spectators?

Community sport is returning and so too will weekends spent ferrying the kids around to play.

But you’ll still need to apply the same important principles – physical distancing (keeping 1.5m away from each other), hand hygiene before and after attending, and not attending if you or your kids are feeling unwell.

Where you need to attend, limit this to one parent or guardian.

Some find it hard to follow the rules

Of course, all these recommendations are useless if people don’t follow them. We’re already seen several highly publicised breaches of coronavirus guidelines in sport. So we need to keep vigilant.

We cannot reduce the risk of coronavirus transmission entirely. But these measures will reduce the risks sufficiently for us to once again enjoy our sport for now.

– ref. From spit to scrums. How can sports players minimise their coronavirus risk? – https://theconversation.com/from-spit-to-scrums-how-can-sports-players-minimise-their-coronavirus-risk-139034

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeff Kildea, Adjunct Professor Irish Studies, UNSW

In a remarkable coincidence, the first media reports about Spanish flu and COVID-19 in Australia both occurred on January 25 – exactly 101 years apart.

This is not the only similarity between the two pandemics.

Although history does not repeat, it rhymes. The story of how Australia – and particular the NSW government – handled Spanish flu in 1919 provides some clues about how COVID-19 might play out here in 2020.

Spanish flu arrives

Australia’s first case of Spanish flu was likely admitted to hospital in Melbourne on January 9 1919, though it was not diagnosed as such at the time. Ten days later, there were 50 to 100 cases.

Commonwealth and Victorian health authorities initially believed the outbreak was a local variety of influenza prevalent in late 1918.

Consequently, Victoria delayed until January 28 notifying the Commonwealth, as required by a 1918 federal-state agreement designed to coordinate state responses.

Read more: Fleas to flu to coronavirus: how ‘death ships’ spread disease through the ages

Meanwhile, travellers from Melbourne had carried the disease to NSW. On January 25, Sydney’s newspapers reported that a returned soldier from Melbourne was in hospital at Randwick with suspected pneumonic influenza.

Shutdown circa 1919: libraries, theatres, churches close

Acting quickly, in late January, the NSW government ordered “everyone shall wear a mask,” while all libraries, schools, churches, theatres, public halls, and places of indoor public entertainment in metropolitan Sydney were told to close.

It also imposed restrictions on travel from Victoria in breach of the federal-state agreement.

Thereafter, each state went its own way and the Commonwealth, with few powers and little money compared with today, effectively left them to it.

Generally, the restrictions were received with little demur. But inconsistencies led to complaints, especially from churches and the owners of theatres and racecourses.

People were allowed to ride in crowded public transport to thronged beaches. But masked churchgoers, observing physical distancing, were forbidden to assemble outside for worship.

Later, crowds of spectators would be permitted to watch football matches while racecourses were closed.

Spanish flu subsides

Nevertheless, NSW’s prompt and thorough application of restrictions initially proved successful.

During February, Sydney’s hospital admissions were only 139, while total deaths across the state were 15. By contrast, Victoria, which had taken three weeks before introducing more limited restrictions, recorded 489 deaths.

At the end of February, NSW lifted most restrictions.

Even so, the state government did not escape a political attack. The Labor opposition accused it of overreacting and imposing unnecessary economic and social burdens on people. It was particularly critical that the order requiring mask-wearing was not limited to confined spaces, such as public transport.

There was also debate about the usefulness of closing schools, especially in the metropolitan area.

But then it returns

In mid-March, new cases began to rise. Chastened by the criticism of its earlier measures, the government delayed reimposing restrictions until early April, allowing the virus to take hold.

This led The Catholic Press to declare

the Ministry fiddled for popularity while the country was threatened with this terrible pestilence.

Sydney’s hospital capacity was exceeded and the state’s death toll for April totalled 1,395. Then the numbers began falling again. After ten weeks the epidemic seemed to have run its course, but as May turned to June, new cases appeared.

The resurgence came with a virulence surpassing the worst days of April. This time, notwithstanding a mounting death toll, the NSW cabinet decided against reinstating restrictions, but urged people to impose their own restraints.

The government goes for “burn out”

After two unsuccessful attempts to defeat the epidemic – at great social and economic cost – the government decided to let it take its course.

It hoped the public by now realised the gravity of the danger and that it should be sufficient to warn them to avoid the chances of infection. The Sydney Morning Herald concurred, declaring

there is a stage at which governmental responsibility for the public health ends.

The second wave’s peak arrived in the first week of July, with 850 deaths across NSW and 2,400 for the month. Sydney’s hospital capacity again was exceeded. Then, as in April, the numbers began to decline. In August the epidemic was officially declared over.

Cases continued intermittently for months, but by October, admissions and deaths were in single figures. Like its predecessor, the second wave lasted ten weeks. But this time the epidemic did not return.

Read more: How Australia’s response to the Spanish flu of 1919 sounds warnings on dealing with coronavirus

More than 12,000 Australians had died.

While Victoria had suffered badly early on compared to NSW, in the end, NSW had more deaths than Victoria – about 6,000 compared to 3,500. The NSW government’s decision not to restore restrictions saw the epidemic “burn out”, but at a terrible cost in lives.

That decision did not cause a ripple of objection. At the NSW state elections in March 1920, Spanish flu was not even a campaign issue.

The lessons of 1919

In many ways we have learned the lessons of 1919.

We have better federal-state coordination, sophisticated testing and contact tracing, staged lifting of restrictions and improved knowledge of virology.

But in other ways we have not learned the lessons.

Despite our increased medical knowledge, we are struggling to find a vaccine and effective treatments. And we are debating the same issues – to mask or not, to close schools or not.

Meanwhile, inconsistencies and mixed messaging undermine confidence that restrictions are necessary.

Yet, we are still to face the most difficult question of all.

The Spanish flu demonstrated that a suppression strategy requires rounds of restrictions and relaxations. And that these involve significant social and economic costs.

With the federal and state governments’ current suppression strategies we are already seeing signs of social and economic stress, and this is just round one.

Would Australians today tolerate a “burn out”?

The Spanish flu experience also showed that a “burn out” strategy is costly in lives – nowadays it would be measured in tens of thousands. Would Australians today abide such an outcome as people did in 1919?

It is not as if Australians back then were more trusting of their political leaders than we are today. In fact, in the wake of the wartime split in the Labor Party and shifting political allegiances, respect for political leaders was at a low ebb in Australia.

A more likely explanation is that people then were prepared to tolerate a death toll that Australians today would find unacceptable. People in 1919 were much more familiar with death from infectious diseases.

Also, they had just emerged from a world war in which 60,000 Australians had died. These days the death of a single soldier in combat prompts national mourning.

Yet, in the absence of an effective vaccine, governments may end up facing a “Sophie’s Choice”: is the community willing and able to sustain repeated and costly disruptions in order to defeat this epidemic or, as the NSW cabinet decided in 1919, is it better to let it run its course notwithstanding the cost in lives?

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

– ref. Lockdowns, second waves and burn outs. Spanish flu’s clues about how coronavirus might play out in Australia – https://theconversation.com/lockdowns-second-waves-and-burn-outs-spanish-flus-clues-about-how-coronavirus-might-play-out-in-australia-138429

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cathy Foley, Chief Scientist, CSIRO

Quantum technology is not a phrase discussed over kitchen tables in Australia, but perhaps it should be.

Australia’s quantum technology research has been breaking new ground for almost 30 years. Governments, universities and more recently multinationals have all invested in this research.

Quantum technology is set to transform electronics, communications, computation, sensing and other fields. In the process it can create new markets, new applications and new jobs in Australia.

Read more: Why are scientists so excited about a recently claimed quantum computing milestone?

So, what is quantum technology?

Quantum physics explains the behaviour of the world at the smallest scale. Scientists can now isolate individual quantum particles (such as electrons and photons) and detect and control their behaviour.

This opens the door to creating new types of quantum electronic devices. The possibilities range from precision sensors and secure communication networks to incredibly powerful computers to tackle problems that can’t be solved today.

Commercial applications of these technologies are emerging, and Australia is one of the leaders.

In the 1990s CSIRO led research into one of the first commercial applications of quantum research: using superconducting quantum interference devices to detect mineral deposits deep underground.

More recently the University of Adelaide developed a way to produce one billion electrons per second and use quantum mechanics to control them one-by-one. Advances like these are paving the way for quantum information processing in defence, cybersecurity and big data analysis.

Australia is also home to some of the top quantum technology companies in the world. They are working on advanced quantum control solutions (Q-CTRL), unique quantum computing hardware (Silicon Quantum Computing), and quantum-enhanced cybersecurity tools (Quintessence Labs).

Multinationals like Microsoft and Rigetti Computing have also set up shop in Australia to work with our quantum experts.

