Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ash Porter, Research officer, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity

Bird flu has been causing growing concern in recent months, with hundreds of millions of birds dying of the virus since October 2021. This is the largest global outbreak.

Last week, an 11-year-old child in Cambodia died from bird flu, prompting concern about spillover from wild birds and poultry to humans. But the cases we’ve seen in Cambodia are a different bird flu strain to that causing the massive bird deaths around the world.

While a small proportion of people have become ill while in contact with infected birds, there is no evidence either strain has spread from human to human.

Read more:
What is spillover? Bird flu outbreak underscores need for early detection to prevent the next big pandemic

What is bird flu?

Many types of bird flu naturally circulate in wild birds. These are generally low pathogenic avian influenza viruses (LPAI), which typically cause few or no signs of disease.

However, some viruses are classified as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and this is the case for the virus causing the global bird flu outbreak.

Avian influenza viruses are also categorised by subtype (creating the H and N number combination, here H5N1) and specific clades within the H5 subtype (equivalent to SARS-CoV-2 variants). The one we’re currently concerned about is H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b.

The current strain of bird flu emerged in 2020/21, and spread rapidly causing outbreaks in Europe and Asia. The virus spread to North America in December 2021, causing substantial outbreaks in wild birds and poultry since.

The virus entered South America in December 2022, with catastrophic outbreaks in wild birds and marine mammals.

Only Australia and the Antarctic remain free.

How does it get to humans?

The virus which causes bird flu is the same species that causes seasonal human influenza, swine influenza, equine influenza, and canine influenza, although different subtypes and strains are involved.

However, viruses are able to jump the species barrier. This is called “spillover”. We see strains of human influenza in Australian pigs, for example, and some strains of canine influenza originated in horses. There is also evidence that human flu strains emerged from birds.

Scientists are concerned about the large numbers of spillover events with this strain of bird flu. Cases have been detected in marine mammals in Peru and New England, wild foxes, skunks, otters, bobcats, bears and raccoons in North America and other countries, and in farmed mink in Spain.

What’s happening in Cambodia?

Last week, a child with H5N1 died in the Prey Veng province of Cambodia. Of 12 contacts identified, only one tested positive: the child’s parent, who is currently asymptomatic.

Both infections appear to be due to exposure to infected birds, which were found on the family’s property. Human-to-human transmission is unlikely.

Rapid genetic sequencing of the virus determined it was a lineage commonly found in Cambodia (2.3.2.1c), and distinct from the clade 2.3.4.4b lineage causing concerns globally.

This is not the first report of spillover into humans. Recently a child in Ecuador was infected with 2.3.4.4b, most likely originating from sick poultry. Human cases due to 2.3.4.4 have occured in Russia, China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, Vietnam. So far, all human cases have occurred in people exposed to infected birds.

Spillover events like these occur when people are in contact with sick birds. Thankfully, spillover events do not often lead to human-to-human transmission of the virus.

However, if the virus develops the capability to spread in a new host, then outbreaks (and even pandemics) can occur. Scientists are closely monitoring for any evidence of bird flu adapting and spreading between mammals including humans.

Read more:
Bird flu continues to spread in mammals – what this means for humans and wildlife

Why (and how) do viruses switch hosts?

As part of their natural evolution, some viruses are particularly good at “jumping” to new hosts. For example, mpox (which used to be called monkeypox) and SARS-CoV-2 are both zoonotic viruses.

It is thought that mpox naturally infects rodents. Mpox spills over into humans every few years, including a spillover last year that has continued into a widespread, ongoing outbreak.

We expect the ancestral lineage of SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in bat populations before it spilled over into humans. SARS-CoV-2 might have infected an intermediate host before jumping into the human population, picking up some advantageous mutations that allowed it to spread rapidly in humans. Several animals have been suggested as potential intermediate hosts, including mink and pangolins.

Based on genomic surveillance, cases of bird flu in mammals almost always contain the same mutation. There is concern that further mutations may arise when circulating in an intermediate host which may allow the virus to better transmit between mammals, such as the spillover in mink farms, where mink-to-mink transmission was suspected to have occurred.

To date, the risk of human-to-human transmission of bird flu remains low. But as ferrets (which are related to minks) are a model animal for influenza infection in humans, if mink-to-mink transmission occurred on the farm in Spain, human-to-human transmission is plausible.

What might happen next?

Climate change and urbanisation are pushing humans and wildlife closer together, meaning there is more opportunity to interact with infected animals.

Our history of influenza pandemics caused by viruses with combinations of swine, avian and human influenza A virus genes shows we need consistent and ongoing surveillance of influenza A viruses, particularly in farms along with wild-living and captive animal populations.

Government agencies and researchers across the globe are actively working on detection, response and genomic surveillance of bird flu outbreaks in birds and mammals. Genomic sequencing and surveillance can help inform us about where viruses are spreading, and how viruses is adapting to new hosts.

The World Organization for Animal Health recommends avoiding direct contact with sick or dead wild birds, poultry and wild animals and reporting outbreaks to local authorities.

Read more:
Bird flu: domestic chicken keepers could be putting themselves – and others – at risk

Michelle Wille receives funding from the Australian Research Council and is a member of the National Avian Influenza Wild Bird Steering Group.

Ash Porter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. When should we worry about bird flu making us sick? When we see human-to-human transmission – and there’s no evidence of that yet – https://theconversation.com/when-should-we-worry-about-bird-flu-making-us-sick-when-we-see-human-to-human-transmission-and-theres-no-evidence-of-that-yet-200710

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rowan Foley, CEO of Aboriginal Carbon Foundation, Indigenous Knowledge

The Albanese government is embarking on a suite of environmental reforms: beefing up Australia’s carbon credit scheme, and establishing a market to fund environmental restoration. These big policy changes may seek to justify colonial practices imposed on First Nations people and their country.

Both reforms require land owned by Indigenous Australians. First Nations peoples hold tenure over 54% of Australia’s landmass – including native title and freehold, and other interests such as pastoral leases. First Nations people also manage almost half of Commonwealth parks and reserves.

The global response to the climate crisis will require a great deal of land, including for carbon abatement and nature repair. But First Nations people cannot be locked away from this land. They must be allowed to benefit from it, in a way that’s environmentally and economically sustainable.

And land needs people to care for it – to reduce the risk of destructive bushfires, control weeds and feral animals, and improve soil health.

First Nations people should have a real say in decisions affecting them and their Country. Here, we look at how the above policy-making efforts measure up.

The Chubb review: a welcome sign of progress

The independent Chubb Review of Australia’s carbon credit system was released in December. The review, commissioned by the Albanese government, investigated the issuing of credits under the Emissions Reduction Fund, a national scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In a welcome acknowledgement, the review stated:

First Nations Australians hold deep knowledge and understanding of Healthy Country, informed by thousands of years of observation and stewardship of local ecosystems, and passed down through many generations.

The review called for a number of substantial changes, including several involving First Nations rights. We believe these measures, if implemented, will strengthen the carbon industry and First Nations engagement in the carbon economy.

Significantly, the review reiterated that First Nations Australians people should to participate in and benefit from the carbon credit scheme – a concept known as “core benefits”.

Core benefits occur when a project leads to carbon abatement, and delivers environmental, social, cultural and employment benefits to First Nations people and others.

The long overdue principle of free, prior and informed consent has now also been adopted. This includes removing the option to conditionally register carbon abatement projects on Native Title lands before consent is granted.

The review also recommends that at least one member of an important new committee be a First Nations Australian with relevant experience. This is a welcome development, although it begs the question: why just one?

To properly reflect the importance of First Nations land and knowledge, surely at least half the members on important committees should be First Nations people.

Read more:
Australia’s agriculture sector sorely needs more insights from First Nations people. Here’s how we get there

Nature repair market: room for improvement

Another major national reform on the cards is the Nature Repair Market Bill. The legislation, if passed, would establish a scheme whereby landholders who restore or manage habitat would be rewarded with “certificates” which can then be sold on a market.

A fact sheet accompanying the bill highlights the importance of First Nations knowledge. And we welcome the requirement for consent from native titleholders for any project.

Unfortunately, though, the bill fails to build in an Indigenous understanding of land management.

For example, it does not include a mechanism to measure “core benefits” as described above – nor does it provide a framework for Indigenous-led verification of the environmental, social and cultural values associated with community and economic development programs.

Additionally, only one position on the Nature Repair Market Committee is made available to a person “with Indigenous Knowledge”.

These are serious failings. As a group of experts said in a submission to the recent royal commission into natural disasters, First Nations people have managed Australian landscapes for more than 65,000 years using highly effective holistic land management practices. As the submission stated, these methods:

have been the result of intimate knowledge of Country developed over many, many millennia of careful observation, continual interaction and active custodianship.

The best known example of this knowledge is “cultural burning” – the First Nations practice of burning Country for environmental, cultural and regenerative benefits.

All Australians benefit when First Nations people contribute their highly nuanced land management expertise to climate and environmental protection schemes.

The bill has missed an opportunity to draw on First Nations expertise in improving biodiversity and healing our climate. To address this, it must draw on the wealth of First Nations knowledge and experience of managing Country. This requires putting Indigenous decision-making at the centre of the policy’s development.

Read more:
Friday essay: how ancient beliefs in underwater worlds can shed light in a time of rising sea levels

Eradicating eco-colonialism

There’s currently much talk about the need to involve First Nations people when devising policy reform. In policy circles, this is known as “co-design”.

In our experience, however, the process usually involves only superficial amendments so a policy appears to include Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing – yet allowing the dominant Western framework to persist. All too often, the resulting policy does not serve the interests or reflect the knowledge of First Nations people.

At worst, the Aboriginal art on the cover of a policy document may be the only expression of “co-design”. A stench of tokenism persists. We call this the “eco-colonial elephant in the room”.

Instead, governments and First Nations people should share decision-making in a process in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous worldviews have equal billing.

Because when it comes to tackling the most pressing environmental issues of our time, we must embrace an “us and us” ideology that draws on the best ideas and most valuable experiences – locking the eco-colonial elephant out of the room once and for all.

Read more:
65,000-year-old plant remains show the earliest Australians spent plenty of time cooking

Lisa McMurray is the Learning and Program Development Manager at the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation.

Lily O’Neill and Rowan Foley do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘A stench of tokenism’: how environmental reforms ignore First Nations knowledge – https://theconversation.com/a-stench-of-tokenism-how-environmental-reforms-ignore-first-nations-knowledge-198393

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

There is a story doing the media rounds that international students – particularly from China – will now “flood” back to Australia. It is claimed this will push up already high rents for scarce housing in our major cities.

This story is one of three myths that risk setting up international students as scapegoats for Australia’s ongoing housing crisis. However, immigration data and our monitoring of social media, where international students share their experiences, simply don’t support these narratives.

Indeed, these students’ social media posts highlight the challenges they are facing, including scams that seek to exploit their difficulties in securing accommodation.

Read more:
As international students flock back, they face even worse housing struggles than before COVID

What’s behind this story?

Part of this story stems from a Chinese government announcement in January that students will no longer have their degrees certified if they study online. This means students who have been studying with our institutions while based in China during the pandemic are being encouraged to return to campus.

The announcement was made less than two weeks before the start of the university year. It left students and institutions rushing to make sense of the change.

Media reports have since warned “more than 40,000 Chinese students” are about to arrive in Australia as a result. This has heightened fears about their impact on rents.

We use AI technology to listen to what international students are talking about on open online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and online forums. We also monitor Chinese platforms such as Weibo. We read comments students make about media posts to determine their reactions to events and issues.

We also monitor what Australians are saying about international students on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. This allows us to understand how the local community is responding to international students and to better understand the challenges students are facing.

Lately we are seeing negative sentiment on social media towards international students in Australian cities. Some claim these students pose a risk to local housing security. For example, one post reads:

Australia more interested in housing overseas students in high rise dog boxes than in its own residents.

Another reads:

All these international students taking up homes meant for Australians. Why aren’t Aussies being prioritised here?

Fears like these are being fuelled by three key myths that are increasingly circulating during the rental crisis.

Myth 1: 40,000 arrivals from China are imminent

Many of Australia’s international students have already arrived in time for the university year. As for Chinese international students who are currently offshore, myriad challenges are delaying their return to Australia. These include high airfares, visa delays, Australia’s requirement they provide evidence of a negative COVID-19 test and difficulties leaving jobs they have in China.

Australia’s housing crisis is being widely reported on Chinese social media. Students are actively talking about difficulties with accommodation and are worried about arriving without first securing a bed. One student’s post directed towards the Chinese government, “Are you asking us to sleep under the Sydney Harbour Bridge?”, attracted hundreds of reactions.

At a recent Senate estimates hearing, the Department of Home Affairs confirmed there had not been a significant spike in visa applications since the Chinese government’s announcement. A full return of students to Australia’s universities is not expected until later in 2023.

Read more:
International students are returning to Australia, but they are mostly going to more prestigious universities

Myth 2: all these students can afford inner-city apartments

Survey analysis by global education services provider Navitas recently found the cost of study has risen from the fifth-most-important consideration to the second-most-important consideration for Chinese students deciding where to study abroad.

While some students may be able to afford top-price inner-city living, many can’t. And many of those who are already here are struggling with the cost of living. As one student posted:

It already costs so much for us to pursue studies in Australia but now it costs much more to afford basic needs. Already on loan and not all of us students come from rich families. I hope this is raised and some help is offered to those of us who are struggling.

The cost of living in the inner city is leading students to seek advice online from their peers in Australia about living in suburbs further away from campus. There is a need for information to be provided to these students about alternative suburbs, including travel times and facilities, along with reassurances about safety and cost.

Read more:
Australia wants international students to stay and work after graduation. They find it difficult for 4 reasons

Myth 3: students can walk into properties

International students who have not been in Australia for the past few years lack the rental and financial history that landlords require. Online, students talk about feeling discriminated against, with landlords considering them “high risk”.

Some students recount being asked for two or three months’ rent in advance to secure a property. Others are voicing fears about being scammed as a result of their lack of a paper trail.

I was asked to pay 2 months rent on top of my bond to secure a spot. I was told international students are not trustworthy so they required more payment upfront. Is this legal?

In recent weeks, various scams targeting international students have been aired on social media. These range from “fake” real estate agents requesting hefty deposits, and agents charging a month’s rent to “hold” the property, to threatening students who do not comply that this will slow down visa processing.

In response, the Chinese consulate in Sydney has issued a warning to students. The notice urged students to be wary of rental scams and to take care to ensure their safety and security in their dwellings.

The return of international students is an important sign of economic and urban recovery in Australia. Students support local economies as tourists, consumers, taxpayers and a vital source of labour.

Unless the challenges they face on their return are seen and addressed, we risk this group of young people being turned into scapegoats for a housing crisis that is the result of domestic policy failures over many years.

Read more:
The market has failed to give Australians affordable housing, so don’t expect it to solve the crisis

Angela Lehmann works for The Lygon Group.

– ref. ‘Are you asking us to sleep under the Harbour Bridge?’: 3 myths about international students and the housing crisis – https://theconversation.com/are-you-asking-us-to-sleep-under-the-harbour-bridge-3-myths-about-international-students-and-the-housing-crisis-200274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Howard, Senior Lecturer, Discipline of English, University of Sydney

Dixi et salvavi animam meam.

This Latin phrase – I have spoken and saved my soul – sits at the end of Karl Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Written in 1875, this text imagines a communist society that will come about “after the enslaving of the individual to the division of labour, and thereby also the antithesis between mental and physical labour has vanished”.

Only then, Marx argues, “can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be completely transcended and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!”

Roger Waters – bassist, lyricist and conceptual mastermind behind Pink Floyd’s 1973 album The Dark Side of the Moon, released 50 years ago today – knows Marx’s Critique. Indeed, he quotes it when discussing the record with music journalist John Harris.

“Making The Dark Side of the Moon, we were all trying to do as much as we possibly could,” Waters told Harris.

It was a very communal thing. What’s that old Marxist maxim? ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’ That’s sort of the way the band worked at that point.

