Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Watson, Professor, The University of Queensland

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek this week acknowledged the grave state of Australia’s environment and pledged new laws to go before parliament next year.

But talk is cheap. The long-delayed State of the Environment report was not a surprise. Experts have sounded the alarm for years about the worsening plight of species and ecosystems. Labor had nine years in opposition to prepare policies. Where is the immediate action?

The new government has a tough job ahead. It took office as Australia faces overlapping and worsening environmental crises, due to more than two centuries of damage to the atmosphere, oceans, rivers and lands. And it must reverse nine years of Coalition neglect on environment policy.

The previous government sat on the State of the Environment report for months, squandering precious time. So while Labor works on its longer-term environmental reforms, here are five easy ways it can get started now.

1. Restore degraded farmland with native vegetation

More than half of Australia’s farmland is now considered degraded. Degraded land reduces the farm’s productivity and can cause significant soil erosion and aridity. The fix? Bringing back native plants tackles all these issues, as well as making farms more resilient to damage from insects and fires and less likely to damage the water table.

Read more:
This is Australia’s most important report on the environment’s deteriorating health. We present its grim findings

Restoring native vegetation doesn’t mean turning farms into forests. Strategic planting along fence lines, waterways, dams and around intact shade trees can often be enough to bring back wildlife.

Native plants boost biodiversity. More than 70% of our endangered species need targeted restoration to recover populations decimated through land clearing. Ecosystem restoration will also significantly boost natural carbon storage.

The easy win for the government? Offer tax incentives to plant diverse native trees. We already have ways to measure the carbon and biodiversity benefits of such restoration efforts, like those used by Queensland’s land restoration fund. Rewarding landholders for good land stewardship is an easy win.

2. Coordinate how we manage vegetation across all lands

The greatest threat to Australia’s biodiversity is native vegetation clearing. Our greatest carbon source, other than direct fossil fuel emissions and selling coal and gas, comes from land clearing. Australia is a global deforestation hotspot, with destruction and degradation rates hundreds of times greater than conservation rates.

Even habitat crucial to the long-term survival of threatened species doesn’t escape the bulldozers. An area the size of Tasmania of critical habitat has been cleared since legislation designed to stop this was introduced in 2000.

In short, these laws aren’t working. That was the conclusion of former consumer watchdog chief Graeme Samuel, who reviewed the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the previous government.

The easy fix? Act on the most important recommendation put forward by Samuel and bring in a national Environment Protection Authority now – ahead of the full-scale legislative revamp Plibersek is promising for next year. This would give teeth to the laws as they stand.

3. Phase out logging of native forests

Logging our few remaining native forests is a bad idea. It destroys threatened species habitat, making these species more endangered. It worsens fire risk, endangering people’s lives. It threatens our water supplies. Native logging also accelerates climate change because old-growth intact forests store much more carbon than pine plantations.

Logging native forests no longer makes economic sense, given the enormous losses being run up by state forestry enterprises. There’s enough timber in plantations to provide the resources Australia needs.

The easy win? Phase out logging. Work with industry and set a clear time frame to exit native forest logging through revised and accelerated Regional Forest Agreements.

4. Properly fund our protected areas

Australia’s protected areas listed in the National Reserve System are vital to our efforts to stop extinctions and biodiversity loss. Up to half of all of our endangered species live in protected areas like national parks and other reserves.

A well-managed national system of protected areas brings major climate benefits, due to the large land area under conservation management and avoiding losses that would otherwise occur through degradation and land clearing.

Australia now has 81 Indigenous Protected Areas, which play a crucial role in our national reserve system. These matter greatly, given their proven benefits to biodiversity, conservation and cultural connection to Country.

Unfortunately, our national reserves have been critically underfunded for many years. The rot started under the previous Labor government and continued through the Coalition’s nine years. Most protected areas now do not get enough funding to undertake any meaningful conservation.

The easy win? Fund our national reserve system better. These areas should be Australia’s jewels in the crown. But neglect has seen many reserves become hugely degraded. We cannot let cattle keep degrading endangered channel-country habitats of Diamintina National Park or let wild pigs keep trashing the lowland rainforests of Kutini-Payamu National Park.

5. Urgently boost threatened species recovery efforts

Australia’s threatened species crisis is getting worse. More and more species are going from to threatened to critically endangered to extinct in the wild. Previous government efforts have simply not been enough.