A multi-billion-dollar opportunity

Australia has a strong research base in quantum technology. With the right approach, we at CSIRO believe this could become a A$4 billion dollar industry for Australia by 2040 and create around 16,000 new, high-value jobs.

This is a competitive area, and the world is racing. Since 2019, the UK, US, European Union, India, Germany and Russia have established multibillion-dollar quantum technology initiatives. Reports also suggest China has committed around US$10 billion to quantum research and development.

To maintain our leadership and capture this opportunity, Australia needs a coordinated, collaborative approach to growing our domestic quantum economy.

Read more: Quantum internet: the next global network is already being laid

A roadmap to 2040

CSIRO has collaborated with industry, research and government to produce a roadmap to help position Australia for success. We have together defined the opportunities and what we need to do to turn this significant investment into a high technology industry for Australia.

The big opportunities are around advanced sensors, secure communication networks and quantum computing. Quantum computing presents the largest long-term opportunity, with potential to create 10,000 jobs and A$2.5 billion in annual revenue by 2040, while spurring breakthroughs in drug development, industrial processes and machine learning.

While quantum computing is the big one, it may take a while to deliver benefits. We’re likely to see applications of quantum sensors and communication networks much sooner in defence, mineral exploration, water resource management and secure communication. These applications in turn could enhance productivity in Australian industries and help ensure our national security.

The roadmap identifies areas where Australia needs to act to make the most of the quantum opportunity, including continued investment in research and development and changes to support translating research into commercial products.

Crossing the “valley of death”

It’s a long way from a technically proven technology to a successful commercial application. The gap between the two is often referred to as the “valley of death”.

Australia often has trouble crossing this valley, where many of our innovations seem to wither. We need a concentrated effort to help our research make it through.

We need new ways to help universities and researchers navigate the valley, and support the prototypes, testing and marketing needed to get ideas off the bench. Investment in purpose-built facilities to help this process will help create the new markets and new jobs we need.

This system needs to be designed and developed jointly by federal and state governments, as well as industry and researchers. Success will only come from collective efforts and the collaboration of a strong network.

– ref. Australian quantum technology could become a $4 billion industry and create 16,000 jobs – https://theconversation.com/australian-quantum-technology-could-become-a-4-billion-industry-and-create-16-000-jobs-138817

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rowan Callick, Industry Fellow, Griffith University

When former President Hu Jintao visited Australia in 2003, he began his address to parliament by describing the exploits of a 15th century Chinese admiral, Zheng He:

Back in the 1420s, the expeditionary fleets of China’s Ming Dynasty reached Australian shores … They brought Chinese culture to this land and lived harmoniously with the local people, contributing their proud share to Australia’s economy, society and its thriving pluralistic culture.

This account of explorer Zheng’s voyages has largely been dismissed by western historians.

But it indicates the extent of the regional ambition wrapped up in the Communist Party’s control of history today, including how the Chinese empire once presided over myriad subservient tribute states.

And this is crucial for its promotion of nationalism – an increasingly vital part of the party’s own legitimacy as its economy falters.

Projecting power under Xi Jinping

Since becoming general secretary of the Communist Party in 2012, President Xi Jinping has emphasised this “rejuvenation” of China, recalling two earlier golden eras during the Tang and High Qing dynasties.

At first, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs largely persisted with the traditional, polite diplomacy that had seen China’s influence grow steadily and quietly, commensurate with its economic heft.

But things changed as Xi’s new team pushed aside officials viewed as corrupt or inadequately responsive to his demands to more forcefully assert China’s rejuvenation, both at home and to the rest of the world.

Read more: Xi Jinping’s grip on power is absolute, but there are new threats to his ‘Chinese dream’

The Foreign Ministry was losing its influence as Xi’s tight inner circle centralised decision-making. Foreign diplomats came to understand they needed to go to party insiders if they wanted to understand or seek to influence Chinese policies.

A watershed moment came with the blockbuster success of the patriotic, Rambo-style film Wolf Warrior 2 in mid-2017. Its slogan, taken from a Han dynasty saying, is:

Whoever offends China will be punished, no matter how far they are.

At the end of the film, the red cover of a Chinese passport is displayed, accompanied by the message:

Citizens of the PRC: When you encounter danger in a foreign land, do not give up! Please remember, at your back stands a strong motherland.

At the huge exhibition accompanying the 19th party congress a few months later, the foreign ministry proudly exhibited a new hotline system that Chinese people abroad could use to call for help, “no matter how far they are”.

The People’s Liberation Army command was restructured and equipped to project power, including through a blue-water navy and its first overseas base in Djibouti, east Africa.

And Xi ordered massive new resources for diplomacy, doubling the foreign ministry budget from 2013-18, and since then raising it by double digits annually.

Top diplomat Yang Jiechi was also promoted to the Politburo and a new Central Foreign Affairs Commission was established, underlining Xi’s determination to elevate a more assertive foreign policy as a national priority.

Hawkish diplomats reinforce the message

China’s international messaging also changed rapidly. At the party to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Chinese Foreign Ministry last year, Minister Wang Yi urged the country’s envoys to adopt a “fighting spirit” in the face of international challenges.

Although Twitter and Facebook are banned in China, diplomats quickly acquired accounts and followers, and began to use them to hammer the countries where they were posted.

Read more: Murky origins: why China will never welcome a global inquiry into the source of COVID-19

When diplomat Zhao Lijian returned from a posting to Pakistan last year, Reuters reported that “a group of young admirers” at the Foreign Ministry cheered him.

He had catapulted into global attention by labelling the US as racist and in a Twitter spat, telling former National Security Advisor Susan Rice she was “a disgrace” and “shockingly ignorant.”

In January, Zhao was promoted to a Foreign Ministry spokesman, highlighting that his was the path to diplomatic success.

In this new role, Zhao has tweeted to his 623,000 followers that US soldiers brought COVID to Wuhan when competing in the 2019 Military World Games.

He rebuked New Zealand for seeking Taiwan’s readmission to the World Health Organisation’s annual global health assembly, calling on it to

immediately stop making wrong statements on Taiwan, to avoid damaging our bilateral relationship.

Qin Xiaoying, formerly director of the Communist Party’s international propaganda department, commented that now is

the first time since 1949 that ‘new hawks’ have the power to reshape China’s diplomatic policy.

They have won their spurs by assiduously enlisting the support of countries that have received Chinese development loans to win votes in global bodies.

For instance, when 22 nations, including Australia, urged the UN Human Rights Council to call on China to end its massive detention program of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Beijing swiftly signed up 37 countries, including many with majority Muslim populations, to defend its rule there.

Changing the narrative on coronavirus

The COVID-19 pandemic soon provided those hawks with an even better opportunity to prove their loyalty and value to Xi.

Wu Ken, the ambassador to Germany, provided a handy template to follow in December by warning that if Huawei was excluded from building Germany’s 5G network, “there will be consequences”, and pointing to the importance of China’s market for German cars.

In late January and early February, Xi appeared to be on the back foot as the virus began to erode China’s health and economy, and with it his own previously unquestioned authority.

Read more: How vulnerable is Xi Jinping over coronavirus? In today’s China, there are few to hold him to account

But as China began to receive criticism globally for its response to the virus, these newly assertive diplomats swung into action, proving their worth as front-line fighters.

Cheng Jingye, the ambassador to Australia, attacked Canberra’s call for an investigation into the cause of COVID, asking,

Maybe also the ordinary [Chinese] people will say why should we drink Australian wine or to eat Australian beef?

Lu Shaye, the ambassador to France, was summoned by the French Foreign Ministry over a post on the embassy website claiming the French were “leaving their residents to die of hunger and disease.”

Politics above all else

The Foreign Ministry told Reuters this year, citing a Mao Zedong slogan:

We will not attack unless we are attacked. But if we are attacked, we will certainly counter-attack.

This may even come at a cost to China economically. But politics – and especially the push for rejuvenation – is upstream of all else in Xi’s “New Era”.

– ref. Behind China’s newly aggressive diplomacy: ‘wolf warriors’ ready to fight back – https://theconversation.com/behind-chinas-newly-aggressive-diplomacy-wolf-warriors-ready-to-fight-back-139028

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Ravenswood, Associate Professor in Employment Relations, Auckland University of Technology

New Zealand’s residential aged care is the focus of three inquiries to understand why COVID-19 tore rapidly through some rest homes but not others.

These reviews are significant and urgent, but my research suggests they need to pay more attention to caregivers and their concerns about lack of support for quality aged care.

Of the 21 people who have died of COVID-19 in New Zealand, 12 were from one rest home, Rosewood, in Christchurch, another three at St Margaret’s Hospital rest home in Auckland. Of 16 existing clusters of cases, five are in residential aged care facilities, including a second in Christchurch, two in Auckland and one in Waikato.