Assertions about solidarity, cooperation and shared “unity of purpose” – as Waters says – situate Dark Side in the context of Pink Floyd’s notoriously fractious recording career and helps us understand the album’s enduring appeal.

Shine on you crazy diamond

Pink Floyd formed in London in 1965. Led by the charismatic songwriter, guitarist and lead vocalist Syd Barrett, the group established itself as a leader in the London underground music scene. They released their debut album The Piper at the Gates of Dawn in 1967.

Soft Machine member Kevin Ayers described The Piper at the Gates of Dawn as “something magical, but it was in Syd Barrett”.

Not long after the record’s release, Barrett suffered a catastrophic, LSD-induced breakdown. In response, the band recruited David Gilmour on guitar and recorded a second album, A Saucerful of Secrets, as a five-piece in 1968. Around this time, the increasingly unstable Barrett was unceremoniously ousted by the rest of the band.

After Barrett left, says Ayers, “Pink Floyd became something else totally”.

There are different versions of Pink Floyd. The recordings released after Barrett left the band in 1968 bear little resemblance to the first.

Dark Side sounds nothing like the whimsical Piper. But it is obvious the record is in large part preoccupied with the loss of Barrett.

This preoccupation comes to the fore in the album’s penultimate track.

Brain Damage, written and sung by Waters, references Barrett’s adolescence (“Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs”), alludes to his illness (“And if the dam breaks open many years too soon”), and acknowledges his leaving the group (“And if the band you’re in starts playing different tunes; I’ll see you on the dark side of the Moon”).

Drummer Nick Mason confirms the group didn’t want to lose Barrett.

In his autobiography, he writes:

He was our songwriter, singer, guitarist, and – although you might not have known from our less than sympathetic treatment of him – he was our friend.

Read more:
‘The Wall’ cemented Pink Floyd’s fame – but destroyed the band

If the dam breaks open many years too soon

What we hear on The Dark Side of the Moon is a band dealing with trauma.

In this sense, Dark Side represents the start of a reckoning with the past – a process that culminated with the band’s next record, 1975’s elegiac Wish You Were Here.

Culmination is a useful term when it comes to Dark Side more generally. On this record, all the avant-garde techniques and tendencies the band had toyed with in the post-Barrett period – musique concrète, sonic manipulation, extended improvisation, analogue tape manipulation – come together to spectacular effect.

Money – with its anti-capitalist lyrics penned by Waters (“Money, it’s a crime; share it fairly, but don’t take a slice of my pie”), odd time signature, and handmade tape-loops mimicking the sounds of cash tills, bags of coins being dropped from great height and bank notes being torn up – is one of the stranger hit singles in pop music history.

Be that as it may, Money and the album from which it is taken, of which more than 50 million copies have been sold, continue to resonate with listeners worldwide, five decades on from its initial release.

Read more:
Pink Floyd’s $1.8m desk shows timeless appeal of analogue sound

The enormous risk of being truly banal

“I made a conscious effort when I was writing the lyrics for Dark Side of the Moon to take the enormous risk of being truly banal about a lot of it,” Waters told John Harris, “in order that the ideas should be expressed as simply and plainly as possible.”

On this point, if nothing else, David Gilmour agrees. He told Harris:

There was definitely a feeling that the words were going to be very clear and specific. That was a leap forward. Things would mean what they meant. That was a distinct step away from what we had done before.

Mortality, insanity, conflict, affluence, poverty and, in another nod to Marx, alienation are some of the themes presented on the record. The need – and this brings us full circle – for compassion, if not outright solidarity, is another.

This is an album about the importance of understanding, as Waters insists:

the potential that human beings have for recognising each other’s humanity and responding to it, with empathy rather than antipathy.

Given the sorry state of the world in 2023, about which Roger Waters has many contentious and problematic things to say, I wager Pink Floyd’s masterwork will continue to resonate with listeners for a while yet.

Read more:
How Stoicism influenced music from the French Renaissance to Pink Floyd

Alexander Howard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Dark Side of the Moon at 50: how Marx, trauma and compassion all influenced Pink Floyd’s masterpiece – https://theconversation.com/the-dark-side-of-the-moon-at-50-how-marx-trauma-and-compassion-all-influenced-pink-floyds-masterpiece-198400

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

Adam Bandt aspired to power-sharing with a Labor government. That was never going to happen but, possessing the major slice of the balance of power in the Senate, the Greens have considerable potential muscle – at least in theory.

In this podcast, we get a glimpse of the gap between Greens leader Adam Bandt’s aspiration for ambitious reforms and the reality that the government is only giving concessions at the edges to the minor party.

“There’s a capacity for this to be a golden era of reform in this parliament,” Bandt says.

“For us to pass laws that tackle the climate crisis and to protect the environment. That tackle the cost of living crisis.

“At the moment, the only obstacle is Labor’s willingness to do what needs to be done, and that would in fact be very popular,” he says.

“I think what we’re going to see during this parliament is the Liberals become a far-right irrelevance. Labor becomes a centre-right party, but it’s still wedded to neo-liberal economics. And the Greens are advancing the social democratic alternative.

“I understand the government wants to project that they are in majority and that everything is within their control […] At some point the penny needs to drop with the government that they will have to work with others if they want to not only get their agenda through but tackle the problems that people are facing.”

Bandt discusses the Greens’ attempt, rejected by Labor, to force a ban on new coal and gas projects, and their reservations about the government’s national reconstruction and housing funds.

Interestingly, he dodges when quizzed on the action of his former colleague, now crossbencher, Lidia Thorpe in briefly disrupting the weekend Mardi Gras march.

“Lidia Thorpe is able to speak for herself. I’m not going to pass comment on that. Ultimately this is an event that is by and for the LGBTIQ+ community. I’ll leave it up to them and the organisers and those who are involved to to comment on that.”

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Greens leader Adam Bandt on trying to force Labor’s hand on reform – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-greens-leader-adam-bandt-on-trying-to-force-labors-hand-on-reform-200833

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Caldicott, Senior lecturer, Australian National University

Queensland will become the second Australian jurisdiction to offer pill testing. While the timeline is yet to be announced, once up and running, Queenslanders who use illicit drugs can have them checked to see what they actually contain before taking them.

This is likely to reduce the risk of people overdosing on both unexpected and high potency substances, as well as reducing illness and death from harmful additives and mixtures.

While making the announcement, Queensland’s health minister acknowledged the groundwork of my colleagues and I in the ACT, where we’ve provided successful festival-based testing at the Groovin’ The Moo in 2018 and 2019, and a fixed-site service since 2022. Independent evaluations conducted in Canberra, and unusual in this research space, clearly demonstrate a benefit.

Queensland’s move aligns the state with a growing international norm. In fact, the evidence to support such services has existed for decades.

Read more:
What is ‘drug checking’ and why do we need it in Australia?

What are other countries doing?

There are as many ways to provide drug checking services as there are countries providing them. They can be broadly divided into:

• onsite or festival-based services, that generally test at the point of consumption, with lightweight and rapid turnaround equipment

• fixed site services, to which consumers are usually required to travel. They frequently offer more accurate and detailed analysis, but that takes a little more time.

Either of these models can be incorporated into broader early warning or monitoring services, where data is collated and emerging trends and novel drugs can be identified.

The Netherlands has been offering a system since the late 1990s. It has now grown to a national monitoring system that extends over 30 sites. Drug checking services have been rolled out in other countries around the world, including Portugal, Spain, Mexico, Austria, Canada, New Zealand and some parts of the United Kingdom.

Canada offers onsite and fixed site testing. The latter is used in Toronto, with samples transported from collection sites to analytical sites. In British Columbia, in the middle of a deadly fentanyl epidemic, both onsite and fixed site services have saved lives by identifying samples tainted by not only fentanyls but also products like xyalzine and nitazenes.

New Zealand has recently amended legislation to permit both festival testing and pop-up sites.

Read more:
After the last ‘summer of terrible drugs’ it’s time to make NZ’s temporary drug checking law permanent

Ireland conducted its first pilot at the Electric Picnic festival last year. Meanwhile, I was involved in establishing a Welsh program which permits the delivery of small samples of drugs to the analytical service from the consumer by ordinary mail. Ecstasy Data in the United States does the same.

The combination of onsite testing, fixed site testing and monitoring provides the greatest coverage of drug intelligence, much in the same way that different levels of flu-tracking allows us the best analysis of what lies in store, and is circulating. This allows services to detect and issue warnings about harmful substances that are circulating.

The United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) has recommended drug checking as a way of monitoring the fentanyl crisis in that country. Any future CDC in Australia should strongly consider incorporating such surveillance in its remit.

So what system is best?

In the ACT, we’ve been allowed to design our service around the needs of the patron, and we find face-to-face services are the best way to engage with consumers.

But other jurisdictions might find that difficult, and may need to modify their service to address external constraints placed upon them, such as not having available equipment on site, or the concerns of local law enforcement in endorsing such an approach.

Some places permit the tests to be conducted by non-chemists.

But in the ACT we use graduate chemists, who are also involved in developing and improving the program.

Read more:
Pill testing really does reduce the risk of harm for drug users

The Netherlands has applied the best service possible for the Netherlands, and certainly one of the best in the world, with a process that is proven, and well trusted by the population it serves.

But this is not a service that would necessarily lend itself to the federal structure of Australia, or our historical apprehension to pragmatic discussions about drugs and drug use.

None of these approaches are necessarily better or worse than another – they have been developed to suit the environment in which they operate. The best service for Australia will be an Australian service. And there may well be differences in what that will be, between jurisdictions.

What do we know about the Queensland system so far?

While it’s not clear how the Queensland service will work, or how many testing sites there will be, there are some hints it might be a little different to the ACT’s drug checking service, CanTEST.

At the Queensland press conference, health authorities explained the testing process under consideration would take between 45 minutes to an hour.

In Canberra, our analysts conduct a number of tests, including an FTIR analysis as an initial test, fentanyl test strip analyses where indicated, and UPLC PDA against ten known compounds for quantitative analysis. That all takes around ten minutes – and all in front of the patron.

Times for the patron can vary, depending on the number of attendees at any time, but the analytical time is pretty constant. The patron is encouraged to stay and engage with the process, and even the chemists, who have become very adept science communicators.

The longer time reported might be associated with a different choice of testing equipment, or the use of external analytical facilities, such as private analytical laboratories for offsite testing, like the Toronto model.

What about other states and territories?

Queensland’s adoption of pill testing is likely to prompt other states and territories to follow. Queensland played a long political game, never fully ruling out the process, while stating it required further evidence.

With such adamant opposition elsewhere, it is difficult to see what the end-game for other jurisdictions will be.

But there is no future scenario in which pill testing will become less necessary, or less in demand. Twenty years after John Howard’s “tough on drugs” strategy, the appetite of young Australians for illicit drugs seems undiminished, and the nature of those drugs is more dangerous than ever.

The road forward will now necessitate experts and academics alike easing politicians out of the corners they’ve found themselves backed into, as a consequence of adopting the rhetoric of a dated proxy “war on drugs”. It’s a hard road, but one on which the young people, and the parents of young people, across Australia now expect their governments to travel.

David Caldicott has been the recipient of an NH&MRC Partnership Grant.
He is the Clinical Lead for Pill Testing Australia and CanTEST.

– ref. Pill testing is coming to Queensland. Here’s what can we learn from programs overseas – https://theconversation.com/pill-testing-is-coming-to-queensland-heres-what-can-we-learn-from-programs-overseas-200712

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Davies, Laboratory Head, Doherty Institute, The University of Melbourne

Group A streptococci, also known as “strep A”, has been on the rise around the world with a new strain reported in the United Kingdom and Europe. This variant has been linked with surges of scarlet fever and a marked increase in life-threatening invasive strep A infections.

Now genomic research by our team of scientists has identified this new strain in the Australian community for the first time. In parallel, we have seen an increase in invasive strep A cases across New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria.

Strep A is a common bacteria carried by people primarily in their throat. It can cause mild illness including sore throat, scarlet fever (named for the red rash it causes) and impetigo (“school sores”). But it can also cause “invasive” disease, such as sepsis. Repeated strep A infections can lead to other serious conditions including acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease.

We investigated the genetic composition of the new strep A strain called “M1UK” and zeroed in on what makes it different to the previous strain.

Read more:
Strep A: three doctors explain what you need to look out for

What we know about strep A

Strep A only infects humans, with around 10% of school-aged children carrying it. It causes more than half a million deaths worldwide per year.

We’ve known about the bacteria for over 100 years and it was a major cause of childhood death in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But it’s been less of a public health threat since antibiotic medications were developed to treat it. In the 1980s, one type of strep A strain called “M1” emerged as the major cause of invasive strep A infections in high-income settings.

Over the last decade, resurgence of scarlet fever strep A infections has been reported in the United Kingdom and China.

Invasive infection is rare. But when it occurs, the death rate can be as high as 20% of those infected.

What’s different about this strain?

The M1UK variant of strep A was first reported in the UK in 2019 and identified using genomics – the study of the DNA sequence to identify changes in the genetic makeup of an organism.

UK scientists identified that the M1UK variant expressed up to five times more of a specific strep A toxin than the previous M1 strain, but they weren’t sure how. This toxin, originally termed the “scarlet fever toxin”, is associated with the development of invasive strep A by short-circuiting the host’s immune system.

Our laboratory team went about trying to understand which changes in the bacteria led to this increased expression.

We looked at the genetic code of the strep A M1UK variant and compared it to previous ones. We found a number of mutations, one of which was located near the toxin gene.

Then we worked backwards to repair that change and see how it affected the amount of toxin expressed. In this way, we identified the mechanism of how M1UK strep A became toxin supercharged.

Will we see more dangerous strep A strains?

Genomics helps us identify and track bacterial variants. Then scientists need to use that knowledge within a biological context to figure out how a strain is gaining competitive advantage to become dominant over a previous strain – as M1UK has in the UK.

It’s possible this new strain of strep A is better at transmitting from person to person, but we’ll need more research to know if this is the case.

Invasive strep A is now a notifiable disease

Invasive strep A infection was added to Australia’s National Notifiable Diseases List in July 2021, paving the way for it to be formally recorded across states and territories. This means that detected invasive strep A cases get reported to a central registry so authorities can keep track of outbreaks and case numbers.

Our researchers will have access to a repository of national strep A strains. We will be piloting a national strep A genomic surveillance program within the AusPathoGen program, which will speed up our ability to identify and track emerging strep A variants.

We’ve seen how this type of genomic research has helped track COVID changes and guide public health response. By undertaking this pilot program with public health partners, we aim to build a national invasive strep A surveillance framework.

Read more:
Strep A cases are rising. We must remember our earliest hygiene lessons as vaccine trials continue

How can people protect themselves?

Invasive strep A is still extremely rare, so there’s no need to panic – but we shouldn’t be complacent either.

Basic hygiene practices and staying away from other people when sick remain important for preventing spread.

Kids or the elderly are more likely to get invasive disease, so if you note symptoms such as high fever (especially with a skin rash), severe pain from an infected skin sore, and any difficulties with breathing then you should go to your local hospital’s emergency department or consult a GP immediately.

Antibiotics are highly effective at treating infection, provided they are available.

We also need to think about alternative ways of controlling infection. Australian scientists are at the forefront of efforts to develop a global strep A vaccine.

Read more:
Antibiotics shortages: what’s causing them and how countries can minimise the impact

Mark Davies receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

– ref. Genomics has helped identify a new strep A strain in Australia – and what has made it dangerous – https://theconversation.com/genomics-has-helped-identify-a-new-strep-a-strain-in-australia-and-what-has-made-it-dangerous-200815

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abraham Gibson, Research Fellow, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University

The Bureau of Meteorology released its latest climate driver update on Tuesday, saying the current La Niña has weakened and is “likely near its end”. Most climate models now point to neutral conditions – neither El Niño nor La Niña – through autumn and a trend towards El Niño in early spring.

But it’s too early to say if a return to El Niño is imminent. Nor can we say Australia is about to swing back into drought, as many people fear, after three years of heavy rain associated with consecutive La Niñas.