Read more: We may well be able to eliminate coronavirus, but we’ll probably never eradicate it. Here’s the difference

A review of aged care facilities, led by the Ministry of Health together with the New Zealand Aged Care Association, is expected to report back by the end of May.

An audit of residential aged care homes is also under way, with the ombudsman’s office inspecting dementia units to ensure residents receive adequate care, especially if they have to live in isolation.

Minimal staffing

Rest homes are clearly under huge pressure during the pandemic. Securing supplies and personal protection equipment, managing isolation of vulnerable and sometimes confused residents, increasing cleaning schedules and developing staff rosters to reduce the chance of infection would add stress even in a well-staffed rest home.

But as I outlined to the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care in February, the legal requirements for staff-to-resident ratios are surprisingly minimal.

Safety standards and the service agreements between district health boards and aged care providers specify high quality of care, with a goal of maintaining independence and social lives for residents that resemble what they experienced when they lived independently.

But this is expected on a prescribed minimum of three care staff on duty at all times – in a rest home with more than 60 residents.

In a small rest home with ten or fewer residents, only one caregiver is required at all times.

Of course, it is possible for a rest home to roster more than the minimum number of staff, but that is not often the case. It is common to have high numbers of residents to one caregiver.

Late last year, before COVID-19 reached New Zealand, a caregiver described to me her experience working in a rest home. She cared for 16 residents on her 3-11pm shift. During that time she had to ensure all 16 were cleaned and put to bed, fed dinner and supper, taken to the toilet and more.

She said it was stressful and there was not enough time to really care for residents. She added:

Bells are continually ringing because those at risk of falling have stood up by themselves; residents may need to be changed because they have soiled themselves and some ring the bell continuously because they are bored and confused. We are expected to answer all but invariably some will have to wait because we are already dealing with others.

A 2016 study reflects this experience. It shows only 58.6% of the caregivers surveyed agreed they had enough time to spend with each resident. A 2019 report into safe staffing levels surveyed more than 1,000 nurses and caregivers and found 73% thought there were not enough staff to provide good care.

Future proofing aged care

If we take this pre-pandemic situation into account, we can see how a virus that disproportionately affects older people would spread fast through rest homes. If each staff member looks after 16 or even 20 residents, how are they going to manage to clean all surfaces three times daily and ensure staff who work with an infected resident keep away from non-infected people and practise good hygiene?

Although the Ministry of Health’s review into rest home clusters mentions staffing numbers, training, qualifications and rosters as part of its scope, the terms of reference make little mention of caregivers or other staff.

This sector has a long history of excluding their caregiver employees – those who do the work and see residents every day – from reviews and negotiations that determine quality of care, funding and staffing levels. This looks set to continue as we examine how residential aged care as a sector, and in individual rest homes, responded to COVID-19.

One beacon of light is the ombudsman’s review into dementia units and the rights of those residents. That review specifically includes employees in consultations as well as interviews about how well supported they feel in the workplace.

This perspective does not take away from the residents and their rights, but recognises under-supported caregivers in understaffed facilities cannot provide quality care.

Read more: Creating new social divides: how coronavirus is reshaping how we see ourselves and the world around us

Last month, the government announced a NZ$26 million funding boost for residential aged care but it was unclear how the money would be used.

A one-off cash injection might add capacity during the pandemic, but it will not solve the persistent issue of low staffing levels – especially if none of the money is earmarked for staffing.

It is time policymakers, funders and aged care providers address the elephant in the room, that quality care requires more staff and more time. Higher staffing ratios will also provide more room for flexibility when crises occur.

Those caregivers (or their representatives) should be given a place at the table. If they had been listened to before, we would have been much better prepared.

– ref. Low staff levels must be part of any reviews into the coronavirus outbreaks in NZ rest homes – https://theconversation.com/low-staff-levels-must-be-part-of-any-reviews-into-the-coronavirus-outbreaks-in-nz-rest-homes-137764

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Quentin Grafton, Director of the Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

The last bushfire season showed Australians they can no longer pretend climate change will not affect them. But there’s another climate change influence we must also face up to: increasingly scarce water on our continent.

Under climate change, rainfall will become more unpredictable. Extreme weather events such as cyclones will be more intense. This will challenge water managers already struggling to respond to Australia’s natural boom and bust of droughts and floods.

Thirty years since Australia’s water reform project began, it’s clear our efforts have largely failed. Drought-stricken rural towns have literally run out of water. Despite the recent rains, the Murray Darling river system is being run dry and struggles to support the communities that depend on it.

We must find another way. So let’s start the conversation.

How did we get here?

Sadly, inequitable water outcomes in Australia are not new.

The first water “reform” occurred when European settlers acquired water sources from First Peoples without consent or compensation. Overlaying this dispossession, British common law gave new settlers land access rights to freshwater. These later converted into state-owned rights, and are now allocated as privately held water entitlements.

Some 200 years later, the first steps towards long-term water reform arguably began in the 1990s. The process accelerated during the Millennium Drought and in 2004 led to the National Water Initiative, an intergovernmental water agreement. This was followed in 2007 by a federal Water Act, upending exclusive state jurisdiction over water.

Read more: While towns run dry, cotton extracts 5 Sydney Harbours’ worth of Murray Darling water a year. It’s time to reset the balance

Under the National Water Initiative, state and territory water plans were to be verified through water accounting to ensure “adequate measurement, monitoring and reporting systems” across the country.

This would have boosted public and investor confidence in the amount of water being traded, extracted and recovered – both for the environment and the public good.

This vision has not been realised. Instead, a narrow view now dominates in which water is valuable only when extracted, and water reform is about subsidising water infrastructure such as dams, to enable this extraction.

Why we should all care

In the current drought, rural towns have literally run out of fresh drinking water. These towns are not just dots on a map. They are communities whose very existence is now threatened.

In some small towns, drinking water can taste unpleasant or contain high levels of nitrate, threatening the health of babies. Drinking water in some remote Indigenous communities is not always treated, and the quality rarely checked.

In the Murray-Darling Basin, poor management and low rainfall have caused dry rivers, mass fish kills, and distress in Aboriginal communities. Key aspects of the basin plan have not been implemented. This, coupled with bushfire damage, has caused long-term ecological harm.

How do we fix the water emergency?

Rivers, lakes and wetlands must have enough water at the right time. Only then will the needs of humans and the environment be met equitably – including access to and use of water by First Peoples.

Water for the environment and water for irrigation is not a zero-sum trade-off. Without healthy rivers, irrigation farming and rural communities cannot survive.

A national conversation on water reform is needed. It should recognise and include First Peoples’ values and knowledge of land, water and fire.

Our water brief, Water Reform For All, proposes six principles to build a national water dialogue:

1. establish shared visions and goals
2. develop clarity of roles and responsibilities
3. implement adaptation as a way to respond to an escalation of stresses, including climate change and governance failures
4. invest in advanced technology to monitor, predict and understand changes in water availability
5. integrate bottom-up and community-based adaptation, including from Indigenous communities, into improved water governance arrangements
6. undertake policy experiments to test new ways of managing water for all

Ask the right questions

As researchers, we don’t have all the answers on how to create a sustainable, equitable water future. No-one does. But in any national conversation, we believe these fundamental questions must be asked:

1. who is responsible for water governance? How do decisions and actions of one group affect access and availability of water for others?

2. what volumes of water are extracted from surface and groundwater systems? Where, when, by whom and for what?

3. what can we predict about a future climate and other long-term drivers of change?

4. how can we better understand and measure the multiple values that water holds for communities and society?

5. where do our visions for the future of water align? Where do they differ?

6. what principles, protocols and processes will help deliver the water reform needed?

7. how do existing rules and institutions constrain, or enable, efforts to achieve a shared vision of a sustainable water future?

8. how do we integrate new knowledge, such as water availability under climate change, into our goals?

9. what restitution is needed in relation to water and Country for First Peoples?

10. what economic sectors and processes would be better suited to a water-scarce future, and how might we foster them?

Water reform for all

These questions, if part of a national conversation, would reinvigorate the water debate and help put Australia on track to a sustainable water future.

Now is the time to start the discussion. Long-accepted policy approaches in support of sustainable water futures are in question. In the Murray-Darling Basin, some states even question the value of catchment-wide management. The formula for water-sharing between states is under attack.

Read more: It’s official: expert review rejects NSW plan to let seawater flow into the Murray River

Even science that previously underpinned water reform is being questioned

We must return to basics, reassess what’s sensible and feasible, and debate new ways forward.

We are not naive. All of us have been involved in water reform and some of us, like many others, suffer from reform fatigue.

But without a fresh debate, Australia’s water emergency will only get worse. Reform can – and must – happen, for the benefit of all Australians.