Putting aside the uncertainties in long-range forecasts of El Niño, there are other factors that will determine whether Australia returns to drought.

Read more:
Explainer: El Niño and La Niña

Drought prediction is complex

El Niño is, of course, a well-known contributor to drought events. But a number of diverse climate drivers affecting different regions should be included in these discussions.

The other two most frequently mentioned drivers are the Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern Annular Mode. These, along with the Sub-tropical Ridge, fluctuations of the Madden-Julian Oscillation and local weather systems, can make dry periods worse or provide rainfall relief.

Drought prediction is also complex due to the nature of drought itself. Drought is a creeping disaster. Its build-up is slow and predicting drought requires accurate long-range rainfall forecasts.

However, the range of drivers contributing to rainfall over seasons makes accurate forecasting in Australia challenging.

Read more:
From floods to fire? A climate scientist on the chances El Niño will hit Australia this year

What is a drought?

Drought is simply a shortage of water to meet demand. But this definition has an underlying complexity: demand changes depending on who requires the water. As a result, we have different types of droughts depending on the type of water shortage.

Drought begins with a lack of rain and snowfall. This is known as meteorological drought. When these deficiencies are sustained, evaporation demand leads to decreases in soil moisture and river flow into dams. As we continue to consume water and plants use up moisture, these storages decline even further without rain to refill them.

When we reach critical levels of dams and soil moisture we have hydrological and agricultural drought. A long hydrological or agricultural drought then leads to devastating impacts on the environment, economy and society.

This evolution of drought is known as propagation. It usually takes months or seasons. During this time, we’ve most likely passed from the influence of one climate driver to another.

What causes a drought?

Our understanding of drought took off from studies focusing on the impacts and causes of the Millennium Drought between 1997 and 2010.

At first, El Niño was identified as a major player in this period, suppressing autumn rainfall in south-eastern Australia. Over time, the significant effects of the Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern Annular Mode were identified as adding to the extreme dry conditions.

All three climate modes acted in concert to sustain and prolong the Millennium Drought over a vast area.

Looking over our entire climate records reveals that drought impacts vary through space and time. Behind this variability is the different roles of the drivers in causing long dry periods.

The contribution of a given driver to drought is also different for different areas of Australia. For example, our research shows the various drivers can explain 75% of the rainfall deficit during drought onset for areas across southern Australia, but only 30% for the subtropics and tropics.

Read more:
New report shows alarming changes in the entire global water cycle

Will we be in drought in 2023?

A return to El Niño could trigger a drought for some regions of Australia. However, our catchments are displaying wet to slightly drier than average conditions and our dams are generally full. We would need significant drying for a severe drought such as 2017-2019 or 1982-1983 to take hold.

During 1976-1977, a weak El Niño developed alongside a neutral Indian Ocean Dipole. This followed a triple-dip La Niña similar to the one we have just been through. After the El Niño developed, the resulting spring and summer rainfall was above average for much of eastern Australia.

This shows not all El Niño events equate to drying if the right conditions align. Even the most recent El Nino in 2018-19 had mixed impacts on Australian rainfall.

It is also important to remember that drought depends on who requires water and when.

Flash droughts consist of a series of dry weeks and high temperatures. We are still learning about their relationship with the larger climate drivers and if we can predict them. But flash droughts can devastate agriculture if they happen at the wrong time.

Read more:
‘Flash droughts’ can dry out soil in weeks. New research shows what they look like in Australia

The scars of 2017-2019, which culminated in the Black Summer bushfires, are still fresh in the minds of many who may see El Nino as an unwelcome visitor. However, the complexity of our climate system and the creeping nature of drought are major challenges to forecasting drought months in advance.

As a result, it is hard to simply equate a projected El Niño to impending drought.

Danielle Verdon-Kidd receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC)

Abraham Gibson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why El Niño doesn’t mean certain drought – https://theconversation.com/why-el-nino-doesnt-mean-certain-drought-197678

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

You’d be forgiven for thinking Treasurer Jim Chalmers had done something dramatic.

From 2025 he will double the tax rate on earnings from superannuation balances above A$3 million, lifting it from 15% to 30%.

Only 80,000 Australians have accounts that large, and many of them who have retired have shoved the maximum permissible $1.7 million into a separate so-called retirement account whose earnings are entirely tax-free.

That’s right. Retirees with $1.7 million in retirement accounts pay nothing whatsoever on what those accounts earn, which in normal years amounts to $85,000.

By way of comparison, wage earners on $85,000 get taxed $18,000.

But though you’d never know it from some of the “socialist tax grab” commentary around this week, Chalmers isn’t the first treasurer to act on this rort. Scott Morrison got there first.

Howard’s super deal for the richest 1%

In 2006, in what economist Saul Eslake describes as one of the worst taxation decisions in modern times (an honour for which he says there’s a fair bit of competition), then Prime Minister John Howard exempted from tax withdrawals from super for Australians aged 60 and over.

By itself, this was unremarkable. We don’t tax withdrawals from bank accounts, because the interest they earn has been taxed within the account.

But Howard left in place a preexisting exemption from tax for earnings within the retirement accounts of Australians aged 65 and over.

This meant the earnings on the sometimes very large accounts of retirees aged 65 and over weren’t taxed at all. Not at the normal super tax rate of 15%, not at any rate – without limit, no matter how much was earned, merely because the person owning the account was aged 65 or over and had retired.

Morrison wound Howard’s policy back

In office, the Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard didn’t touch the open-ended opportunity to earn unlimited amounts from super tax-free. Instead, we had to wait a decade, until Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his Treasurer Scott Morrison wound it back in 2016.

Facing off against critics in his own party, Morrison cut the amount that could be transferred from an ordinary super account into a tax-free “retirement” super account to $1.6 million, a ceiling that is adjusted every few years with inflation.

“If you’ve got more than $1.6 million in a superannuation account, you’re in the top 1% and you’ve worked hard to get there, that’s fabulous,” Morrison said at the time. “But that $1.6 million is the limit.”

The seeds of Chalmers’ new plan

They were words echoed by Chalmers on Tuesday, who said his change would only affect half of the top 1%. If people had done well, that was “a good thing”.

But Chalmers said the system should be fairer.

And I think for any objective observer, the idea that ordinary working people subsidise incredibly generous tax breaks for people with millions and millions of dollars in superannuation doesn’t stack up.

Chalmers did more than channel Morrison’s language. The idea of a 30% super tax rate isn’t new.

In 2016, then treasurer Morrison expanded the tax rate’s coverage from Australians with combined incomes and super contributions exceeding $300,000, to Australians with incomes and contributions exceeding $250,000.

And Chalmers received encouragement from another source.

In last year’s pre-budget submission, the Association of Superannuation Funds (ASFA) pointed the new treasurer to 11,000 super accounts holding more than $5 million, some of them holding hundreds of millions, “well in excess of retirement needs”.

The peak body for super funds called on the then Morrison government to end super tax concessions when accounts grew to $5 million, an amount it said could not “reasonably be justified as necessary to support a comfortable lifestyle in retirement”.

On Tuesday Chalmers picked up the idea – an idea that came from the super industry itself – but made the limit $3 million, instead of $5 million.

As ASFA proposed, that ceiling won’t climb over time with inflation, meaning over time more and more Australians will be taxed at 30%.

You don’t need millions for a comfortable retirement

There are two points worth noting. One is that the quoted tax rate of 30% won’t work out at 30%. The best guess within the industry is that few pay anything like 15%. They are able to use concessions on capital gains and dividend imputation to drive down the tax actually paid to something nearer 7%.

The other is most Australians don’t need anything like what $3 million would buy in retirement – or even the $1.7 million they are allowed to use tax-free.

The ASFA retirement income standard has a “comfortable” retirement costing $68,014 per year (or $48,266 for each member of a couple).

ASFA defines comfortable to mean $90 per month on broadband, $80 in alcohol, $46 in Netflix-like services, $258 dining out, top-flight private health insurance, and one domestic flight per year and an international flight every seven years.

Read more:
31 years after the advent of compulsory super, the government is about to decide what it’s for. The answer will matter

It’s a level of largess not bestowed on many of us while working. If it was felt necessary in retirement (and doubtless many wealthy retirees do feel it is necessary) there’s no reason to expect them to get it all from super.

The government’s 2020 retirement income review found high-income Australians earned as much again from investment income outside super as they made from withdrawals from it. They do alright.

Scott Morrison, much criticised for the generosity to high income earners of his Stage 3 tax cuts, moved in the right direction on super. Jim Chalmers is picking up where he left off.

Peter Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Tax-free super for the super rich is a bad deal for the rest of us – and Morrison said it first – https://theconversation.com/tax-free-super-for-the-super-rich-is-a-bad-deal-for-the-rest-of-us-and-morrison-said-it-first-200706

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor emerita, University of Sydney

We asked our readers what they would like to know about the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament. In the lead-up to the referendum, our expert authors will answer those questions. You can read the other questions and answers here.

If the government disagrees with representations made by the Voice, the short answer is that the government prevails. Governments and parliaments are elected to represent all the people, not just one group of the people. This means they have to take into account a broad range of considerations, including how to manage the budget and the economy, ensure national security and maintain the social wellbeing of the whole country.

Ensuring the government and parliament are better informed

The role of the Voice, if the proposed constitutional amendment is passed, would be to ensure the government and parliament are better informed when making laws or decisions on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Voice could make representations about how laws and policies have unintended or perverse consequences, or how they could be made more effective and efficient if they operated in a different way. Any sensible government would take such representations seriously when considering how to make or change laws and policies, because everyone wants better results for Indigenous Australians.

Decisions made with the best will in the world from Canberra can always be improved by listening to the people on the ground who are affected by them. The role of the Voice would therefore be important in improving the quality and effectiveness of laws and government policies. But it could not determine what those laws and policies will be.

We have a democratic system for determining who makes the laws and who forms the government, and that is not going to be changed by the proposed constitutional amendment.

Read more:
An Indigenous Voice to Parliament will not give ‘special rights’ or create a veto

The influence of the Voice

The power and influence of the Voice will not be static. It will depend on two factors – relevance and quality.

The proposed amendment, as currently drafted, gives the Voice a potentially wide remit. It says it may make representations to both parliament and the executive government “on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

This could include laws and policies that specifically relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, such as those concerning native title or the protection of cultural heritage. It could also include laws of general application which have a particular impact upon Indigenous Australians.

An example might be a future law that required photo identification for people to be able to vote in federal elections. While such a law would be one of general application, it would most likely have a greater impact upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote areas who are less likely to have photo IDs. It would be important for the Voice to be able to make representations to parliament about the potential impact of such a law in suppressing the votes of Indigenous Australians and to the government about ways of ensuring all Indigenous Australians are able to vote.

When the Voice makes representations on matters that fall within its expertise and provides insights from those affected on the ground, it will be at its most influential. If, however, the Voice were to make representations on matters that are peripheral to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, or that are not informed by expertise or local experience, then it is much less likely to have influence.

If the Voice, for example, were to make representations on matters concerning Australia’s defence policy or its relations with China, on the basis that there was an incidental effect on exports by Indigenous groups, the government would be unlikely to give its representations much, if any, attention. Instead, it would be far more likely to be influenced by the representations of other bodies that have greater expertise on the subject.

The second factor is the quality of the Voice’s representations. If it makes measured, well-researched, evidence-based representations that make practical suggestions, it is likely to be influential.

However, if it were to spread itself too thin by making poorly considered representations about a wide variety of matters outside its expertise, or make impractical or partisan representations, then it would be less likely to be influential. So it will be a matter for the Voice itself to secure influence by ensuring the high quality of its representations.

Could the courts force the government or parliament to implement the Voice’s representations?

The High Court has consistently stayed out of the internal proceedings of parliament. It does not determine what parliament should or should not consider when passing laws. Due to the separation of powers, the courts cannot instruct parliament to give effect to representations by the Voice.

However, the courts can review a government decision that affects the interests of people if it was made in an unfair manner. If, for example, a law said the decision-maker must take into account representations of the Voice before making a certain type of decision, failure to do so would mean the decision was invalid. The court would then send the decision back to the decision-maker to be remade once the relevant representations had been taken into account.

In these cases, the courts are only concerned with the fairness of the process – that the decision is made properly, taking into account all relevant considerations – not the content of the decision.

The decision-maker could remake the decision, taking into account the representation, and still not give effect to the representation. This would be perfectly valid. There is no obligation to give effect to the representation – only to take it into account, if the law requires the decision-maker to do so.

Some have raised concerns that instead of parliament deciding whether a decision-maker has to take into account representations of the Voice in relation to certain decisions, the High Court might interpret the Constitution as requiring this in all cases. This seems most unlikely, given neither the words nor the intent of the provision support such an interpretation.

A former chief justice of Australia, Robert French, has said there is “little or no scope for any court to find constitutional legal obligations in the facilitative and empowering provisions of the amendment”. In other words, all the amendment does is allow the Voice to make representations – it does not impose legal or constitutional obligations on how the government and parliament respond to them.

So, if the government and parliament disagree with the Voice, they are not required to give effect to its representations.

Read more:
No, the Voice isn’t a ‘radical’ change to our Constitution

Will this leave the Voice ineffective?

If neither the government nor parliament is required to do what the Voice says, does this leave the Voice ineffective? No. The point of the Voice is to use political pressure to influence parliament and the government before laws and decisions are made, rather than to take legal action to attack laws and decisions after they are made.

That influence will be effective if the Voice makes high-quality representations within its expertise that, if adopted, would result in better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Achieving better outcomes is the one thing everyone wants, so if the Voice fulfils its role in contributing to that, it will be an effective and valued national institution.

Anne Twomey has received funding from the ARC and sometimes does consultancy work for governments, Parliaments and inter-governmental bodies. She is currently a member of the Constitutional Expert Group advising the Referendum Working Group on the proposed referendum, but this article represents her own views and does not purport to represent those of the Expert Group or the Commonwealth Government. She has also written extensively in the past on Indigenous constitutional recognition, including drafting a number of different versions of a proposed constitutional amendment and worked with the Cape York Institute and others on an early versions of the Voice proposal.

– ref. What happens if the government goes against the advice of the Voice to Parliament? – https://theconversation.com/what-happens-if-the-government-goes-against-the-advice-of-the-voice-to-parliament-200517

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeffrey Foster, Associate Professor in Cyber Security Studies, Macquarie University

The federal government is pursuing a new cybersecurity agenda in the wake of last year’s major cyber breaches with Optus and Medibank.

“For businesses these days, cybersecurity is as important as having a lock on the door”, said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in opening the government’s cybersecurity roundtable in Sydney on Monday. There, Minister for Cyber Security Claire O’Neil released a discussion paper that seeks to answer questions about the role the government should play in order to improve Australia’s cyber resilience.

Read more:
Albanese government to appoint Coordinator for Cyber Security, amid increasing threat to systems and data

The government will also create a National Office of Cyber Security, and a new role based in the Department of Home Affairs – Coordinator for Cyber Security.

O’Neil said the government was struggling to find appropriate responses to last year’s major hacks due to a lack of prior policy or regulation.

The Optus and Medibank breaches each affected around a third of the Australian population. Hackers leaked personal information including drivers licenses, passports and highly personal medical details.

In both cases, government intervention was necessary, such as by creating methods for people to replace drivers license ID numbers.

The discussion paper consists of 21 questions, and many focus on how government and industry can work together.

But two questions stand out as critically important.

1. Should the government ban ransomware payments?

Whether ransomware payments should be banned is a complicated question, and one that I’ve covered before.

Read more:
Australia is considering a ban on cyber ransom payments, but it could backfire. Here’s another idea

In short, a blanket ban on all ransomware payments would be unlikely to stop cyber criminals from continuing their attacks. And the damage done to businesses and critical infrastructure could be severe. A legal ban from paying to recover their systems could mean small and medium businesses can’t recover.

O’Neil has previously stated she’s considering a ban on ransom payments. The discussion paper demonstrates a more thoughtful approach.

It suggests the possibility of a distinction between different types of ransomware payment bans. For example, whether the government should prohibit payment to keep stolen data secret, versus payment to unlock a company’s hacked systems. It also asks whether, instead of banning companies from paying ransom, we should instead ban insurance payouts to businesses who fall victim.

2. Should the government be able to commandeer companies’ IT systems?

The Security of Critical Infrastructure Act was introduced in 2018 in response to the growing threat of attacks against the nation’s most important systems. It was more recently expanded to include a total of 11 sectors from electrical grids and telecommunications, to education and data storage.

The act is specifically about securing the systems that our critical infrastructure run on.

But the discussion paper asks whether that should expand to include the personal data held on these systems, and to allow the Australian Signals Directorate to commandeer the IT systems of companies suffering from a hack.

While a seemingly small addition to the act, the inclusion of personal data and expanded Australian Signals Directorate powers could be reaching too far.

Specifically, it might include handing over citizens’ personal data held by the telecommunication and health sectors to the government.

What’s more, expansions to the act in 2021 and 2022 to include data storage means virtually any company could fall within its scope.

No specific details of how this potential change could work are included in the discussion paper, but it may be a step with severe consequences.

Anything else I should know?

The discussion paper also calls for simplifying regulations as a priority.

Australia’s data laws are spread across a range of acts: the Privacy Act, the Critical Infrastructure Act, the Telecommunications Act, the National Health Act, and the list goes on. Having the requirements spread out across so many acts makes it difficult for businesses to understand their obligations when it comes to cybersecurity.

What’s more, the paper clearly outlines the need to prioritise cybersecurity workforce training, both in technical and non-technical roles.

Australia has an estimated skills shortage of 30,000 cybersecurity professionals.

Read more:
What skills does a cybersecurity professional need?

The discussion paper has many suggestions that will likely be welcomed by industry, but clearly some questions raise concerns amongst industry professionals about government overreach.

At the moment, these are just questions. And industry, government and education providers will have a chance to respond to these questions over the next six weeks before decisions are finalised. Hopefully, they’ll be heard.

Jeffrey Foster does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australia has a new cybersecurity agenda. Two key questions lie at its heart – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-a-new-cybersecurity-agenda-two-key-questions-lie-at-its-heart-200714

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aisha Malik, Casual Academic/ Research Administration Officer, University of Sydney

Review: Sex Magick, directed by Declan Greene.

Boy meets girl. Boy falls in love with girl and follows her to India. Boy has a transformative tantric sexual experience and realises he might like boys too? Boy, girl and boy live happily ever after.

At its heart, Sex Magick, a new play written by Nicholas Brown, is about subverting expectations, queering desire and digging beneath the surface, taking the audience on a meandering, ultimately thrilling ride filled with laughter, music, sex and dance.

The play opens in a throbbing red-light filled locker room as Ard Panicker (Raj Labade) is thrust into an awkward conversation with his mother, Cindy (Blazey Best), which reveals as much as it conceals.

Cindy loves crucifixes and Christmas. Heading to her wedding rehearsal, she seems surprised to see Ard.

The tension between mother and son makes more sense when we later learn Cindy paid Ard’s father Keeran (Veshnu Narayanasamy) to return to India because he wasn’t raising one of their sons to the standard of masculinity Cindy expected.

Any guesses whether that son was Ard or his rugby-playing sibling Kollam?

Read more:
Illegal Sydney warehouse parties, lives lost to AIDS, and gay liberation: photographer William Yang captured it all

Humour in discomfort

We are catapulted to “the real India, authentic to its core”. Liraz (Catherine Văn-Davies) has brought an unwitting Ard with her to a Tantric sex course.

The guru, Manmatha (Stephen Madsen), is white but India is in his “spiritual DNA” as his great-great-grandfather worked for the East India Company.

Sex Magick insightfully mocks western fascination with and fetishisation of Indian culture.

Ard and Liraz explore their sexuality with Manmatha as their guide.

Halfway through what Ard thinks is a loving and intimate massage performed by Liraz, she is swapped by Manmatha. When Ard discovers this he angrily rushes out of the room. Manmatha simply claims “there’s something not right about that man. I can’t put a finger in it.”

Sex Magick is good at pushing boundaries and finding the humour in discomfort.

Liraz’s path to sexual liberation is fraught with several roadblocks. At one point she has trouble remembering the complete queer alphabet. In spite of it, she is adamant that she is an L.

Is she though?

Through an equally sensitive and funny performance, Liraz urges each of us to reconsider the boxes we put ourselves in and untangle love and sex – or, as her ex-boyfriend TJ tells her, don’t be so “rigid, learn to bend”.

Finding fluidity

A thread that weaves through Ard and Liraz’s sexual awakening is the sexual and gender fluidity in Indian culture.

The subcontinent had a more nuanced understanding of gender and sex before British colonisation.

Sex Magick dips its toes into some of this complexity. Do two men holding hands have to be romantically intimate partners, or can this be a sign of camaraderie? Can a man paint his face, wear feminine clothing and still identify as a man, a husband and a father?

Ard’s full given name is Ardhanarishvara, for the deity, half woman and half man symbolising the inseparability of the feminine and masculine. This god is brought up several times to reinforce the duality present in Hinduism, and the mesh of feminine and masculine is portrayed beautifully through the traditional Kathakali dance.

Kathakali dances often borrow from Hindu mythology and Indian epics, but Sex Magick insists on creating stories that keep up with the changing times. “Why tell the same old god and goddess stories when you can create something new?” Asks young Keeran (Labade).

In blending the old with the new, Sex Magick carefully walks the line between respect of tradition and personal expression.

A wild ride

The show is most at home when talking about the Australian context. The witch coven “Body Somatic” in Marrickville leads to unending glee. The audience bursts into laughter at the mention of the local deity “Whit-nayyy” (that’s Whitney Houston for the uninitiated).

The play is peppered with well acted and skilfully contrived sex scenes performed with ease and confidence by the brilliant cast. Much of the magic is courtesy of a rapturous lighting design (Kelsey Lee). Smoke often makes the room feel like an expansive fantastical wonderland.

Sex Magick is a funny, chaotic and wild ride that urges us to consider desire as not a personal and individual choice but a political one shaped by structural factors beyond our control.

This gender-bending, time-travelling play invites you to detangle love and sex, examine your biases, question your tastes and unpack your cultural baggage – with wild peacocks.

Sex Magick is at Griffin Theatre Company, Sydney, until March 25.

Read more:
For some LGBTQ+ older people, events like World Pride can be isolating – we need to better understand how to support them

Aisha Malik does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Sex Magick: this gender-bending, time-travelling play invites you to detangle love and sex – https://theconversation.com/sex-magick-this-gender-bending-time-travelling-play-invites-you-to-detangle-love-and-sex-199982

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

The tax rate on earnings from superannuation balances above $3 million will double to 30% from 2025-26.

The pre-budget decision – approved by the government’s expenditure review committee on Monday and ticked by the cabinet on Tuesday morning – cuts off what was becoming a potentially damaging debate for the government.

The timing of its implementation – not until the next parliamentary term – also seeks to neutralise the “broken promise” argument. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said before the 2022 election that Labor had no intention of changing superannuation arrangements.

“No superannuation tax change proposed by the government will take effect this term of parliament,” Treasurer Jim Chalmers said.

But the government will introduce legislation for the measure “as soon as practicable”.

The decision was announced by Albanese and Chalmers at a news conference.

At present earnings from superannuation in the accumulation phase are taxed at up to 15%.

The Treasury’s statement of “tax expenditures”, also released on Tuesday, shows super tax breaks make up a third of the more than $150 billion annual total of the top ten tax expenditures.

Chalmers pointed out the majority of the about $50 billion in super tax breaks go to high income earners.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Defining superannuation’s ‘objective’ should leave room for debate about its use for housing

The tax change will bring $900 million over the forward estimates, about $2 billion in its first full year, and $3.2 billion over five years.

What the government terms “a modest adjustment” is not retrospective – it applies to future earnings.

The government said the change would only affect 0.5% of those with superannuation accounts – some 80,000 people. These people will continue to have the current 15% rate on earnings from the $3 million below the threshold. The change does not limit the size of account balances.

Chalmers said the threshold would not be indexed, meaning that in time, more super accounts would be drawn into paying the 30% rate.

The treasurer said the measure was to improve “the structural position of the budget” – it was not about using the money for another purpose.

Chalmers said the “Tax Expenditure and Insights Statement” showed more than 55% of the benefit of superannuation tax breaks on earnings went “to the top 20% of income earners, with 39% going to the top 10% of income earners”.

A “tax expenditure” is where certain taxpayers or activities receive special treatment. They include, for example, concessional rates, discounts, exemptions and rebates.

Read more:
Word from The Hill: Albanese at the National Press Club, Aston byelection, Super battles

The statement is required under the Charter of Budget Honesty, which dates from the days of then treasurer Peter Costello.

The latest statement includes a distributional analysis of large tax expenditures which shows a breakdown by income, gender and age.

In 2019-20 91% of the benefit of the concessional tax on superannuation contributions went to people with above median income, and 30% of the benefit went to people in the top income decile, the statement said.

“People in higher taxable income deciles receive a larger share of the benefit due to making larger contributions and paying higher marginal rates of tax, which makes the flat 15% rate of tax on superannuation contributions more concessional.”

Men received an average benefit of $1950; women an average benefit of $1390. This reflected men on average having higher incomes, making larger contributions, and facing higher income tax rates.

People with above median income received 82% of the benefit from the concessional tax on superannuation earnings; those in the top income decile received 39% of the benefit. Men received an average benefit of $1100, and women $750.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Albanese government to hike tax on earnings from big super balances – but not until 2025-26 – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-to-hike-tax-on-earnings-from-big-super-balances-but-not-until-2025-26-200824

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Ellis, Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Newcastle, University of Newcastle

Independent senator for Victoria Lidia Thorpe’s temporary blocking of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade on Saturday night has again brought to the surface discussion on the role of protest and police discretion.

Amplification through media is one way of hopefully raising awareness of intractable social issues, such as Indigenous rates of incarceration and the role of police in that process. Peaceful protest, such as temporarily blocking the parade, might be a way to gain rare exposure in a cluttered 24-7 news cycle.

Highlighting of a range of messages through the media has been integral to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade’s evolution. From a local protest in 1978 connected to the international gay and lesbian liberation movement, it’s become an international event in its own right.

The parade was central to raising awareness of the issues facing gay men and lesbians in the 1970s. Not least among these issues were the criminalisation of consensual same-sex conduct in New South Wales until 1984, and in Tasmania until 1997. The legacies of criminalisation have continued long after those reforms.

The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade since that time has raised awareness about the stigma facing people with HIV/AIDS, the fight for marriage equality, and the wider issues facing LGBTIQ+ peoples. Yet the parade as a vehicle for disruption to amplify awareness about intractable social issues can be at odds with the broader, ordered, public relations objective of the Mardi Gras. This is only amplified in the global context of Sydney hosting World Pride in 2023.

The evolving role of protest-turned-pride events

The role of the police at Mardi Gras is complex. The inaugural parade in 1978 ended with violence between the police and protesters, 53 arrests, and the beating of many of those people arrested while in police custody.

Exemplary of the relationship between mainstream news media and the police, The Sydney Morning Herald published the names, addresses and professions of those arrested. There have been apologies to the 78ers from politicians, police and media since then.

Investigations into possible bias motivated attacks have culminated in the current NSW Special Commission of Inquiry into LGBTIQ hate crimes. One aspect of that commission is to look at the ways the NSW police have approached issues relating to “bias crime” or “hate crime” from 1970 to the present.

The policing of the 2013 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras gained global attention after a bystander video of police excessive force against a spectator went viral.

The policing of, and police participation in Mardi Gras events, remains contentious for these and other reasons, and formed part of the basis for Senator Thorpe’s temporary blocking of the parade. Senator Thorpe was marching with the No Pride in Genocide float, organised by Pride in Protest. Pride in Protest seeks to bring back the radical roots of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras to bring about social justice change.

Taken from a tweet, Senator Thorpe’s narrower focus is to raise awareness of the role that Black and brown trans women have played in effecting change through protest against police violence.

One of the outcomes from the contentious policing of the 2013 Mardi Gras Festival was stronger inter-agency dialogue with police. That dialogue sought to emphasise the celebratory nature of Mardi Gras, and proportionate policing that reflected community values. Communities that have over been over-policed through being criminalised, and potentially underprotected because of stigma, are particularly sensitive to police interference. As such, police within those communities need to prioritise engagement through policing strategies that recognise the values of those communities. This requires reasonable justification of police practices from police, and community acknowledgement of the necessity of those practices.

Issues over the use and efficacy of drug detection dogs, the use of searches, and the scale of police presence at Mardi Gras events, remain contentious.

The medium is the message

Within this complex history, Thorpe’s temporary blocking of the parade forms part of an ongoing conversation between LGBTIQ+ communities, politicians and police about what are acceptable and unacceptable forms of protest.

The NSW Police Force has stated that it will not charge Thorpe. The broader reaction has been mixed – for some, her disruption of the protest is part of a continued fight for visibility of policing issues in Indigenous, queer and refugee communities. For others, Thorpe’s message was out of place at what has become a broader celebration of diversity and inclusion.

The longer-term question about the efficacy of this particular protest, and who benefits from it in the public relations space, remains to be seen. At the same time, the capacity of the Mardi Gras parade to balance activist perspectives with broader advocacy and allyship is very much grounded in what LGBTIQ+ peoples and their allies define as the driving issues of the day, the prioritisation of resources to that end, and what kind of exposure might best secure results.

Most recently, the more than a decade long campaign to secure marriage equality in Australia is a clear example of the organising capacity of LGBTIQ+ communities to effect law reform on important issues, and to maximise the use of social media networks and public relations to achieve those ends.

Read more:
Can a polite sign lead to political change? What kinds of protest work?

The corporatisation of the Mardi Gras parade through major sponsorships, and major corporation participation in the parade, rankles with some because of the commodification of sexuality and gender identity that this represents. There is seemingly a distance between the visible grass roots activism of 1978, and the less visible, day-to-day, behind the scenes work that might go into securing a proportionate police presence at the Mardi Gras parade and related events.

Yet, these two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Pride parades across the globe are used as vehicles for awareness-raising and protest against a range of police conduct. But at the same time, the rise of anti-LGBTIQ+ extremism means that LGBTIQ+ events might need a security presence to keep participants and audiences safe.

The message of protest, its delivery, and harnessing of a broader call to action, are just as important as securing the media exposure in the first place to effect longer-term positive outcomes. Outcomes that in some instances may only really be measured at the ballot box, and through community prioritisation and resourcing of the issues most important to them.

Justin Ellis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Lidia Thorpe’s Mardi Gras disruption is the latest in an ongoing debate about acceptable forms of protest at Pride – https://theconversation.com/lidia-thorpes-mardi-gras-disruption-is-the-latest-in-an-ongoing-debate-about-acceptable-forms-of-protest-at-pride-200713

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Paul Murphy, Lecturer in Digital Media, CQUniversity Australia

Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery, or theft? Perhaps it comes down to the imitator.

Text-to-image artificial intelligence systems such as DALL-E 2, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion are trained on huge amounts of image data from the web. As a result, they often generate outputs that resemble real artists’ work and style.

It’s safe to say artists aren’t impressed. To further complicate things, although intellectual property law guards against the misappropriation of individual works of art, this doesn’t extend to emulating a person’s style.

It’s becoming difficult for artists to promote their work online without contributing infinitesimally to the creative capacity of generative AI. Many are now asking if it’s possible to compensate creatives whose art is used in this way.

One approach from photo licensing service Shutterstock goes some way towards addressing the issue.

Read more:
No, the Lensa AI app technically isn’t stealing artists’ work – but it will majorly shake up the art world

Old contributor model, meet computer vision

Media content licensing services such as Shutterstock take contributions from photographers and artists and make them available for third parties to license.