The following contributed to this piece and co-authored the report on which it was based: Daniel Connell, Katherine Daniell, Joseph Guillaume, Lorrae van Kerkoff, Aparna Lal, Ehsan Nabavi, Jamie Pittock, Katherine Taylor, Paul Tregoning, and John Williams

– ref. Australia, it’s time to talk about our water emergency – https://theconversation.com/australia-its-time-to-talk-about-our-water-emergency-139024

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ilan Noy, Professor and Chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Since the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, disaster recovery plans are almost always framed with aspirational plans to “build back better”. It’s a fine sentiment – we all want to build better societies and economies. But, as the Cheshire Cat tells Alice when she is lost, where we ought to go depends very much on where we want to get to.

The ambition to build back better therefore needs to be made explicit and transparent as countries slowly re-emerge from their COVID-19 cocoons.

The Asian Development Bank attempted last year to define build-back-better aspirations more precisely and concretely. The bank described four criteria: build back safer, build back faster, build back potential and build back fairer.

The first three are obvious. We clearly want our economies to recover fast, be safer and be more sustainable into the future. It’s the last objective – fairness – that will inevitably be the most challenging long-term goal at both the national and international level.

Economic fallout from the pandemic is already being experienced disproportionately among poorer households, in poorer regions within countries, and in poorer countries in general.

Read more: Recession hits Māori and Pasifika harder. They must be part of planning New Zealand’s COVID-19 recovery

Some governments are aware of this and are trying to ameliorate this brewing inequality. At the same time, it is seen as politically unpalatable to engage in redistribution during a global crisis. Most governments are opting for broad-brush policies aimed at everyone, lest they appear to be encouraging class warfare and division or, in the case of New Zealand, electioneering.

In fact, politicians’ typical focus on the next election aligns well with the public appetite for a fast recovery. We know that speedier recoveries are more complete, as delays dampen investment and people move away from economically depressed places.

Speed is also linked to safety. As we know from other disasters, this recovery cannot be completed as long as the COVID-19 public health challenge is not resolved.

The failure to invest in safety, in prevention and mitigation, is now most apparent in the United States, which has less than 5% of the global population but a third of COVID-19 confirmed cases. Despite the pressure to “open up” the economy, recovery won’t progress without a lasting solution to the widespread presence of the virus.

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

Economic potential also aligns with political aims and is therefore easier to imagine. A build-back-better recovery has to promise sustainable prosperity for all.

The emphasis on job generation in New Zealand’s recent budget was entirely the right primary focus. Employment is of paramount importance to voters, so it has been a logical focus in public stimulus packages everywhere.

Fairness, however, is more difficult to define and more challenging to achieve.

While a rising economic tide doesn’t always lift all boats – as the proponents of growth-at-any-cost sometimes argue – a low tide lifts none. Achieving fairness first depends on achieving the other three goals.

Economic prosperity is a necessary precondition for sustainable poverty reduction, but this virus is apparently selective in its deadliness. Already vulnerable segments of our societies – the elderly, the immuno-compromised and, according to some recent evidence, ethnic minorities – are more at risk. They are also more likely to already be economically disadvantaged.

As a general rule, epidemics lead to more income inequality, as households with lower incomes endure the economic pain more acutely.

This pattern of increased vulnerability to shocks in poorer households is not unique to epidemics, but we expect it to be the case even more this time. In the COVID-19 pandemic, economic devastation has been caused by the lockdown measures imposed and adopted voluntarily, not by the disease itself.

These measures have been more harmful for those on lower wages, those with part-time or temporary jobs, and those who cannot easily work from home.

Many low-wage workers also work in industries that will be experiencing longer-term declines associated with the structural changes generated by the pandemic: the collapse of international tourism, for example, or automation and robotics being used to shorten long and complicated supply chains.

Read more: Defunding the WHO was a calculated decision, not an impromptu tweet

Poorer countries are in the worst position. The lockdowns hit their economies harder, but they do not have the resources for adequate public health measures, nor for assisting those most adversely affected.

In these places, even if the virus itself has not yet hit them much, the downturn will be experienced more deeply and for longer.

Worryingly, the international aid system that most poorer countries partially rely on to deal with disasters is not fit for dealing with pandemics. When all countries are adversely hit at the same time their focus inevitably becomes domestic.

Very few wealthy countries have announced any increases in international aid. If and when they have, the amounts were trivial – regrettably, this includes New Zealand. And the one international institution that should have led the charge, the World Health Organisation, is being defunded and attacked by its largest donor, the US.

Unlike after the 2004 tsunami, international rescue will be very slow to arrive. One would hope most wealthy countries will be able to help their most vulnerable members. But it looks increasingly unlikely this will happen on an international scale between countries.

Without global empathy and better global leadership, the poorest countries and poorest people will only be made poorer by this invisible enemy.

– ref. Rich and poor don’t recover equally from epidemics. Rebuilding fairly will be a global challenge – https://theconversation.com/rich-and-poor-dont-recover-equally-from-epidemics-rebuilding-fairly-will-be-a-global-challenge-138935

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

Trade tensions between Australia and China have escalated to the point where China has placed an 80.5% tariff on Australian barley imports, beginning this week.

China has been a huge market for Australian barley. It accounted for more than 70% of Australia’s exports between 2015 and 2018 and in 2016–17 it bought almost 6 million tonnes.

While China’s imports fell to 2.5 million tonnes last financial year, this was still more than half of Australia’s total barley exports, worth about A$600 million to Australian farmers.

The tariff on Australian barley won’t hurt China much. It can simply buy from other countries such as France, Russia, Argentina and Canada.

In terms of Australia’s total volume of exports (more than A$450 billion annually) the likely losses are not huge. But it is meaningful and painful to Australia’s barley industry.

It is important this matter be resolved.

But the broader issue is how to avoid ongoing conflict with our biggest trading partner. Doing that means understanding what the barley dispute is really about. Because it’s unlikely to really be about barley.

What is China upset about?

It would be reasonable to deduce China’s recent actions stem from Australia’s advocacy for an investigation into the source of the COVID-19 pandemic – something first raised by foreign minister Marise Payne and championed by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, along with the United States and other countries.

But there is a longer history of simmering tensions between the two nations.

There is, for example, Australia’s exclusion of Chinese company Huawei from building our 5G telecommunications network. This is a matter China’s ambassador to Australia, Cheng Jingye, called a “sore point and thorny issue” as recently as February.

Another view is that it is about trade issues – that China is accusing Australia of dumping in retaliation for Australia’s use of global anti-dumping provisions against China.

As pointed out by my colleague Weihuan Zhou:

Dumping is essentially price discrimination, in which a producer sells a product to an export market at a lower price than it sells it at home. As such, it is often condemned as ‘unfair trade practice’ which accords exporters a competitive advantage over producers of similar goods in the market of importation.

Australia has been a keen user of the World Trade Organisation’s rules against dumping. Many Chinese industries have been targeted under anti-dumping cases brought by Australia (and other countries), including steel, aluminium products, solar panels, and even copy paper.

So perhaps this is a case of “what goes around comes around”.

Read more: China used anti-dumping rules against us because what goes around comes around

In any event, it is shaping up to be a thorny issue for Australia.

Australia’s trade minister, Simon Birmingham, has rightly disagreed with China’s characterisation of Australia as dumping barley, saying: “We reject the basis of this decision and will be assessing the details of the findings while we consider the next steps”.

Australia will take this case to the WTO and argue it has not subsidised barley being exported. But these cases are tricky to prove, can take substantial time (likely more than a year and possibly much longer). In the meantime, China can impose duties, with dire consequences for imports of Australian barley.

Always in breach?

Precisely because it is difficult to determine the underlying economics of whether dumping is taking place, there is almost always an argument to be made that a country is dumping some product some of the time.

That leaves countries like China with a trigger to pull more or less any time they want.

Read more: Australia’s links with China must change, but decoupling is not an option

This is a similar trick to that used by authoritarian regimes to control their populations. If citizens have essentially always broken some obscure law on the books, they are free from prosecution only by the good grace of the regime in power.

One reading of events is that China is using a version of this tactic in international trade against Australia.

The importance of the WTO

All of this points to the importance of dispute resolution through international bodies.

Sure, anti-dumping cases may be tricky, but resolving such cases quicker would help prevent the threat of such cases being used as bargaining chips.

So, too, would a more precise set of economically based rules about what constitutes dumping in practice, and how to measure it robustly and transparently.

These are matters not only to be determined in free-trade deals between countries but also for international bodies like the WTO.

Read more: View from The Hill: Yes, we’re too dependent on China, but changing that is easier said than done

It is sometimes suggested there is little to do in this sphere, because trade barriers are now so low.

But making the rules more precise and the dispute resolution procedures more timely is certainly one area for improvement.