In these cases, the commercial interests of licenser, licensee and creative are straightforward. Customers pay to license an image, and a portion of this payment (in Shutterstock’s case 15-40%) goes to the creative who provided the intellectual property.

Issues of intellectual property are cut and dried: if somebody uses a Shutterstock image without a licence, or for a purpose outside its terms, it’s a clear breach of the photographer’s or artist’s rights.

However, Shutterstock’s terms of service also allow it to pursue a new way to generate income from intellectual property. Its current contributors’ site has a large focus on computer vision, which it defines as:

a scientific discipline that seeks to develop techniques to help computers ‘see’ and understand the content of digital images such as photographs and videos.

Computer vision isn’t new. Have you ever told a website you’re not a robot and identified some warped text or pictures of bicycles? If so, you have been actively training AI-run computer vision algorithms.

Now, computer vision is allowing Shutterstock to create what it calls an “ethically sourced, totally clean, and extremely inclusive” AI image generator.

What makes Shutterstock’s approach ‘ethical’?

An immense amount of work goes into classifying millions of images to train the large language models used by AI image generators. But services such as Shutterstock are uniquely positioned to do this.

Shutterstock has access to high-quality images from some two million contributors, all of which are described in some level of detail. It’s the perfect recipe for training a large language model.

These models are essentially vast multidimensional neural networks. The network is fed training data, which it uses to create data points that combine visual and conceptual information. The more information there is, the more data points the network can create and link up.

This distinction between a collection of images and a constellation of abstract data points lies at the heart of the issue of compensating creatives whose work is used to train generative AI.

Even in the case where a system has learnt to associate a very specific image with a label, there’s no meaningful way to trace a clear line from that training image to the outputs. We can’t really see what the systems measure or how they “understand” the concepts they learn.

Shutterstock’s solution is to compensate every contributor whose work is made available to a commercial partner for computer vision training. It describes the approach on its site:

We have established a Shutterstock Contributor Fund, which will directly compensate Shutterstock contributors if their IP was used in the development of AI-generative models, like the OpenAI model, through licensing of data from Shutterstock’s library. Additionally, Shutterstock will continue to compensate contributors for the future licensing of AI-generated content through the Shutterstock AI content generation tool.

Problem solved?

The amount that goes into the Shutterstock Contributor Fund will be proportional to the value of the dataset deal Shutterstock makes. But, of course, the fund will be split among a large proportion of Shutterstock’s contributors.

Whatever equation Shutterstock develops to determine the fund’s size, it’s worth remembering that any compensation isn’t the same as fair compensation. Shutterstock’s model sets the stage for new debates about value and fairness.

Arguably the most important debates will focus on the amount of specific individuals’ contributions to the “knowledge” gleaned by a trained neural network. But there isn’t (and may never be) a way to accurately measure this.

No picture-perfect solution

There are, of course, many other user-contributed media libraries on the internet. For now, Shutterstock is the most open about its dealings with computer vision projects, and its terms of use are the most direct in addressing the ethical issues.

Another big AI player, Stable Diffusion, uses an open source image database called LAION-5B for training. Content creators can use a service called Have I Been Trained? to check if their work was included in the dataset, and opt out of it (but this will only be reflected in future versions of Stable Diffusion).

One of my popular CC-licensed photographs of a young girl reading shows up in the database several times. But I don’t mind, so I’ve chosen not to opt out.

Shutterstock has promised to give contributors a choice to opt out of future dataset deals.

Its terms make it the first business of its type to address the ethics of providing contributors’ works for training generative AI (and other computer-vision-related uses). It offers what’s perhaps the simplest solution yet to a highly fraught dilemma.

Time will tell if contributors themselves consider this approach fair. Intellectual property law may also evolve to help establish contributors’ rights, so it could be Shutterstock is trying to get ahead of the curve.

Either way, we can expect more give and take before everyone is happy.

Read more:
How to perfect your prompt writing for ChatGPT, Midjourney and other AI generators

Brendan Paul Murphy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is there a way to pay content creators whose work is used to train AI? Yes, but it’s not foolproof – https://theconversation.com/is-there-a-way-to-pay-content-creators-whose-work-is-used-to-train-ai-yes-but-its-not-foolproof-199882

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Adjunct professor, The University of Western Australia

The Iranian Islamic regime has been seriously challenged since the start of public protests last September. The government has sought to contain and suppress the protesters – even resorting to executions – but has been unable to stop them.

There are continuing reports of mass demonstrations in various parts of the country, including in the capital Tehran and other major cities in recent weeks.

The European Union last week placed new sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities, but stopped short of labelling the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group. Australia has also imposed new sanctions on Iranian officials, but critics have said it is not sufficient.

Read more:
Iran executions: the role of the ‘revolutionary courts’ in breaching human rights

Regime endures despite decades of protests

This is not the first time the Islamic regime has been besieged by protests. It has faced many domestic and foreign policy challenges over the past 40 years, including severe Western sanctions and international isolation.

The regime came to power in the wake of the momentous revolution of 1978-79 that toppled the pro-Western monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah. This propelled his key religious and political opponent, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, to transform Iran into a radical, predominantly Shia Islamic republic, with an anti-US posture.

Since then, Iran has been marked by growing domestic discontent over the regime’s conservative religious laws, political oppression, corruption and economic woes. The US has also frequently criticised the regime for human rights violations, its alleged frequent meddling in its neighbours’ affairs, and its controversial nuclear program.

Yet, the regime has managed to stay in power with a mix of force to contain internal opposition and ideological and pragmatic resilience to rebuff outside pressure.

In the process, the state has endured, but the society has suffered from religious restrictions, poor governance, economic decline, social and cultural stagnation and endemic corruption, despite Iran being an oil- and gas-rich country.

A new crisis for the regime

The current wave of protests – the largest and longest in the Islamic Republic’s history – was sparked by the death of a young Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini while in the custody of the regime’s notorious morality police. She had been arrested for for not wearing her hijab properly last September.

This tragic episode drove large masses of Iranian women, most from the post-revolutionary generation, to take to the streets for the first time. Their slogan became ubiquitous: “women, life, freedom”.

Given the widespread public grievances over other issues, the ranks of the protesters rapidly snowballed, signalling a revolutionary direction.

Shocked by the scale of the protests, the regime has used brute force to suppress them. So far, more than 500 demonstrators have been killed, many more injured and tens of thousands detained. At least four protesters have been hanged on charges of “war against God” or “corruption on earth”.

Do sanctions matter?

Most of the authoritarian governments in the region, plus Russia and China, have remained mute on the regime’s crackdown. But the West and human rights organisations have been outraged.

The US, UK and EU have condemned the regime’s repressive actions at home and supply of arms to Russia in support of its aggression in Ukraine. They have imposed multiple rounds of sanctions on the regime, including last week.

Members of the Iranian diaspora, including those in Australia, have also urged democracies around the world to put greater pressure on the regime.

In line with the US and its other allies, the Australian government also announced new Magnitsky-style sanctions on the regime in early February, targeting 16 law enforcement, political and military officials, including those with the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Read more:
Australia announces ‘Magnitsky’ sanctions against targets in Russia and Iran. What are they and will they work?

This came after criticism the government has been too slow and “risk-averse” to act.

An Australian Senate inquiry has also recommended designating the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation – a move taken by the US and Canada.

But the Australian government has not so far acted on the Senate inquiry’s recommendation, probably because it wants to keep lines of diplomatic communication open. The UK has also resisted for similar reasons.

The reality, though, is that sanctions are unlikely to have any more impact on the regime than what it has experienced during most of its existence. No outside measure is likely to deter the governing clerical elite from ensuring its survival.

The Basij paramilitary forces and other individuals targeted by Canberra hardly have any assets in Australia. Furthermore, the volume of trade between the two countries has dwindled over the years, amounting to just A$205 million in 2020-21.

However, sanctions do have symbolic value. Canberra could also go a step further by severing diplomatic ties, though this will not be in the interest of keeping the lines of communications open.

What could come next?

As of late, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has reportedly pardoned many of the detained protesters. This amnesty, however, doesn’t apply to everyone and comes with conditions.

But this may not mark the end of the story. The regime is well-entrenched and possesses all the necessary means to get even tougher. Many of those who created it still run it. Their fortunes are intimately tied to the survival of the theocratic order.

The protesters have also shown a remarkable determination to continue their actions in one way or another. The scene is set for more troubled times ahead.

Read more:
How female Iranian activists use powerful images to protest oppressive policies

Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Are Western sanctions on Iran making a difference? – https://theconversation.com/are-western-sanctions-on-iran-making-a-difference-199302

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Barrett, Associate Professor in Commercial Law and Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Cyclone Gabrielle’s trail of misery and destruction presents a major fiscal and political dilemma for the government: how should the country pay for the recovery? Does it borrow now and spread repayment over generations, or raise taxes in an election year?

Either way, the cost is significant. Finance Minister Grant Robertson has estimated the bill for fixing damaged or destroyed infrastructure at NZ$13 billion – equivalent to 11.5% of tax revenue collected in the year to June 2022.

According to Waka Kotahi, just repairing roads in the affected areas will cost an estimated $1 billion – more than a fifth of the agency’s usual annual expenditure.

On top of all this, New Zealand is still grappling with inflation and a cost-of-living crisis. The likley stimulus effect of significant government spending has to be part of the government’s calculations.

Between a rock and a hard place

Reserve Bank governor Adrian Orr has already suggested those in power will need to choose carefully between borrowing and raising taxes. The first option is predicted to stoke inflation. The second is politically challenging in an election year when the opposition is offering tax cuts.

Borrowing is undoubtedly the more politically attractive option for the government. The burden of repaying capital and interest could be spread over several years, perhaps over generations. (There are precedents for extreme debt spreading – some British government debt incurred in the 1750s was only repaid in 2015.)

Read more:
‘Build back better’ sounds great in theory, but does the government really know what it means in practice?

Borrowing money then spreading capital and interest costs over generations is a reasonable option for infrastructure projects, such as a dam that might be expected to last 100 years.

But the problem with borrowing to fix the damage caused by Cyclone Gabrielle is that we don’t know if, or when, another catastrophic weather event will occur. In fact, we seem to be experiencing so-called hundred-year storms with increasing frequency.

The burden of borrowing

Adrian Orr has also cautioned that borrowing is likely to increase inflationary pressures. If that happens, we can expect the Reserve Bank to move the official cash rate higher sooner, prompting retail banks to raise interest rates.

This will cause further pain for owners of mortgaged properties and businesses with high levels of borrowing. The economy could move into a deep recession as a result. There is a risk, too, of the economic nightmare of stagflation (recession and inflation, last seen in the 1970s) reappearing.

Read more:
Cyclone Gabrielle hit NZ’s main fruit-growing region hard — now orchardists face critical climate choices

The government also needs to consider whether it’s fair to borrow to fix current problems. Younger generations already face the prospect of a bearing a disproportionate tax burden of funding the superannuation and health costs of older people.

And shifting an unpredictable climate-related debt burden between generations appears unfair. Even if global warming is kept to a 1.5℃ annual increase, it’s impossible to predict whether Gabrielle-type events will become the new normal, or what other climate change remediation future generations will have to fund.

The trouble with tax

While increasing taxes would not create the same financial problems as borrowing, it’s clearly less politically attractive in an election year. But if we were to assume the government might take this option, which taxes might be increased or introduced?

In the medium to long term, a shift to carbon taxation is needed, but that won’t solve the current fiscal problems. The rates base in cyclone-affected areas has been decimated, and there is no precedent for cross-subsidisation between local government authorities.

Read more:
What Australia learned from recent devastating floods – and how New Zealand can apply those lessons now

An increase on the goods and services tax (GST) might be anti-inflationary, but it would disproportionately affect lower-income groups. And a steep increase in fuel levies, while theoretically attractive, is politically implausible in an inflationary environment.

A punitive tax on forestry companies – a type of reverse windfall tax – might have some populist appeal, given the role of slash in cyclone damage. But this could lead to job losses in some of the poorest parts of the country. Besides, reform will be best achieved through fundamental changes to forestry practices rather than an ad hoc tax.

The introduction of entirely new taxes – such as a land tax, a comprehensive capital gains tax, or some form of wealth tax – would takes years to craft and implement. That leaves an income tax increase as the only plausible option.

A fairer flood levy

Income tax surcharges are common during wartime. Countries like Germany and South Africa introduced temporary “solidarity” surcharges to fund national reconstruction or reunification (although the German Solidaritätszuschlag has still not been fully abolished).

But the most relevant precedent for New Zealand is the flood levy raised by the Australian government in 2011 to help pay for the devastating Queensland floods.

Read more:
Flooded Home Buyback scheme helps wash away the pain for Queenslanders

For one year only, taxpayers with an annual income between A$50,000 and $100,000 paid an extra 0.5% levy, while those earning over $100,000 paid an additional 1%. Taxpayers living in the affected areas were exempt from the levy, which was designed to raise A$1.8 billion.

In my view, the Queensland levy provides an appropriate template for partly funding infrastructure remediation after the catastrophe of Cyclone Gabrielle. A flood levy on higher earners would make a significant contribution to recovery funds and would send a message of solidarity: we are all in this together.

Regardless of what the government decides, in the years ahead we need to debate how taxes may alleviate the harm suffered by people and businesses after natural disasters, fund remediation and – maybe most importantly – reduce carbon emissions.

Jonathan Barrett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why a temporary flood levy on higher earners would be the fairest way to help pay for Cyclone Gabrielle – https://theconversation.com/why-a-temporary-flood-levy-on-higher-earners-would-be-the-fairest-way-to-help-pay-for-cyclone-gabrielle-200705

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Lecturer, RMIT University

Speculation over US President Joe Biden’s intention to run for office again is reaching fever pitch. Biden is, reportedly, on the verge of announcing he will indeed seek reelection. Opinion pieces are being churned out at a rapid clip. Polls are being commissioned with a feverish intensity.

Much of the focus is on one apparently simple question: is the 80-year-old Biden too old to run for reelection in 2024? He would be 82 at the start of a second term, and 86 by the time he left office.

Nikki Haley, the former UN ambassador and South Carolina governor, sought to fire up the Republican Party’s base after announcing her presidential campaign earlier this month, making the not-so-subtle proposal that politicians aged over 75 submit to mandatory cognitive testing.

The president’s age is, clearly, a matter of concern. But the intensity of the questioning over this issue is striking. It would be easy to believe this is the most pressing question for American politics right now.

Meanwhile, only last week, the dangerously influential Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene tweeted the United States needed a “national divorce” between red and blue states.

Just over two years ago, Donald Trump, the former president, incited an insurrection that very nearly succeeded. Today, his followers are openly invoking the spectre of secession.

Is Biden’s age really the dominant question?

The relentless focus on Biden’s age is indicative of an uncomfortable reality. The vast bulk of the American media establishment is incapable of grasping the true significance and dangers of the current political moment.

As Biden contemplates a re-election campaign, he is grappling with a potentially catastrophic breakdown in democracy facilitated by a group of fanatical and influential Republicans that explicitly believe in minority authoritarian government based on racist disenfranchisement.

At the same time, the United States is experiencing an uneven social, economic and environmental fracturing caused by decades of destructive deregulation. The country now appears grounded in policy inertia from an increasingly gridlocked Congress.

And internationally, Biden inherited the legacy of a failed imperial project in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, which the policy establishment in the US remains unable and unwilling to think beyond.

Some observers have described this as a state of “polycrisis”, a series of disparate but interacting systemic shocks that are upending assumptions and challenging old certainties.

The most pertinent question is not Biden’s age. It is whether Biden is capable of negotiating the extraordinary ruptures in American politics. And if he is not, who is?

Biden’s place in history

In his first term, Biden has demonstrated his grasp of the pressing needs of the moment. And he has quietly established himself to be the most consequential president of our times.

The office of the US presidency personalises power to such an extent that it is often presumed it is presidents and their individual traits (such as age) that determine the course of events. But the truth is, whatever power a president has at their disposal, they remain constrained by the circumstances inherited from their predecessor and current economic and political realities. Presidencies will forever be bound by events beyond their control.

Fundamentally, what defines a presidential tenure is not the particular personality or priorities of a president, but whether they rise to the needs of the moment.

In another era, Abraham Lincoln may have been too colloquial or cerebral for national office (he was a paradoxical man). Outside the specific circumstances of the Great Depression and the second world war, Franklin Roosevelt’s patrician air may have grated too harshly on the electorate to claim a place in history. Jimmy Carter could have been lauded for his moral presidency across two terms.

The current state of the American republic means that what this president does, and what he is able to achieve, is quite simply more consequential than any other post-war president.

Viewed against the broad sweep of American history, Biden’s self-appointed task is not to win reelection. It is not to win partisan points against his opponents. In a strict sense, it is not even to accumulate a record of legislative accomplishment.

The task he has been set by this moment is the rescue and repair of American democracy.

Read more:
Biden’s first 100 days show a president in a hurry and willing to be bold

Biden demonstrates an awareness of this position that is rare among presidents. He has already expended considerable effort in consulting with leading historians to place his administration in the context of American history – particularly his efforts to enact large-scale reform amid crisis.

The effect of this is evident in his administration’s legislative record. Through the climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act (the largest piece of climate spending in US history), to protecting marriage equality and providing student debt relief, the Biden administration has sought to make meaningful reform without risking further instability.

Whether he succeeds in this approach – and that remains an open question – Biden is already presiding over tectonic shifts in American history. And he is all too aware of the consequences of failure.

It is within this context that Biden must determine if he will run.

A reminder of better times

There is a simple and uncomfortable reality for Democrats: no one else has as effectively demonstrated their awareness of the needs of the moment as Biden – and they are unlikely to get the chance to do so in the immediate term.

Biden has a singular capacity to communicate the seriousness of the threat to US democracy to swathes of the American public that might otherwise be disengaged or feel disenfranchised. And he does it from behind the presidential seal.

Biden may be returning lacklustre opinion poll results, but the one time the resonance of his message was put to the test was at the midterm elections. Then, Biden demonstrated a grasp of the national mood that most pundits and political professionals missed. It turns out many Americans continue to care deeply about the state of their democracy and the maintenance of institutional protections for basic rights.

Read more:
Midterm election results reflect the hodgepodge of US voters, not the endorsement or repudiation of a candidate’s or party’s agenda

Biden can seem like a relic from a different age. He ambles, and he is visibly frailer than he used to be. He reminisces a lot about the good old days. He is easy to dismiss.

But he also represents something more. He represents tradition, a form of politics that is not trapped in constant, partisan trench warfare on every issue. He reminds people of a time when things got done. From a distance, we can dismiss this as misguided nostalgia. But there is nothing nostalgic in millions of Americans wishing for a government that actually governs.

Biden may be from a different time. But against the odds, the president may have found his moment.

Emma Shortis is a member of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network.

Liam Byrne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Could Joe Biden be the most consequential American president of our times? – https://theconversation.com/could-joe-biden-be-the-most-consequential-american-president-of-our-times-200348

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Treasure McGuire, Assistant Director of Pharmacy, Mater Health SEQ in conjoint appointment as Associate Professor of Pharmacology, Bond University and Associate Professor (Clinical), The University of Queensland

Mental health is key to health and wellbeing. Yet two in five Australians aged 16 to 85 (44%) experience a mental illness during their lifetime, commonly anxiety or depression. And more than 32 million antidepressant prescriptions are dispensed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme each year for these diagnoses.

Use of antidepressants has increased since the beginning of the COVID pandemic at a greater rate than past decades. As we return to some semblance of normality, people may well be thinking about going off their mental health medicines, particularly antidepressants.

But what are the risks of stepping down or stopping these medicines? Here’s what to consider.

Is there ever a good time to stop antidepressants?

It can take several weeks after starting an antidepressant before symptoms begin to improve. During this time, the person may feel worse before they feel better, as side effects often occur before symptoms improve. Troublesome symptoms (nausea, diarrhoea or insomnia) will usually improve once the body adjusts to the new medicine. So, it is important to give the antidepressant a “fair go” and not stop too early in this process.

For people who have been diagnosed with their first episode of anxiety or depression and are responding to their antidepressant, guidelines recommend a six- to 12-month duration of use, followed by medical review to assess if taking medication is still indicated.

Of course, there are reasons you might be thinking about discontinuing your antidepressant. They could include:

• no longer experiencing symptoms of depression or anxiety

• finding other ways of coping

• medicine seeming ineffective

• long-term use and wanting a break

• a life event such as pregnancy, divorce or job change

• media influences, such as reports about treatments or portrayals of people taking similar medications

• side effects, stigma or pressure from family and friends.

Read more:
The chemical imbalance theory of depression is dead, but that doesn’t mean antidepressants don’t work

Go slowly

In animal studies, restricted plasticity in specific brain parts (that is, the brain’s ability to modify connections or rewire itself) can cause features of depression or anxiety. How antidepressants work is not completely understood. However, recent evidence suggests they protect against or reverse some of these maladaptive neuroplastic changes.

Beneficial effects take time, and stopping antidepressants quickly can unwind the medicine’s neurophysiological adaptations. This can create a “shock to the system” and potentially lead to unwanted side effects such as withdrawal symptoms.

Slower reduction allows the brain time to gradually readjust.

Read more:
The TGA has approved certain psychedelic treatments: the response from experts is mixed

What can go wrong when you abruptly stop antidepressants?

Stopping antidepressants abruptly, especially after a long period of use, will make most people – although not everyone – unwell. It’s impossible to tell in advance who will be affected, so slow dose reduction is advisable.

Stopping antidepressants (or tapering down the dose) too rapidly can cause antidepressant discontinuation syndrome in around 20% of people.

Withdrawal symptoms are variable but can include flu-like symptoms (lethargy, fatigue, headache, achiness, sweating), insomnia, nausea (sometimes vomiting), dizziness, sensory disturbances (such as burning or tingling) and hyperarousal (anxiety, irritability, agitation, aggression, mania, jerkiness).

Symptoms typically occur within ten days and usually resolve in two to three weeks. But occasionally, a protracted withdrawal syndrome lasting many months can occur.

People who’ve had irregular doses, switched antidepressants, overlooked side-effects or previous withdrawal symptoms are more likely to experience protracted symptoms and take longer to recover.

Is this withdrawal or a relapse?

In mental illness, the cause of symptoms can be difficult to differentiate. Antidepressant side-effects can mimic withdrawal symptoms or disease relapse, causing confusion for both patients and prescribers.

Withdrawal symptoms tend to surge irregularly like waves. This makes them different to a relapse of the original condition, which has a more consistent pattern and takes longer to develop.

Antidepressant discontinuation is an important decision. Consider whether you are in the right mindset to make this change. Work with a trusted mental health professional to tailor a strategy for your individual circumstances to minimise withdrawal or relapse risk.

Read more:
Can taking vitamins and supplements help you recover from COVID?

4 things to think about

Once you’ve considered your reasons for wanting to stop taking an antidepressant and whether you’ve given it a fair shot to work, think about whether you feel well physically and emotionally and have supportive people in your life.

If you still want to embark on a process of stepping down or ceasing medication:

1. approach your prescriber honestly with your reasons for discontinuation and work towards a shared decision to reduce the dose

2. plan dose reduction at a rate suitable for your personal health and duration of antidepressant use (months versus years). Longer use requires a longer taper. Dose reduction can be by as little as 10% or as much as 25% every one to two weeks, followed by another two to four weeks when you can observe how you feel and manage the reduced dose. If symptoms are tolerable, continue tapering as before. But be prepared to move back to the previous or a 10% dose increase if symptoms emerge

3. monitor any symptoms and health by using a daily diary that records the drug dosage throughout the taper

4. maximise the chances of success with self-care: a healthy diet, regular exercise and sleep.

Every medicine we take should have a reassessment date. People taking antidepressants should have their medication reviewed no later than 12 months after they started.

This gives an opportunity for the patient to discuss the risks versus benefits of remaining on their medicine or developing a shared strategy for safe discontinuation.

Treasure McGuire does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Considering going off antidepressants? Here’s what to think about first – https://theconversation.com/considering-going-off-antidepressants-heres-what-to-think-about-first-198880

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Moseby, Associate Professor, UNSW Sydney

If you want to see some of Australia’s most charismatic threatened mammals such as bilbies, boodies and stick-nest rats, chances are you’ll have to go to a zoo – or a safe haven.

What’s a safe haven? An area safe from feral predators, such as islands too far offshore for foxes to swim to, or mainland sites ringed with cat- and fox-proof fences.

Recent research has suggested we can now take 29 species off the threatened list, thanks in large part to safe havens. But unfortunately, it’s not that simple, as we’ve found in establishing several havens. Safe havens are not the same as the wild. When we try to reintroduce animals outside the fences, they disappear down the maws of cats and foxes.

Yes, they fend off extinctions. But safe havens require ongoing management, which is expensive, challenging and rarely guaranteed long term. We should not rely on them to take species off the threatened list.

What are safe havens for?

In 1995, Australia had just a handful of havens. By 2017, we had 17 mainland havens and 101 island refuges, housing 38 different threatened mammals. The reason is they work, at least over the short term. Most of our threatened mammals are small and unwary, easy prey for two introduced predators which hunt by stealth.

When you take off the pressure from cats and foxes, reintroduced animals bounce back. Inside safe havens, populations soar by an average of 680% over a 17-year period. Outside, their populations declined by an average of 63%. No wonder governments are funding them.

Fenced safe havens are usually small, to make it possible to remove all feral predators and keep watch for any making it over the fence. The threatened mammals inside the fence are isolated, meaning they have a higher chance of inbreeding and are more vulnerable to random disasters. Sometimes, havens even provide extra food and water.

Read more:
Why Australia needs to kill cats

There are worrying signs these islands ringed by fence or sea are not entirely sustainable. Many species within safe havens breed frantically, sending their populations skyward to unsustainable levels before a severe population crash. Ideally, they would be controlled by native predators, but the havens are too small to allow this. We’ve seen this play out with burrowing bettongs at one of our safe havens, Arid Recovery, in South Australia.

Some species struggle even inside fenced havens. The stick-nest rat has failed to establish in at least four havens.

Are safe haven animals ‘wild’? Not quite

Let’s say you have a growing population of bilbies in our zoo network. Does this mean the species is now safe? Hardly. Safe in zoos doesn’t mean species are safe in the wild.

Safe havens are similar. Yes, the animals are free-roaming. They forage, breed and hide from predators such as snakes and eagles. But safe havens are created and sustained by people. When havens lose funding and fall into disrepair, the predators eventually break in and kill everything they can. Fenced off Shark Bay bandicoots in Western Australia were eventually killed by cats.

When the government works out if a species is threatened or not, it counts the animals in safe havens as contributing to the wild population.

Read more:
We found 29 threatened species are back from the brink in Australia. Here’s how

If we use this measuring stick, mammals like the bilby, boodie, stick-nest rat, golden bandicoot and Shark Bay bandicoot can indeed be taken off the threatened species list.

But this seems hasty. Threatened species are defined as those where a “relatively large risk of extinction in the wild, sometime in the future, is deemed to exist for a species”, according to our key biodiversity law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

If we remove a species from the threatened species list, we could place it at even higher risk of extinction.

When a species is threatened, it gets special consideration. Mining companies and developers have to ensure plans for land in its range won’t cause significant harm to the species. Companies may have to provide offsets to any damage. At the very least they are required to survey and monitor the species.

Consider the iconic bilby, whose range has shrunk by more than 80% in the last 150 years. It’s now found in the wild only in a small part of Queensland and in remote parts of Northern Territory and Western Australia.

Reports suggest it’s still declining in the wild, due to foxes and cats, more intense grazing and dangerous fire regimes. But because bilbies have been successfully reintroduced to islands and fenced safe havens, they no longer meet the criteria for being threatened.

Let’s say we remove them from the list. They would lose any special consideration when projects affecting their habitat are proposed, and conservation funding would dry up. Bilbies could quietly go extinct in the wild while reintroduced fenced populations thrive, at least in the short term.

Does this mean safe havens are a bad idea?

No. We’ve co-founded four fenced safe havens to protect populations of nine threatened species. They are necessary. They ward off extinction and let us research the species. But they are only the first step to recovery.

It’s much harder to reverse the decline of threatened species in the wild. But it’s not impossible. Gene drive technology is maturing, potentially making it possible to force feral predators to breed themselves out of existence by having only male offspring. Almost 70% of Australians favour this approach, if viable. We also have biological controls, new control tools and improved management of fire to draw on. ˇ

Havens are exactly that – a desperate measure to stop extinction. We should keep species on the threatened list even if they have management-dependent haven populations. This will protect wild populations and drive innovation and interest in how we can best control feral predators and other threats.

We cannot simply put our threatened mammals behind fences and consider the job done.

Read more:
So you want to cat-proof a bettong: how living with predators could help native species survive

Katherine Moseby receives funding from the Federal Government Safehaven program and other government grants to establish safehavens . She co-founded Arid Recovery, Wild Deserts and Secret Rocks Safehavens.

John Read receives funding from the Federal Government Safehaven program and other government grants to establish safehavens . He co-founded Arid Recovery, Wild Deserts, Warru Pintji and Secret Rocks Safehavens. He is the director of Ecological Horizons environmental consultancy and the Thylation conservation innovation companies.

– ref. Threatened species recover in fenced safe havens. But their safety is only temporary – https://theconversation.com/threatened-species-recover-in-fenced-safe-havens-but-their-safety-is-only-temporary-200548

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anita Wreford, Professor Applied Economics, Lincoln University, New Zealand

Hawke’s Bay, one of New Zealand’s most productive regions and the hub of the fruit-growing sector, is among the areas worst hit by Cyclone Gabrielle and ongoing rain.

Horticulture underpins the local economy, with apple earnings alone contributing around NZ$700m annually. The immediate destruction of crops from the heavy wind and rain is obvious. But the full extent of the long-term damage to trees and vines themselves is yet to fully assessed.

With metres of silt covering the land, smothering crops and potentially suffocating the root systems of fruit trees, it’s clear the impacts will be severe.

Horticulture will take longer to recover than pasture, which can be grown back on the affected land. Fruit trees have deep roots and require a functioning soil structure, which may have been destroyed by the silt. Recent media coverage suggests the industry could take 50 to 100 years to fully recover, but during that time, we know there will be more extreme weather events.

The region has already been dealing with variable weather, including a severe frost in October that caused considerable damage to kiwifruit crops.

In the immediate weeks after the cyclone, growers will be busy removing silt from the base of trees to avoid the roots suffocating from a lack of oxygen. Prospects of harvesting for those hit hard are likely to be low – even without the destruction of crops, getting machinery into the orchards will be difficult.

Beyond the immediate clean-up, some fruit growers may need to consider whether this is a “window” for changing the type of crop or system.

Adaptation to a changing climate

Recovery will range from clearing the damage and possibly salvaging trees and vines to complete loss of orchards. The cost of replanting is eye-watering, and likely to be prohibitive for many. One Hawke’s Bay farmer estimated it will take three years to replant an 11-hectare apple orchard, at a cost of $180,000 to $250,000 per hectare.

Given the significant investment and the long life of fruit trees, there is a more strategic question to be asked about replanting the same crops in the same areas.

Hawke’s Bay has long been treasured for its highly valuable and diverse soils, resulting in the abundance of fruit grown in the region. But a changing climate may mean some of these areas will become less suitable over the coming decades.

Researchers are developing a growing understanding of the changing suitability for a range of crops during the remainder of the century. Assessments of suitability are based on projections of climate variables such as temperature, precipitation and frost days. All these represent gradual changes in growing conditions.

We are already observing fewer frost days, which is making the region less suitable for certain kiwifruit varieties. This is likely to be even more pronounced in the future. For apples, decreased chill is likely to be the biggest driver of change.

More intense weather will be part of the future

These projections do not, however, include extreme weather events such as Cyclone Gabrielle. In a changing climate, we know extremes will occur more often and may be more intense.