– ref. Vital Signs: Australian barley growers are the victims of weaponised trade rules – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-australian-barley-growers-are-the-victims-of-weaponised-trade-rules-139037

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yves Rees, Lecturer in History, La Trobe University

The origin story of Australian modernism often centres around Heide – the Melbourne artistic community where, from 1934, bohemian art patrons John and Sunday Reed nurtured talents such as Sidney Nolan, Albert Tucker, Joy Hester and John Perceval.

But nestled in the heart of Melbourne’s city laneways was another birthplace of Australian modernism. At 166 Little Collins Street, near the “Paris End” of Collins Street, was the Leonardo Art Shop – a bookshop that during the 1930s and 40s inspired a generation of young artists to create a homegrown avant-garde.

The bookshop was the creation of Gino Nibbi, born in Fermo, Italy, in 1896. Nibbi trained as an accountant, but his passion was modern art. He migrated to Melbourne with his wife in 1928 and established Leonardo Art Shop several months later.

First in Post Office Place, then on Little Collins Street behind King’s Theatre, Nibbi stocked the shelves with imported foreign-language books and colour prints of contemporary European paintings, exposing his customers to images and ideas never before seen in Australia. For the next two decades, Leonardo Art Shop – also known as Nibbi’s – was a “direct link to Europe” for artists and intellectuals ravenous for avant-garde culture.

An intellectual salon

Melbourne then was a far cry from today’s sophisticated and cosmopolitan metropolis. The interwar decades were the heyday of the White Australia policy, and the non-Indigenous population was calculated as 98% “British”. With little diversity and few outside influences, Melbourne was a staid and conservative city, suspicious of new ideas that might challenge the status quo. “The dictatorship of the smug” was how cultural critic P. R. Stephensen summed up the local culture in 1936.

In the art world, this conservatism manifested as a fierce antagonism towards the modernist aesthetics revolutionising art in Europe. Picasso, Matisse, Cezanne, Gauguin – artists we now revere as visionaries – were dismissed by Australian critics as degenerates whose abstracted and expressionist forms threatened the principles of academic painting.

Under the directorship of arch-conservative J. S. MacDonald, the National Gallery of Victoria refused to acquire post-Impressionist art (this position was slowly reversed when MacDonald was replaced in 1941). Throughout the 1930s, art world gatekeepers like MacDonald and critic Lionel Lindsay spurned modernism as an “imported and perverted art” hailing from “the dead hand of European decadence”.

Although local painters Arnold Shore and William “Jock” Frater had begun to experiment with modernism, the nationalist pastoral landscapes of Arthur Streeton and Hans Heysen remained the gold standard of Australian art. When Mary Cecil Allen returned home to Melbourne from New York in 1936, she was excoriated by local critics for exhibiting “distorted” and “bizarre” abstracts that exemplified “the superficial nature of modern painting”.

Melburnians were cut off from the latest artistic and cultural trends. Although mass media circulated modern ideas and aesthetics via design, advertising, cinema and magazines like The Home, the “high culture” fine art world remained wedded to 19th century ideals.

This is where Nibbi’s played a crucial role. Prior to the explosive 1939 Herald exhibition of contemporary European painting, Nibbi’s was the only place in Melbourne where it was possible to view high quality colour reproductions of post-Impressionist art.

Local artists flocked to Little Collins Street to feast on the latest Cezanne, Gauguin or Van Gogh prints newly arrived from Europe, marvelling at the bold colours and abstracted forms. Although the original artists were long dead, their work was little known in Australia. In 1930s Melbourne, avant-garde art from the late 1800s was still breaking news.

Future giants of Australian modernism – including Arthur Boyd, John Perceval, Russell Drysdale and Donald Friend – had their minds and eyes opened at Leonardo Art Shop. As the artist Len Crawford recalled, Nibbi’s had a “powerful effect” on local artists, introducing them to things “you’d never dreamed of”. Crawford regularly stopped by to pour over the displays. When funds allowed, he’d splash out on a six-penny postcard to take home.

The shop boasted an unparalleled range of books and magazines in German, French, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Norwegian and Dutch, as well as English works by risque writers such as Casanova and Norman Lindsay. A great supporter of the local literary scene, Nibbi stocked small poetry chapbooks, magazines and plays by Melbourne writers. For writer and broadcaster Alister Kershaw, Nibbi’s was simply “the most enchanting bookshop in the world”.

Meals and mentors

Nibbi’s was a gathering place and intellectual salon, where modernists-in-the-making could meet like-minded souls. Stimulated by the images on display, patrons would linger for hours, chewing over the latest trends in contemporary culture. Heide’s John Reed and poet and artist Adrian Lawlor were both regulars, haunting Nibbi’s to talk art, ideas and politics.

After working up an appetite, the Nibbi’s crowd would head to a Chinese cafe at 201 Lonsdale Street known as Dooey Din’s, the best place in town to catch up on art-world gossip. Also in the neighbourhood was Albert Tucker’s Little Collins Street studio and Cynthia Reed’s interior design shop. At 367 Little Collins, Cynthia Reed’s was notorious in the mid-1930s for exhibiting controversial modernists like Sam Atyeo. Just a few doors down was another independent bookshop, run by Margareta Webber, whose “delightful store” at 343 Little Collins sold imported literary fiction to a similar clientele as Nibbi’s.

Nibbi himself was a beloved figure, a polymath who knew everyone and – as artist Len Crowford put it – “had his fingers in everything”.

Nibbi mentored emerging painters, writers and musicians, providing an informal education in modern culture and giving feedback on their work. One of his greatest discoveries was the painter Ian Fairweather, who went on to have his first exhibition at Cynthia Reed’s in 1934. In Crawford’s words, Nibbi was a “most valuable man”, who “did more for general education in Melbourne than anyone I knew of”.

Alongside his wife Elvira, who taught Italian at the Melbourne Conservatorium and the Berlitz School of Languages, Nibbi was a leader in Melbourne’s Italian community. The couple even developed an Italian course for ABC radio, which broadcast on Saturday evenings. Nibbi promoted the Italian language through his Italian-English Reader, self-published in 1936.

The culture wars

Nibbi was an active critic who regularly went into battle for modern art in the press. As he wrote in the Melbourne Herald in 1931, modernism was not a “capricious vogue” but rather an “expression of the spirit of the time”.

He faced considerable resistance in the trenches of Australia’s culture wars. In 1930, he was fined £20 for importing an unnamed “obscene book”, while his art criticism attracted a barrage of reactionary ire.

Most notoriously, in 1937 Nibbi was thrown into the national spotlight when Australian customs seized 50 prints of Modigliani’s Lying Nude (1917) imported for sale at Leonardo Art Shop. Although Modigliani nudes hung in the world’s leading galleries, customs officials deemed the image pornographic and earmarked the prints for destruction. Officials feared the nude would “appeal to other than art collectors”.

This incident outraged artists and reignited a larger debate about censorship in Australian culture. The notoriously combative Adrian Lawlor leapt to Nibbi’s defence, condemning the “bumble-foots” with “ridiculous powers of censorship” working in the customs department. In his view, Modigliani’s nude was a great work of art, “entirely innocent of the least breath of pruriency”.

The Victorian Artists’ Society also protested the decision. In a letter to the customs minister, the society insisted Lying Nude contained “no hint of obscenity”, and was instead the work of a “consummate artist”.

Nibbi himself appealed the seizure of his prints, which he had obtained at great effort and expense during a visit to Italy. In November, the matter was referred to the Book Censorship Board, established in 1933 to advise the customs minister on the censorship of imported books. Under Section 52(a) of the Customs Act, anything judged blasphemous, indecent or obscene would be banned.

The archive is silent as to the board’s final decision regarding the Modigliani prints, but records in the National Archives of Australia suggest it was unmoved by artists’ protests. Although board member Sir Robert Garran admitted the original Modigliani painting was not obscene, he advised Customs that a “crude reproduction” sold at “picture-postcard price” would attract buyers more interested in titillation than “artistic merit”.

Nibbi was not cowed by the controversy. The following year, 1938, he helped establish the Contemporary Art Society alongside Lawlor and George Bell. It was a bold organisation that hosted exhibitions and public lectures about modern art. Over the next decade, the CAS battled against the Australian Academy of Art, a Canberra-based conservative stronghold established in 1937 that was much resented for – in Bell’s words – its “sanctification of banality” and “strict preservation of mediocrity”.

The end of an era

In 1947, the lease on Leonardo Art Shop was not renewed. Melburnians mourned the demise of a local institution that had “fostered a cosmopolitan atmosphere” and “didn’t bother with meretricious sidelines”. Unable to secure alternative premises, Nibbi returned to Italy, where he lived until his death in 1969.

He maintained links with Australia, a country he had come to love. In Rome, he opened a bookshop and art gallery called Ai Quattro Venti (To the Four Winds) that became popular with Australians visiting Europe. In 1952, Nibbi hosted a Sidney Nolan and Albert Tucker exhibition, introducing Australian modernism to Italian audiences.

In 2020, as our independent booksellers are threatened by coronavirus, it is timely to reflect on their importance to Australia’s cultural life.

In the internet age we’re no longer reliant on bookshops to bring news from overseas, but they remain vital incubators of fresh ideas and creative community.

Leonardo Art Shop seeded a homegrown modernism. Who knows what innovations our contemporary booksellers are bringing into life? We’ll only find out if we give them sufficient custom to survive the pandemic.

– ref. Friday essay: the Melbourne bookshop that ignited Australian modernism – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-melbourne-bookshop-that-ignited-australian-modernism-138300

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

Who’d be Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk right now?

Facing a tough election in October, Palaszczuk is coming under huge pressure to open the state’s borders, so visitors in search of winter sun can start to get the tourist industry back on its feet.

She’s in the sights not just of the federal government, with Peter Dutton (“a proud Queenslander”) leading the charge, but of NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian as well.

Palaszczuk so far is holding firm, saying she’ll follow the advice of her chief health officer, Jeannette Young. The border closure will be reviewed monthly; it could stay shut until September, and Young says possibly even longer. It depends on the number of active cases in NSW and Victoria, which have far more than Queensland.

It might be Queensland first opens up to South Australia and the Northern Territory before re-opening the border with NSW.

In political terms, Palaszczuk is on risky ground whatever she does.

Depriving the state’s economy of much-needed dollars will give ammunition to her opponents. On the other hand, if an open border led to a serious outbreak in a tourist centre, forcing fresh shut downs, she’d carry the blame.

It’s a dilemma to which there is no “correct” answer.

So far, Palaszczuk has voters’ support in how she’s handled the pandemic (although her government’s rating is lower than those of other state governments.)

In the Essential poll published this week, 66% of Queenslanders answered good or very good when asked “how would you rate your state government’s response to the Covid-19 outbreak?” In WA 86% rated the McGowan government’s performance positively. (The federal government received a tick from 73%.)

But voters are fickle, and opinions can change quickly.

We saw this over kids being in school. At first many parents insisted their children must stay home; after a few weeks they were pressing for schools to take them back.

The schools debate produced fault lines in the national cabinet, and now the row over borders is doing the same. That useful body remains intact, but this creates tensions, even though border policies are the decisions of individual states, not the collective.

The conflict might also be something of a reality check on the idea the national cabinet would enable a harmonious road to future economic reform.

A notable feature of the COVID federalism model is that under the national cabinet umbrella, line ups vary according to the issue.

Victoria (Labor) and NSW (Coalition) were the loudest in urging early heavy restrictions, including in relation to schools.

The Morrison government, with its eye on economics, instinctively preferred a lighter hand; it needed a shove to go further. Where it couldn’t be moved and the states had the power, they went their own ways.

On schools, Canberra was adamant – Scott Morrison always wanted them open. Similarly, Canberra wants borders opened.

The border issue sees another cross-party grouping. The Labor jurisdictions of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and the Liberal states of South Australia and Tasmania all have their borders closed.

NSW and Victoria have never gone down this path.

Berejiklian is pushing hard for a re-opening to promote recovery. She’s suggested WA premier Mark McGowan and Palaszczuk are courting popularity.

In the crossfire, McGowan has accused Berejiklian of bullying tactics, and hit where it hurts. “New South Wales had the Ruby Princess … And they are trying to give us advice on our borders, seriously?” he said this week. Palaszczuk said:“We are not going to be lectured to by a state that has the highest number of cases in Australia”.

As notable as the fracture among governments, is the very public division between the health experts.

We saw this on schools, where Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton took a much more conservative position than others.

While Young and WA chief health officer Andrew Robertson were adamant this week on keeping their respective borders shut for the time being, federal deputy chief medical officer Paul Kelly said “from a medical point of view, I can’t see why the borders are still closed”. (McGowan had earlier said:“I don’t know who Paul Kelly is – clearly not the singer”.)

Kelly said neither the national cabinet nor the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (that advises it) had made decisions or given advice on state borders. Decisions on what to do were entirely up to the states.

Both Young and Robertson are on the AHPPC, which is described as a “consensus body”. “We talked through these matters and we decided not to have a position on borders,” Kelly explained.

While it has been welcome in this crisis to see the politicians turning to the experts, we are now being sharply reminded experts can differ. How often have we heard from politicians in recent weeks, “We are relying on the medical advice.” But that doesn’t always lead in one direction, and “consensus” can be a useful concealer.

As the border argument intensifies the question of whether the closures are constitutional, canvassed early on in the crisis, has come back.

One Nation’s Pauline Hanson has accused Palaszczuk of “running roughshod over the constitution”, appealed for anyone affected who might want to mount a challenge to come forward, and said “I have a pro-bono, constitutional lawyer who will represent you in a High Court challenge under Section 92”.

Section 92of t iprovides for “trade, commerce, and intercourse among the states” to be “absolutely free”.

No one could be sure how, it there were a case, the High Court would rule. The Court in the past has recognised public health circumstances can justify measures that otherwise would breach section 92. But would special circumstances still apply when the virus threat had apparently receded?

Attorney-General Christian Porter has dodged on whether the border closure could be unconstitutional.

Porter, a Western Australian, has been measured on the issue itself. “These aren’t easy decisions for state premiers to make but there’s a health imperative, there’s an economic imperative and there are strict constitutional rules around what is permissible and impermissible”, he told a news conference on Thursday.

Porter no doubt has in mind the thread of isolationism traditionally running through his state’s thinking, and of the polling showing enormous support for the McGowan government’s COVID management.

The day before, Porter noted “that the federal government’s position, on a whole range of issues, is to be forward leaning and develop workarounds to get our economy moving again”.

Indeed. We can expect the Morrison government’s “forward leaning” will only increase in coming weeks, with its desperation to boost economic activity. Meanwhile, premiers might need their chill pills before they meet, virtually, at national cabinet next week.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Border wars split political leaders and embroil health experts – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-border-wars-split-political-leaders-and-embroil-health-experts-139124

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Musil, PhD Candidate, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

“In a world where the wealthy elite control the media, elections and lives of working people, we’re faced with two choices – accept it or fight for something better.”

That’s the premise of Tonight We Riot, a new video game for touted as a leftist response to the “neocon fantasies” like Call of Duty.

Too many games “enforce this idea that the very best way to make the world a better place is by massive military force, that you don’t need organisation and societal change”, developer Stephen Meyer has explained. “In our tiny little way, we were trying to be an answer to that.”

But it’s a seductively simplistic answer for anyone serious about worker liberation in 2020.

Tonight We Riot is “an explosive crowd brawler with retro vibes”. It’s a revolutionary fantasy in which worker liberation is achieved through violent street battles.

Sure, it’s fun. But some might think this fantasy epitomises the modern movement for worker liberation.

It doesn’t.

Rather than dreaming of some wild uprising, many are implementing a quiet grassroots revolution. They are getting on with addressing the key problem told by Tonight We Riot: “Those who do not own the means of production will never know real freedom.”

A solution to not owning the means of production is to own it, through democratic and worker-owned enterprises.

Cooperation in practice

Worker-owned enterprises, like other kinds of cooperative and mutual enterprises, are neither new nor untested. They draw on internationally recognised principles and practices developed over several centuries.

However these ideas, especially in the 20th century, were often overshadowed by proposals to seize the means of production by force.

Read more: Coronavirus: democracy is the missing link in EU recovery plans

Cooperative principles, on the other hand, are opposed to coercion. Their agenda isn’t to simply smash capitalism but build something better.

The Mondragon example

One of the better known examples of a worker ownership is in Mondragón, in the Basque region. This area was ravaged by the Spanish Civil War and then neglected by the victorious regime of Francisco Franco.

In 1956 a handful of workers established a cooperative that has grown into the Mondragón Corporation, a network of more than 100 cooperatives employing and empowering about 82,000 workers.

These cooperatives include Caja Laboral, a co-operative bank; Orbea, Spain’s largest bicycle maker; and Eroski, one of Spain’s biggest supermarket chains.

Mondragón’s successes demonstrate the virtues of economic democracy. Yet worker co-operatives remain relatively unknown. In part, this is because both news and entertainment media prefer the drama of conflict and competition over cooperation.

Our research, however, suggests worker ownership should be a central plank to rebuild more sustainable, equal and resilient post-COVID-19 economies.

Labour hires capital

A capitalist business is owned by whoever puts up the money. Capital employs labour. The point is to make a profit for the owner/s.

In a worker-owned enterprise, labour hires capital. The workers are the shareholders. The point is to provide dignified work that supports workers and society at large.

In most other respects the business models are similar. Both need a viable turnover and have boards of directors. But in the worker-owned business the workers elect the board, and maximising profit comes second to providing livelihoods and serving the community.