Although climate change doesn’t generate more cyclones, it can make them more intense. Even without these extreme events, rainfall is likely be become more variable and periods of heavy rainfall may increase.

Growers looking to get back on their feet after this highly disruptive event would benefit from understanding what the future is likely to hold for their region.

Industry bodies have a role here to support their growers’ knowledge and awareness of options and processes for adaptation. The horticulture sector has developed an action plan that recognises the need to develop new techniques and consider new growing regions, underpinned by scientific evidence.

Read more:
Extreme heat and rain: thousands of weather stations show there’s now more of both, for longer

Opportunity to do things differently

We’ll need to tackle adaption to climate change at all levels to ensure horticulture can continue to thrive in Hawke’s Bay. Growers may reconsider the types of crops planted, where they are grown or the way they are grown.

Some growers are already developing covered systems to provide protection from some elements (but which may not withstand events such as Gabrielle).

We must also consider the role of stop banks. They allow the development of land in potentially flood-prone areas, which may lead to a false sense of security and greater damage if they are inadequate for projected water volumes.

Read more:
Grape growers are adapting to climate shifts early – and their knowledge can help other farmers

There is increasing interest in returning riparian areas to their natural state to buffer against flooding, while also generating ecological benefits. But when the land protected by stop banks is as valuable as it is in Hawke’s Bay, this will be a challenging conversation.

With the increasingly disruptive weather Aotearoa New Zealand is already facing, and the changes expected over the next decades, it is crucial the decisions we make today do not make us more vulnerable in the future.

Anita Wreford receives funding from the Deep South National Science Challenge.

– ref. Cyclone Gabrielle hit NZ’s main fruit-growing region hard — now orchardists face critical climate choices – https://theconversation.com/cyclone-gabrielle-hit-nzs-main-fruit-growing-region-hard-now-orchardists-face-critical-climate-choices-200252

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Branwen Morgan, Research Director and Minimising AMR Mission Lead, CSIRO

The next time you need to take antibiotics, they may not work. So you may be prescribed a different antibiotic, which also may not work. Maybe nothing works.

This is what happens when bacteria develop resistance to drugs designed to kill them, putting modern medicine at risk, and making everyday infections deadly.

Climate change is accelerating the emergence and spread of these “superbugs”, which thrive in warm, wet conditions.

Our new report, released today, calls for modern solutions to these challenges. These include integrated surveillance and sensing systems, point-of-care diagnostics, new vaccines, and “prevention through design” of better farms, hospitals and other high-risk settings.

Overuse and abuse

Antimicrobials are medicines used to prevent and treat infections in humans, animals and plants caused by microbes. There are four main types:

• antibiotics treat infections caused by bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus (staph or golden staph) and Group A streptococcus (which causes strep throat)

• antivirals treat infections caused by viruses such as influenza and SARS-CoV-2 (which causes COVID)

• antifungals treat infections caused by fungi such as tinea and thrush

• antiparasitics treat infections caused by parasites such as Giardia and Toxoplasma.

Overuse and misuse of antimicrobials in both human and animal medicine is driving the evolution of drug-resistant strains of disease-causing microbes.

The World Health Organization has declared antimicrobial resistance one of the top ten global public health threats.

It is currently estimated to directly cause more than 1.25 million deaths worldwide each year, costing billions of dollars. Each year the problem escalates.

We must act now before widespread antimicrobial resistance manifests in total treatment failure.

Read more:
Humans are polluting the environment with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and I’m finding them everywhere

A climate for superbugs

Higher temperatures have been found to promote the growth, infection and spread of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, both in humans and animals.

Flooding from extreme weather events overloads sanitation infrastructure, increases congestion in already-crowded regions, and propagates antibiotic resistance through the flow and overflow of sewage – a proven reservoir for antibiotic resistance genes.

An increase in rainfall will also result in increased runoff from farms and industry and, consequently, result in higher levels of pollutants in the water.

Read more:
Rising antibiotic resistance in UTIs could cost Australia $1.6 billion a year by 2030. Here’s how to curb it

Environmental pollutants have been shown to promote the production of antibiotic resistance genes and increase bacterial mutations that can exacerbate resistance.

Increased nutrient-rich agricultural runoff will enhance the likelihood of algal blooms in water systems, and high bacterial concentrations will boost opportunities for the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes.

Droughts present problems too, as water scarcity leads to reduced sanitation and results in higher densities of people sharing the same water source or using contaminated water for agricultural purposes.

Crowding and sharing water can increase the likelihood of waterborne diseases becoming epidemics, as common symptoms such as diarrhoea and vomiting cause further reductions in hygiene and increase contamination of water.

Malnutrition, overcrowding and inadequate sanitation all increase the risk of children contracting antibiotic-resistant gut infections. This will inevitably result in more severe diarrhoea; a point of concern if antibiotic resistance increases as it would prevent current medications from being effective.

The shared environment for humans and animals is increasingly overlapping as the global population grows. This increases the likelihood of pathogen transmission
and resistance between the environment, humans and animals. If climate change is not addressed, it will have a disproportionate impact on the health and wellbeing of people, especially in low- and middle-income countries around the world.

Read more:
Scientists around the world are already fighting the next pandemic

Developing new drugs is not the only solution

It’s not as simple as making new drugs to replace failing ones.

Discovering new antibiotics is a slow and expensive process. They have a high failure rate, and most do not progress to the human clinical trial stage.

New antimicrobial drugs are prescribed sparingly to minimise the likelihood of antimicrobial resistance. This results in lower demand, fewer sales and no return on the millions of dollars of investment.

While this is crucial, we require a more holistic antimicrobial resistance approach that includes protecting the efficacy and availability of the medicines we currently have, and finding innovative solutions that we can start to deploy as soon as possible.

Our Mission: to fight superbugs

While Australia has been taking decisive action to reduce antibiotic use and discover alternatives, the nation’s prescription rate remains high relative to other similar developed countries.

Recognising the urgency, CSIRO, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and the Department of Health and Aged Care, co-developed the Minimising Antimicrobial Resistance Mission.

Our mission aims to prevent, manage and respond to antimicrobial resistance using new and emerging technology.

To explore the types of technologies that could be used to tackle antimicrobial resistance, CSIRO worked with the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. The resulting report provides insights into how we best prompt collaboration, validate policy and explore potential actions and innovative solutions to mitigate antimicrobial resistance.

Following an initial exploratory survey in March 2022, the team conducted a series of roundtable conversations and expert interviews, alongside desktop research.

Consultations involved more than 100 stakeholders spanning government, academia, and industry. Key technologies that could be used to reduce the prevalence and spread of antimicrobial resistance were identified.

Consultations also explored the barriers to implementation of the technology-based solutions, and key enablers.

The message from stakeholders was clear – there is a lack of coordination in the efforts against the rise of antimicrobial resistance, significant data silos across states and sectors, and a need to increase community understanding about antimicrobial resistance.

A need to streamline and simplify pathways to market was also called out as a key
requirement to enable technology-based solutions to get to the places they are needed the most – both within healthcare settings, and beyond.

Two key recommendations emerged from the report:

1. Establish centralised coordination and leadership for antimicrobial resistance management to align and coordinate domestic and international activities across human health, animal health and environmental health sectors.

2. Streamline and optimise the commercialisation process to support Australian antimicrobial resistance solutions entering the market.

Imagine the world in 2050

Without preventative action, it is estimated that by 2050 antimicrobial resistance would lead to 10 million people dying every year and cost the global economy US$100 trillion.

We have a critical window of opportunity to act now, to avoid going back to a time when simple infections were deadly and surgeries were too risky to perform.

Prevention strategies such as vaccination and the use of sensing to know when and where to deploy resources will be essential.

We hope our report will inspire governments to invest in tackling antimicrobial resistance in a coordinated and cohesive manner before we sleepwalk into a superbug’s paradise.

Branwen Morgan receives funding from CSIRO.

– ref. Climate change is fuelling the rise of superbugs. What can we do to save ourselves? – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-fuelling-the-rise-of-superbugs-what-can-we-do-to-save-ourselves-200707

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danny Liu, Associate Professor in Academic Development and Leadership, University of Sydney

Universities around Australia are starting the academic year under yet another cloud of uncertainty.

After surviving the disruptions of COVID, teachers and students begin this semester under the apparent threat of ChatGPT, which can generate human-like text.

Some fear this powerful new technology will increase student cheating and undermine academic integrity. The Universities Accord discussion paper released last week specifically asks “what settings are needed to ensure academic integrity” in the wake of “generative AI software”.

We are academics who research education, educational technologies and writing. Amid the speculation about what this might mean, how could ChatGPT be used by teachers and students to improve teaching, learning, and assessment in 2023?

Read more:
The Universities Accord will plan for the next 30 years: what big issues must it address?

It can save teachers time

ChatGPT can help teachers save time preparing lessons and resources.

For example, practice tests can help students learn, but many teachers don’t have time to create banks of questions. But if you provide a topic, ChatGPT can generate multiple-choice or short-answer questions. It can also pre-generate sample responses and feedback (you will need to fact check these, however).

ChatGPT could also be used to provide examples of writing when setting assessments. We know these can help students understand what is expected of them, and improve their performance. But making these examples is very time-consuming. Again, ChatGPT can help produce different ones at different levels. Teachers can then show students a response at a “pass”, “credit” and “distinction” level.

ChatGPT can also generate creative discussion starters. For example, ask it to “generate ten prompts to kick-start class discussion on the merits of a Voice to Parliament” and provide each group with a different one.

There is also no need to hide what you are doing. A discussion of how you are using AI, and ChatGPT’s biases can help students learn about misinformation and prejudices online.

It can help students learn

Much of the current panic focuses on ChatGPT’s ability to produce a finished essay. But it can be used to create new opportunities for learning.

It could be used to overcome writer’s block by generating topic sentences or ideas for structure. You can ask, for example, “Suggest a structure for a paper critiquing the use of technology in schools and provide examples of topic sentences.” Or, students could provide ChatGPT with an unfinished paragraph and ask it to suggest what might come next. If you’re a student, check with your teacher about what is appropriate and allowed.

Read more:
The rise of ChatGPT shows why we need a clearer approach to technology in schools

If writing is already underway, ChatGPT can provide feedback. If permitted, ask it to improve a sample of your writing based on specific criteria, such as clarity and directness. Asking ChatGPT to explain why it provided certain suggestions can also help you improve how you write, analyse and argue.

ChatGPT can also simplify complex explanations. You can ask, for example, “give me a simpler explanation for the following …” or “summarise the steps involved in this process …” Its explanations might help you identify gaps in your own knowledge.

To practise addressing common misconceptions, you can ask ChatGPT to intentionally make mistakes in its explanations. If it refuses, encourage it, for example: “It would help me to learn if you provide an explanation that purposely has mistakes”.

Because of its capacity to explain and provide suggestions, ChatGPT also has great potential to help students living with disabilities, those who have trouble with spelling and writing and for students struggling to learn in a second or subsequent language.

What do we do about assessment?

One way to understand AI’s impact on traditional assessment is to put assessment questions into ChatGPT. With a bit of prompting, its output could likely score a passing grade. So how might assessment change because of this?

Designing assessments that require higher-level critical thinking skills is important. ChatGPT can struggle – for now – with connecting ideas across paragraphs, evaluating sources, or creating complex overall arguments.

So, instead of using straight essays or reports, assessments could ask students to include core readings, a perspective from their experience, or references to recent news in their analysis. Similarly, students could produce a video, podcast, or website instead of purely written text.

Students could still generate drafts with AI and then inject contemporary references. But they will need to edit the AI-generated text in order to meaningfully connect it with their context. This process of refining and contextualising AI-generated content is likely to be a core skill for graduates now and in the future.

Another option is staged assessments, involving drafts and feedback from teachers, which reduce the risk that students will just rely on ChatGPT. The learning process can be assessed by grading hypotheses, highlighting improvements based on prior feedback, tracking changes between drafts, or asking students to reflect on how they have changed their approach based on feedback.

Short “writing sprints” in class time can help develop writing skills and provide opportunities for live feedback. Students might summarise class discussions, connect learning goals to their lives, or draft upcoming assignments.

For examinations, oral assessments are more secure and can allow students to demonstrate deeper understanding. Written exams might incorporate the impact of AI, such as asking students to critique and edit AI-generated content – as they may have to do in future workplaces.

Read more:
With record numbers of students cheating, unis should revert to old school in-person exams

Teachers and students need to work together

From talking to our students ahead of this academic year, we know most do not want to bypass learning. They are concerned about the integrity of their degrees and what AI means for their careers.

Teachers and students need to work together to shift from the view of uni as just getting a certificate to prove you “know something”. This huge growth in technology is an opportunity to improve learning and teaching, especially if teachers and students have open conversations about how AI might be used.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. As uni goes back, here’s how teachers and students can use ChatGPT to save time and improve learning – https://theconversation.com/as-uni-goes-back-heres-how-teachers-and-students-can-use-chatgpt-to-save-time-and-improve-learning-199884

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tyler Reysenbach, Research associate, Grattan Institute

The biggest review of Australia’s migration system in decades is due to be delivered to the federal government.

Commissioned by the Albanese government last September, its task is to identify reforms that will increase economic productivity, address challenges such as an ageing population, and make Australia a more desirable destination for highly skilled migrants.

But perhaps its thorniest job is how to provide temporary migrants with clear pathways to permanent residency and citizenship. This won’t be easy, given how much the number of temporary migrants in Australia now outstrips the permanent visas on offer.

It’s impossible to run an uncapped temporary migration program with a capped permanent program and offer all long-term temporary visa holders a road to permanent residency.

Something has to give.

Simple arithmetic: demand exceeds supply

About 1.9 million people – 7% of the population – are living in Australia on temporary visas with work rights.

About 680,000 are New Zealanders, who can get a visa automatically as part of a reciprocal agreement between Australia and New Zealand. The other 1.2 million migrants comprise international students, temporary skilled workers and working holiday-makers, among others. There is no cap on the number of these temporary visas granted. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government was issuing about half a million each year.

This is far in excess of the cap on permanent visas offered. In 2019, the Morrison government reduced the cap from 190,000 to 160,000 places a year. The Albanese government raised it to 195,000 for the 2022-23 financial year. It remains to be seen what will happen in future years.

The queue is getting longer

Not all temporary visa-holders want to stay in Australia, but many do. Most migrants are already in Australia on a temporary visa when they receive their permanent visa.

But with a greater number of temporary residents vying for permanent residency, the wait times are rising, and migrants’ prospects of success are declining.

About 42% of migrants granted a temporary skilled visa in 2008 got a permanent visa within four years. Of those who arrived in 2014, just 36% secured permanent residency within four years.

The decline was worse for those on student visas. About 25% of international students who arrived in Australia in 2007 had become permanent residents six years later. For those who arrived in 2012, just 12% were permanent residents six years later.

Unclear, uncertain and longer pathways to permanent residency exact both personal and social costs. They disrupt migrants’ lives and careers, making migrants less productive. For example, a temporary skilled visa holder might want to switch to a job that better suits their skills, but can only qualify for permanent residency if they stay put. We’re depriving society of the migrant’s full potential.

Many employers are reluctant to hire international graduates on temporary visas, instead hiring applicants who already have permanent residency. This helps explain why a quarter of recent graduates (on temporary graduate visas) are either unemployed or not looking for work. Most that do work earn no more than working holiday-makers, despite being more qualified.

Read more:
Australia’s borders are open, so where are all the backpackers?

What to do about it?

Offering a permanent visa to every long-term temporary migrant who wants one would require an enormous, and unpopular, increase in Australia’s permanent intake.

Even a smaller, more realistic, increase in the permanent intake would come with costs – notably more expensive housing.

Capping temporary visas would reduce pressure on already-rising rents. But it would also make it harder for some employers and mean fewer international students paying fees to universities.

So what should we do?

We should continue to give priority to younger, skilled migrants for permanent visas. Pathways to permanent residency should not be automatic nor based on how long temporary migrants have been in Australia. A guaranteed pathway to permanent residency in Australia will only encourage more people to come here on temporary visas, and those already here to stay even longer.

We should also avoid creating new temporary visa programs for less skilled workers in areas such as agriculture or the care economy, because they only add to demand for more permanent visas down the track.

We must acknowledge that not all temporary migrants can stay in Australia, even if they want to.

Change the selection criteria

The best permanent visa system is one that selects migrants most likely to contribute to the nation’s long-term success.

The current policy grants permanent skilled work visas on the basis of occupation. This should change to whether migrants can earn a good wage – demonstrated by a sponsoring employer being willing to pay them at least A$85,000 a year.

This would mean temporary migrants are no longer at the mercy of official occupation lists, which can change at any time. A sponsored worker and their employer could be confident they qualify for permanent residency. Employers will be more confident about hiring graduating international students if they know they can sponsor that employee for permanent residency within a couple of years.

Read more:
It’s time Australia dumped its bureaucratic list-based approach to temporary work visas

Another reform would be to allow temporary skilled migrants to work in any occupation, provided they earn more than A$70,000 a year, so they can build their skills and careers in Australia before securing permanent residency.

Creating a better system for points-tested visas – which is how many students secure permanent residency – would also help. The current system encourages migrants to gain points through spending thousands of dollars on low-value courses, or by moving to regional areas where there are fewer job opportunities.

Instead, there should be a single points-tested visa, where points are only allocated for characteristics that point to a migrants’ future success in Australia.

The aim of the migration system should be to create clearer pathways to permanent residency in Australia. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who wants to stay can do so.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How to improve the migration system for the good of temporary migrants – and Australia – https://theconversation.com/how-to-improve-the-migration-system-for-the-good-of-temporary-migrants-and-australia-199520

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Hughes, Professor of Social Work, Southern Cross University

World Pride has come to Sydney, with the annual Mardi Gras Parade on Saturday having returned to its Oxford Street home for the first time in three years.

The 17-day festival is expected to host 500,000 participants over more than 300 events. It is an opportunity to celebrate all things queer, and a good time to take stock of the changes LGBTQ+ older people have experienced, and the challenges they continue to face.

LGBTQ+ people aged in their 70s, 80s and 90s have witnessed extraordinary social change regarding gender and sexual diversity. For example, in Australia, same-sex marriage is now legal, Gender Identity Disorder has been removed as a clinical diagnosis, and all states have an equal age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.

These have been hard-fought gains after many years of adversity and advocacy on the part of LGBTQ+ older people, among others.

Each year, the 78ers – who were involved in the Sydney marches and protests between June and August 1978 – take pride of place towards the front of the parade.

Loneliness and social isolation

Despite these achievements, the consequences of living most of one’s life in a homophobic and transphobic society have been considerable, particularly in terms of mental illness and social isolation.

Australian and US research indicates loneliness is more common among lesbian, gay and bisexual older people than the general population. This is particularly so for those who live alone and are not in a relationship. Similar findings are reported in relation to transgender older people, although more research is needed.

Loneliness is also more common among lesbian and gay older people who are disconnected from LGBTQ+ communities and who hold negative attitudes towards their own same-sex attraction.

For LGBTQ+ older people experiencing social isolation and loneliness, what might be their experience of watching World Pride from a distance? What might it be like navigating rainbow paraphernalia while shopping at Coles (a World Pride partner)? How might they perceive the glitz and glamour of the Mardi Gras Parade?

World Pride may be challenging for those who don’t feel an attachment to LGBTQ+ communities or who feel negative about their own sexuality. And this may reinforce a sense of disconnection.

But some may gain comfort from witnessing the sense of community on display. It may even strengthen their perceived connection to other LGBTQ+ people. And, for those who are not open about their sexuality or authentic gender, it may support their journey to “come out” later in life.

Read more:
Blessed Union puts queer families centre stage, with hilarity and heartbreak

The impact of discrimination

For many LGBTQ+ older people, the experience of discrimination remains very real in their lives. Past and recent discrimination leads to delays seeking treatment and support, simply because people expect to be discriminated against when accessing services.

In Australia, previous discrimination has been found to predict loneliness and lower mental health among older lesbian and gay people. In the US, microaggressions – small everyday interactions that reinforce the experience of being “other” – have predicted greater impairment, higher rates of depression and lower quality of life among LGBTQ+ people aged 80 and over.

There remain major gaps in evidence on the issues faced by LGBTQ+ older people, particularly for bisexual, queer, transgender and nonbinary older people. This is mainly due to the failure to systematically collect inclusive data on gender and sexual diversity, through variables such as those recommended by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Strengths and resilience

This year, older people seemed to occupy a more prominent place in the Mardi Gras Parade. Perhaps this is because of the natural ageing of our community activists. Older people were also represented in the wider World Pride festival, such as in the theatre production All the Sex I’ve Ever Had, in which older Sydney residents reflect on the evolution of their sexuality over the course of their lives.

A festival like World Pride showcases the strengths and resilience of LGBTQ+ people and communities. The organisation of such an event should not be underestimated. This reflects LGBTQ+ people’s high level of civic engagement and commitment to giving back to society, as demonstrated by their greater likelihood of being volunteers and caregivers. And the contribution of volunteers and caregivers during the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s and ‘90s is not forgotten.

LGBTQ+ older people generally are resilient and maintain good health. Many report increased confidence and self-esteem, compared with when they were younger. And many have created their own families – their families of choice – to support each other in later life.

But we don’t know enough about their needs and how to provide them with inclusive services as they get older. World Pride is an opportunity to reflect on the hard-won gains but not ignore the challenges ahead.

Mark Hughes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. For some LGBTQ+ older people, events like World Pride can be isolating – we need to better understand how to support them – https://theconversation.com/for-some-lgbtq-older-people-events-like-world-pride-can-be-isolating-we-need-to-better-understand-how-to-support-them-200533

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Elphick, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University

In 2018, Australians were shocked to learn that religious schools still had the right to discriminate against LGBTQ students and staff.

Politicians called it “utter crap”. Polling found 74% of Australians opposed it.

Federally, both the then-Coalition government and Labor opposition committed to protect LGBTQ students from discrimination. Yet, almost five years later, laws allowing religious schools to expel LGBTQ students and sack LGBTQ staff remain in place.

Late last year, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus asked the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to inquire into how to end discrimination against LGBTQ students and staff while allowing religious schools to build and maintain their communities of faith.

Last month, the ALRC released its consultation paper. It recommended the exceptions in federal discrimination law allowing religious schools to discriminate be removed.

In response, some faith leaders and commentators have argued the ALRC proposals threaten the future of religious education, represent a “fundamental attack” on religious freedom, and would be “catastrophic” for religious schools.

This is entirely untrue.

The ALRC proposals are sensible, clear and necessary. They cut through the noise that has surrounded these issues for many years. They appropriately protect both the rights of LGBTQ kids and teachers to be treated with dignity and respect, and of religious schools to maintain their connection to faith.

There are still some improvements that can be made. But this is our best opportunity to ensure federal discrimination laws finally catch up with contemporary values.

Read more:
Schools can still expel LGBTQ+ kids. The Religious Discrimination Bill only makes it worse

What are the ALRC proposals?

At the federal level in Australia, exceptions for religious schools have always existed.

Currently, the Sex Discrimination Act allows religious schools to discriminate on the basis of sex, sexuality, gender identity, marital status, and pregnancy where the discrimination is in “good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed”.

This sounds like a complicated test, but it is very easy to satisfy. A religious school simply has to prove there are some members of its religion who would want to keep out, or treat differently, particular students or teachers – such as LGBTQ students or unwed teachers.

The ALRC proposes removing these exceptions. This would, finally, make it unlawful for religious schools to discriminate in this way.

The ALRC also proposes reforms to ensure religious schools can still build and maintain a community of faith through hiring and termination of staff. These reforms would allow schools to preference staff on the basis of their religion – but not sex, sexuality or gender identity – where religion is a genuine occupational requirement of their role.

Christian schools could hire Christian teachers, Jewish schools could hire Jewish teachers, and Islamic schools could hire Muslim teachers.

Several states and territories, including Tasmania and Victoria, already adopt a similar approach. Not only has the sky not fallen, but religious schools in Australia only seem to be growing.

The ALRC has also proposed that religious schools be granted a right to terminate the employment of staff who actively undermine the “ethos” of the school’s religion, where the termination is proportionate in the circumstances.

Read more:
Australians reject discrimination that is based on religious belief: new research

How would the proposals affect religious schools?

The ALRC proposals would stop religious schools from expelling students or subjecting them to different treatment to their peers because they are gay or transgender. These proposals would also stop a religious school from sacking a teacher because, for instance, they are a single mother or in a relationship outside of marriage.

What the proposals would not do is force religious schools to hire or continue the employment of staff who fail to uphold reasonable and non-discriminatory codes of conduct and behaviour.

All employers, including religious schools, can adopt non-discriminatory codes of conduct – and the vast majority do. Such codes give employers the right to protect the culture and values of their organisation, including religious values and culture. As long as they are reasonable, nothing in the ALRC proposals affects such codes of conduct.

These proposals simply mean that religious schools would be in the same position as other schools and employers. They will be able to protect their organisational culture and values through existing discrimination law mechanisms.

How should the proposals be improved?

As we set out in the Australian Discrimination Law Experts Group’s submission to this inquiry, there are three ways in which the proposals should be improved.

First, because of the complex relationship between the Fair Work Act and federal discrimination laws, some of the ALRC’s proposals regarding the Fair Work Act have unintended consequences.

Certain proposals would actually allow an alternative route – enterprise agreements – through which religious schools could discriminate against LGBTQ staff.

This should be fixed by amending the Sex Discrimination Act to stop it being overridden by Fair Work Act enterprise agreements, and fixing the legal language in the ALRC’s Fair Work Act proposals.

Second, the ALRC has proposed that school curriculums should be entirely exempt from the Sex Discrimination Act. This undermines one of the purposes of the inquiry: to stop LGBTQ kids from being discriminated against at religious schools.

Instead of directly excluding them, schools and teachers could instead use the cloak of the “curriculum” to vilify and discriminate against students on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity.

It is difficult to see how this proposal is consistent with the duty of care owed by schools to students. It is also unclear how such a proposal would operate in conjunction with the development and implementation of the national curriculum. It should be rejected.

Third, the terms “ethos” and “religious ethos” are used throughout the ALRC’s proposals.

The term “ethos” has never been used in any of Australia’s 13 federal, state or territory discrimination laws. Nor is it found in the international human rights treaties on which those laws rely.

Importing the concept of an institution having an “ethos” is unnecessary and confounding. References to “ethos” should be removed.

These three proposals undermine the value of the ALRC’s otherwise sensible proposals. They give rise to confusion and legal complexity. Fixing them will ensure the great promise of the ALRC inquiry is fulfilled.

School is not just about learning maths and English. It is the place young people learn some of their most important formative lessons about their individual worth and the worth of their peers.

Religious schools can build and maintain a community of faith without discriminating against LGBTQ students and staff – indeed, many already do. It is well and truly time for the law to reflect that.

Liam Elphick is affiliated with the Victorian Pride Lobby, an organisation that works toward equality and social justice for the Victorian LGBTIQA+ community.

Robin Banks is affiliated with Outside the Box / Earth Arts Rights, and A Fairer World, both not-for-profit groups that work to promote human rights and social justice, and the inclusion of all people in the full range of societal opportunities.

Alice Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Religious schools can build a community of faith without discriminating. The law should reflect that – https://theconversation.com/religious-schools-can-build-a-community-of-faith-without-discriminating-the-law-should-reflect-that-200532

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Aggar, Associate Professor of Nursing, Southern Cross University

Delirium is a sudden decline in a person’s usual mental function. It occurs when signals in the brain aren’t sending and receiving properly, causing confusion in thinking and altered behaviour or levels of consciousness.

Delirium isn’t a disease – it’s a clinical syndrome or condition that is usually temporary and treatable. It’s often mistaken for dementia because both conditions have similar symptoms, such as confusion, agitation and delusions. If a health-care professional doesn’t know the patient, it can be difficult to tell the difference.

Read more:
How much memory loss is normal with ageing?

Up to one-third of older people admitted to hospital are diagnosed with delirium. This increases the risk of unnecessary functional decline, a longer hospital stay, falls, needing to be admitted to a residential aged care facility, and death.

However, identifying the condition early reduces these risks. Delirium can also be prevented by identifying who is vulnerable to the condition and finding ways of reducing the person’s risk.

What causes delirium?

Delirium is usually caused by a number of underlying acute (short-term) illnesses and medical complications. Elderly people are vulnerable to delirium because their bodies have fewer reserves than younger people to respond to these stressors. People with dementia are particularly at risk.

Factors that cause or increase the risk of delirium include:

• malnutrition
• dehydration
• new medications
• a fall
• surgery
• infection
• admission to the intensive care unit
• multiple bed moves
• pain.

A diagnosis of delirium is made on the basis of clinical history, behavioural observation and a cognitive assessment by a clinician trained to assess delirium.

The patient and their family or carer should also be asked about any recent changes in the patient’s behaviour or thinking.

So how can it be prevented or treated?

Clinical care focuses on preventing delirium, managing risk factors and symptoms, and reducing the chance of complications, which prolong or worsen the condition.

To help prevent delirium we can:

• frequently reorient the person (reminding them of their location, the date and time)
• encourage the person to get out of bed and, where appropriate, to walk around, while ensuring they’re safe from falling
• manage their pain
• ensure adequate nutrition and hydration
• reduce their sensory impairments (helping them put on glasses and hearing aids and ensuring they’re working)
• ensure proper sleep patterns.

Why is delirium under-diagnosed?

While delirium is potentially preventable, it’s poorly recognised, and cases are often missed. This is due to inadequate knowledge among the attending health-care staff, a lack of routine formal screening and assessment, and health-care staff not knowing the patient.

Diagnosing delirium can be difficult when symptoms fluctuate during the day. Changes in alertness come and go, with people usually more alert in the morning and less so at night.

Read more:
Preventing delirium protects seniors in hospital, but could also ease overcrowding and emergency room backlogs

Delirium is also under-recognised because it can present very differently. In some people it can result in hyperactivity (hallucinations, delusions or uncooperative behaviour), and in other people, hypoactivity (decreased arousal which can be mistaken for fatigue or depression), or mixture of both.

Around 50% of people who are discharged from hospital with unresolved delirium symptoms can experience symptoms lasting for months. Alarmingly, some people transition into permanent states of cognitive impairment.

Delirium takes a toll on carers

Delirium costs the Australian government around A$8.8 billion a year.

The greater cost, however, is that experienced by the patient and their family. The sudden change in a person’s behaviour and/or emotions as a result of delirium causes high levels of stress and anxiety for family carers.

Carers of older adults diagnosed with delirium report high levels of psychological distress, poor wellbeing and less satisfaction with life because of their care-giving role.

The identification and management of risk for delirium is therefore imperative for safe and quality care for both patients and their family.

Partnering with family carers

Partnering with family carers can improve the care outcomes for older people who are hospitalised.

Family carers and friends are well placed to detect changes in patients’ cognition and behaviour. Close family members, in particular, have intimate knowledge about the person’s previous mental state and can identify subtle changes in their behaviour.

However, many carers of patients discharged from hospital with delirium receive little advice or ongoing support. Despite recent clinical standards recommending family carers be active participants in care, they’re often left out. This has been compounded by the COVID pandemic.

Read more:
Delirium, depression, anxiety, PTSD – the less discussed effects of COVID-19

To address this shortfall, we have developed a model of care to support the integration of carers as partners in the prevention and management of delirium to improve health outcomes.

Using a web-based toolkit, we’re hoping to increase awareness and knowledge of delirium among carers of older adults in hospital who are at risk of delirium. It also aims to support the carer’s wellbeing.

The toolkit is currently being trialled and evaluated at Tweed Hospital and, if successful, could be rolled out to all hospitals.

Christina Aggar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What is delirium? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-delirium-194631