Jobs come first

As a result, worker-owned co-operatives are more responsive than purely for-profit business to the communities and environments in which they operate. They create social trust more quickly and foster worker innovation. They don’t send their own jobs offshore.

Cooperatives are also generally more resilient during tough economic times.

During past economic difficulties, co-operatives within the Mondragon network have prioritised saving jobs by worker-owners voting to forsake dividends or accept lower pay instead of seeing co-workers sacked.

The support the cooperative give each other is also crucial. In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, for example, one of the network’s largest and oldest co-ops (Fagor, a white-goods manufacturer) failed (one of a few to ever do so). The Mondragon network responded by retraining and finding jobs with other co-operatives for the 2,000 affected workers.

Read more: The Mondragon model: how a Basque cooperative defied Spain’s economic crisis

Responding to crisis

Crises can also spur the establishment of worker cooperatives.

During Argentina’s economic crisis in the early 2000s, workers took over bankrupt and abandoned businesses and ran them as “worker-recuperated enterprises”.

One of the best-known is Hotel Bauen in Buenos Aires, which went bust in late 2001. In 2003 former hotel staff occupied the shuttered building and began running it themselves. It is still going.

As of 2018, Argentina had about 400 recuperated enterprises. These provided livelihoods to 16,000 workers in industries from metallurgy to textiles and education.

Our research in Argentina shows democratic enterprises pay workers equally, open premises up to community initiatives, and direct their surpluses into local development.

Their response to the COVID-19 pandemic is notable too, with a number converting their operations to produce medical supplies.

Read more: Canada’s co-operatives: Helping communities during and after the coronavirus

Worker cooperatives in Australia

Australia has a long tradition of consumer cooperatives, particularly in financial services and agriculture. But worker cooperatives remain few in number. Three examples are:

Though the ethos of cooperation is self-help, government policies play a critical role in their establishment and growth.

Many people would like to start a cooperative. But they need help with business skills and access to capital.

Countries with more developed cooperative sector give such support. Italy, for example, has laws to encourage “negotiated conversions” of businesses to cooperatives. This includes funding to assist worker buyouts and training in business management skills, as well the skills required for democratic decision-making.

Both federal and state governments need to ensure laws and business support programs don’t exclude the needs of cooperatives. Specific support for start-up funds, education and training is key.

Read more: Giving workers a voice in the boardroom is a compelling corporate governance reform

More generally, the cooperative movement is also impeded by a lack of public awareness. In a 2017 survey, for example, just 47% of Australians said they had heard of co-operatives or mutual enterprises, yet 85% were actually members of one.

Ironically, the developers of Tonight We Riot, Pixel Pushers Union 512, are also organised as a worker co-operative.

Perhaps the principles of co-operative and mutual enterprise would not have made for a headline-grabbing video game. But unlike dreams of street-fought revolution, the work of creating more democratic workplaces and economies is already underway. It is as important as ever.

– ref. Tonight we riot? What Nintendo’s ‘revolutionary’ video game misses about worker liberation – https://theconversation.com/tonight-we-riot-what-nintendos-revolutionary-video-game-misses-about-worker-liberation-136254

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Teresa G. Carvalho, Senior Lecturer in Microbiology, La Trobe University

The White House’s confirmation that US President Donald Trump has been taking hydroxychloroquine every day for the past two weeks, with his doctor’s blessing, has reignited the controversy over the drug. It has long been used against malaria but has not been approved for COVID-19.

Trump said he has “heard a lot of good stories” about hydroxychloroquine, and incorrectly claimed there is no evidence of harmful side-effects from taking it. His previous claims in March that the drug could be a “game changer” in the pandemic prompted many people, including Australian businessman and politician Clive Palmer, to suggest stockpiling and distribution of the drug to the public.

But the dangers of acting on false or incomplete health information were underlined by the death of an Arizona man in March after inappropriate consumption of the related drug chloroquine. It’s important to know the real science behind the touted health benefits.

How do these medicines work?

Hydroxychloroquine is an analogue of chloroquine, meaning both compounds have similar chemical structures and a similar mode of action against malaria. Both medications are administered orally and have common side-effects such as nausea, diarrhoea and muscle weakness. However, hydroxychloroquine is less toxic, probably because it is easier for the body to metabolise.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are listed by the World Health Organisation as an essential medicine. Both drugs have been used to treat malaria for more than 70 years, and hydroxychloroquine has also proved effective against auto-immune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved both chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for treating malaria, but not for COVID-19.

Read more: In the rush to innovate for COVID-19 drugs, sound science is still essential

We don’t know exactly how these drugs work to combat the malaria parasite. But we know chloroquine disrupts the parasite’s digestive enzymes by altering the pH inside the parasite cell, presumably effectively starving it to death.

Malaria parasites and coronaviruses are very different organisms. So how can the same drugs work against both? In lab studies, chloroquine hinders replication of the SARS coronavirus, apparently by changing the pH inside particular parts of human cells where the virus replicates.

This offers a glimmer of hope that these pH changes inside cells could hold the key to thwarting such different types of pathogens.

Is it OK to repurpose drugs like this?

Existing drugs can be extremely valuable in an emergency like a pandemic, because we already know the maximum dose and any potential toxic side-effects. This gives us a useful basis on which to consider using them for a new purpose. Chloroquine is also cheap to manufacture, and has already been widely used in humans.

But we shouldn’t be complacent. There are significant gaps in our understanding of the biology of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, because it is a brand new virus. There is a 20% genetic difference between SARS-CoV-2 and the previous SARS coronavirus, meaning we should not assume a drug shown to act against SARS will automatically work for SARS-CoV-2.

Even in its primary use against malaria, long-term chloroquine exposure can lead to increased risks such as vision impairment and cardiac arrest. Hydroxychloroquine offers a safer treatment plan with reduced tablet dosages and lessened side-effects. But considering their potentially lethal cardiovascular side-effects, these drugs are especially detrimental to those who are overweight or have pre-existing heart conditions. Despite the urgent need to confront COVID-19, we need to tread carefully when using existing medicines in new ways.

Any medication that has not been thoroughly tested for the disease in question can have seriously toxic side-effects. What’s more, different diseases may require different doses of the same drug. So we would need to ensure any dose that can protect against SARS-CoV-2 would actually be safe to take.

The evidence so far

Although many clinical trials are under way, there is still not enough evidence chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine will be useful against COVID-19. The few trials completed and published so far, despite claiming positive outcomes, have been either small and poorly controlled or lacking in detail.

A recent hydroxychloroquine trial in China showed no significant benefits for COVID-19 patients’ recovery rate. A French hydroxychloroquine trial was similarly discouraging, with eight patients prematurely discontinuing the treatment after heart complications.

The fascination with chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine has also adversely affected other drug trials. Clinical trials of other possible COVID-19 treatments, including HIV drugs and antidepressants, have seen reduced enrolments. Needless to say, in a pandemic we should not be putting all our eggs in one basket.

Then there is the issue of chloroquine hoarding, which not only encourages dangerous self-medication, but also puts malaria patients at greater risk. With malaria transmission season looming in some countries, the anticipated shortage of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine will severely impact current malaria control efforts.

Read more: Coronavirus: scientists promoting chloroquine and remdesivir are acting like sports rivals

Overall, despite their tantalising promise as antiviral drugs, there isn’t enough evidence chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are safe and suitable to use against COVID-19. The current preliminary data need to be backed up by multiple properly designed clinical trials that monitor patients for prolonged periods.

During a pandemic there is immense pressure to find drugs that will work. But despite Trump’s desperation for a miracle cure, the risks of undue haste are severe.

This article was coauthored by Liana Theodoridis, an Honours student in Microbiology at La Trobe University.

– ref. Donald Trump is taking hydroxychloroquine to ward off COVID-19. Is that wise? – https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-is-taking-hydroxychloroquine-to-ward-off-covid-19-is-that-wise-139031

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Noble, Education Policy Fellow, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

This week, the federal government released a review of a relief package it put in place in April to ensure the early childhood education and care sector remained financially viable and children of essential workers, as well as vulnerable children, could continue to attend.

The review said in the week the relief package was announced

30% of providers faced closure due to a massive, shock withdrawal of families and another 25% of providers were not sure they could ever recover, even once the virus crisis has passed.

Under the emergency arrangements, the government is paying 50% of a childcare provider’s fee revenue up to the existing hourly rate cap, based on the enrolment numbers before parents started withdrawing their children because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Childcare centres are prohibited from charging families an out-of-pocket fee, with the rest of their costs expected to be recouped through JobKeeper. Or they can limit costs by restricting the number of children in care, while prioritising children of essential workers.

On the release of the review of the scheme – due to end on June 28 – education minister Dan Tehan said the plan had “done its job” with 99% of services remaining open, and most providers saying the emergency response has helped with financial viability.

Read more: Morrison has rescued childcare from COVID-19 collapse – but the details are still murky

The package is far from perfect, and has helped most early childhood services but not all. The review reports a survey of around 54% of providers found the new payment had “at least to some extent” helped 86% of them stay open and retain staff and 76% to “remain financially viable”.

In early May, one provider of aged, disability and early childhood services, Uniting NSW and ACT, reported it was losing A$1 million a month under the scheme.

Other centres reporting heavy losses include those with high numbers of children attending already, and those where a high number of staff aren’t eligible for JobKeeper, such as if they are casuals or on temporary visas.

Some who are unhappy with the current arrangements want to revert to the previous system now. Others say a preemptive snap-back would be a big mistake, risking a second existential threat to the sector.

Dan Tehan has said the government is working on a transition back to the old system which “was working effectively”.

As we navigate uncharted territories over the coming months, the needs and vulnerabilities of children, families and the early childhood education and care workforce must also be at the forefront of our thinking.

Why we can’t just ‘snap back’

One of the main arguments for snapping back to the old system is based on increasing demand for services over the past month. But what if this demand is driven by childcare being free, and withers away once fees are reintroduced, when families are forced to cut costs?

COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in skyrocketing unemployment and underemployment. For many families, the transition back to work may be irregular and unpredictable. A sharp ending of the emergency measures may leave many families unable to access care when they need to get back to work.

On top of this, children’s routines have been disrupted, increasing levels of isolation and anxiety. Many children not previously considered vulnerable will now fall into this category, or become potentially vulnerable.

High quality early childhood education can help reduce the risk of vulnerability.

Read more: 1 in 5 kids start school with health or emotional difficulties that challenge their learning

Meanwhile, early childhood providers are navigating rapid changes to attendance, staffing, funding and revenue. Under current arrangements, they are managing a steady growth in demand and a known stream of income. Reverting to the previous system will introduce a high degree of uncertainty.

It will also take time and careful planning to define a way forward for the complex diversity of early childhood services. The report on the rescue package highlights how different types of services have experienced COVID-19 in different ways: while 80% of centre-based child care services reported steep declines in attendance, only around half of home-based family day care services did so.

Early childhood educators are also in a tenuous position. They are among the lowest-paid Australians, with high levels of casual employment. Staff turnover is high, which undermines delivery of quality education, given the critical importance of secure relationships to children’s early learning and development.

Funding certainty in the coming months will support job security, which benefits children as well as workers.

A slow transition is the best

Governments’ short-term focus must be on balancing the needs of children and families with economic recovery. This may begin with a gradual return to something like the previous system, adjusted to meet our changed needs.

The current arrangements could be continued until September, followed by a gradual reduction, rather than a rapid rollback. After that we need some simple changes at a minimum:

1. suspend the activity test, to remove the link between parents’ work or study situation and children’s access, so all families and children can access early childhood services

2. allow increased absences, so families have the flexibility to keep their children home when they are unwell

3. improve affordability, with increases to childcare subsidy rates at all income levels to a cap

4. prioritise the needs of children most at risk, to ensure access for the most vulnerable children.

We must also plan for longer-term reform to build a more stable and sustainable early childhood sector for all Australian children, which is less likely to need rescuing in the event of future shocks. With the rescue package generating calls to permanently remove fees for early childhood services, governments need to remain open to more ambitious reforms in future.

Read more: Quality childcare has become a necessity for Australian families, and for society. It’s time the government paid up

– ref. Childcare is critical for COVID-19 recovery. We can’t just snap back to ‘normal’ funding arrangements – https://theconversation.com/childcare-is-critical-for-covid-19-recovery-we-cant-just-snap-back-to-normal-funding-arrangements-139027

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Mountain, Director, Victoria Energy Policy Centre, Victoria University

The controversial Snowy 2.0 project has mounted a major hurdle after the New South Wales government today announced approval for its main works.

The pumped hydro venture in southern NSW will pump water uphill into dams and release it when electricity demand is high. The federal government says it will act as a giant battery, backing up intermittent energy from by wind and solar.

We and others have criticised the project on several grounds. Here are six reasons we think Snowy 2.0 should be shelved.

1. It’s really expensive

The federal government announced the Snowy 2.0 project without a market assessment, cost-benefit analysis or indeed even a feasibility study.

When former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull unveiled the Snowy expansion in March 2017, he said it would cost A$2 billion and be commissioned by 2021. This was revised upwards several times and in April last year, Snowy Hydro awarded a A$5.1 billion contract for partial construction.

Snowy Hydro has not costed the transmission upgrades on which the project depends. TransGrid, owner of the grid in NSW, has identified options including extensions to Sydney with indicative costs up to A$1.9 billion. Massive extensions south, to Melbourne, will also be required but this has not been costed.

2. It will increase greenhouse gas emissions

Both Snowy Hydro Ltd and its owner, the federal government, say the project will help expand renewable electricity generation. But it won’t work that way. For at least the next couple of decades, analysis suggests Snowy 2.0 will store coal-fired electricity, not renewable electricity.

Snowy Hydro says it will pump the water when a lot of wind and solar energy is being produced (and therefore when wholesale electricity prices are low).

Read more: Snowy 2.0 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing – it will push carbon emissions up, not down

But wind and solar farms produce electricity whenever the resource is available. This will happen irrespective of whether Snowy 2.0 is producing or consuming energy.

When Snowy 2.0 pumps water uphill to its upper reservoir, it adds to demand on the electricity system. For the next couple of decades at least, coal-fired electricity generators – the next cheapest form of electricity after renewables – will provide Snowy 2.0’s power. Snowy Hydro has denied these claims.

3. It will deliver a fraction of the energy benefits promised

Snowy 2.0 is supposed to store renewable energy for when it is needed. Snowy Hydro says the project could generate at its full 2,000 megawatt capacity for 175 hours – or about a week.

But the maximum additional pumped hydro capacity Snowy 2.0 can create, in theory, is less than half this. The reasons are technical, and you can read more here.

It comes down to a) the amount of time and electricity required to replenish the dam at the top of the system, and b) the fact that for Snowy 2.0 to operate at full capacity, dams used by the existing hydro project will have to be emptied. This will result in “lost” water and by extension, lost electricity production.

4. Native fish may be pushed to extinction

Snowy 2.0 involves building a giant tunnel to connect two water storages – the Tantangara and Talbingo reservoirs. By extension, the project will also connect the rivers and creeks connected to these reservoirs.

A small, critically endangered native fish, the stocky galaxias, lives in a creek upstream of Tantangara. This is the last known population of the species.

An invasive native fish, the climbing galaxias, lives in the Talbingo reservoir. Water pumped from Talbingo will likely transfer this fish to Tantangara.

From here, the climbing galaxias’ capacity to climb wet vertical surfaces would enable it to reach upstream creeks and compete for food with, and prey on, stocky galaxias – probably pushing it into extinction.

Snowy 2.0 is also likely to spread two other problematic species – redfin perch and eastern gambusia – through the headwaters of the Murrumbidgee, Snowy and Murray rivers.

Read more: Snowy 2.0 threatens to pollute our rivers and wipe out native fish

5. It’s a pollution risk

Snowy Hydro says its environmental impact statement addresses fish transfer impacts, and potentially serious water quality issues.

Four million tonnes of rock excavated to build Snowy 2.0 would be dumped into the two reservoirs. The rock will contain potential acid-forming minerals and other harmful substances, which threaten to pollute water storages and rivers downstream.

When the first stage of the Snowy Hydro project was built, comparable rocks were dumped in the Tooma River catchment. Research in 2006 suggested the dump was associated with eradication of almost all fish from the Tooma River downstream after rainfall.

6. Other options were not explored

Many competing alternatives can provide storage far more flexibly for a fraction of Snowy 2.0’s price tag. These alternatives would also have far fewer environmental impacts or development risks, in most cases none of the transmission costs and all could be built much more quickly.

Expert analysis in 2017 identified 22,000 potential pumped hydro energy storage sites across Australia.

Other alternatives include chemical batteries, encouraging demand to follow supply, gas or diesel generators, and re-orienting more solar capacity to capture the sun from the east or west, not just mainly the north.

Where to now?

The federal government, which owns Snowy Hydro, is yet to approve the main works.

Given the many objections to the project and how much has changed since it was proposed, we strongly believe it should be put on hold, and scrutinised by independent experts. There’s too much at stake to get this wrong.

Read more: Five gifs that explain how pumped hydro actually works

– ref. NSW has approved Snowy 2.0. Here are six reasons why that’s a bad move – https://theconversation.com/nsw-has-approved-snowy-2-0-here-are-six-reasons-why-thats-a-bad-move-139112