At present, less than 40% of our 1,700-plus threatened species has a recovery plan of any sort. Only 100 of these species get specific attention through the latest national threatened species strategy. Essentially, we’ve been picking a few winners to try to save from extinction. It’s not good enough for the rest.

The easy win? Launch an emergency national response to fight species extinction. Use the knowledge and expertise we have developed through efforts like the Threatened Species Hub to map out where and how to recover these species in the most cost-effective way.

The environment can do with some quick wins

Of course, these wins are not the entire solution. What they offer is a fresh start to turn around years of neglect and start taking the environment as seriously as it needs to be.

To tackle our looming biodiversity and climate crises properly will take sustained effort. As these crises emerge from modelled futures into our lived reality, our leaders must – at long last – heed the dire warnings from scientists and economists.

Read more:
Yes, the state of the environment is grim, but you can make a difference, right in your own neighbourhoood

James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council and National Environmental Science Program. He serves on scientific committees for Bush Heritage Australia, SUBAK Australia, BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with the Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland Government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel.

– ref. Labor won’t overhaul environment laws until next year. Here are 5 easy wins it could aim for now – https://theconversation.com/labor-wont-overhaul-environment-laws-until-next-year-here-are-5-easy-wins-it-could-aim-for-now-184565

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vanessa Pirotta, Postdoctoral Researcher and Wildlife Scientist, Macquarie University

Why don’t whales have teeth like we do? asked by Henry, 6 years old.

Great question, Henry. Your teeth are an important part of your body. They help you chew your food so you can eat and grow strong. But if you ever thought about inviting a whale for dinner, think again!

It’s true, some whales are toothless – but not all of them. Did you know the world’s biggest animal, the blue whale, doesn’t have any teeth at all? Whales with no teeth are called baleen whales. Along with blue whales, these also include humpback whales, right whales and more.

Some other types of whales do have teeth. These include sperm whales, beluga whales, and narwhals (which are like chunky unicorns of the sea).

So why don’t baleen whales have teeth?

It’s all based on their diet and how they capture their food. Unlike you and me, whales don’t eat veggies, which need lots of chewing. Their diet is mainly made up of small fish, prawn-like creatures called krill, and tiny creatures called plankton.

Krill are only a few centimetres in size, and can be found in large swarms in the ocean. A blue whale can eat up to 6,000 kilograms, or a bus-load, of krill a day.

Luckily, most baleen whales have very wide mouths – as wide as a car. The best way to eat these tiny animals all at once is to scoop them up in one giant mouthful. Yum!

Baleen whales open their mouths really wide and expand their throats, which have grooves all the way down to their stomachs.

This lets the whale make their mouth super big, like an expanding slinky, and scoop up lots of krill and seawater at the same time. In fact, some whale mouths are so big an elephant could fit inside!

But what happens to all that water?

Baleen whales all have long strands hanging from the top of their mouth – imagine lots of straw broom bristles. These strands are made of the same material as your nails and hair, called keratin.

The whale uses these bristles to trap the krill in their mouths, and push sea water out. This is like a sieve separating spaghetti from pasta water.

Some whales, like the humpback whale, are clever hunters, and may blow bubbles from their nose to
create nets around their food.

These bubbles pack fish into one area, letting the whale scoop them all up in one mouthful.

So, what would happen if a baleen whale came to dinner?

Well, first of all, the whale wouldn’t fit in the kitchen, so dinner would have to be outside.

Mum or dad would need lots of krill and fish. Forget about knives, forks or any table manners, tonight you’ll be eating with your mouth only.

But here’s the crazy part. Once dinner is served, your whale friend would open its mouth and expand its throat. This would be so wide, it would probably cover the entire kitchen table, including you and your family.

Talk about a very impolite, smelly and blubbery dinner guest!

Vanessa Pirotta 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. Curious kids: why don’t whales have teeth like we do? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-dont-whales-have-teeth-like-we-do-186727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chad Morrison, Academic Director of Professional Experience, Murdoch University

Every few days there is another report about the teacher shortage across Australia. Last week, we learned one of Melbourne’s biggest schools is considering a return to home learning to cope with staff shortages.

Read more:
COVID and schools: Australia is about to feel the full brunt of its teacher shortage

But as we look at the causes and possible solutions, something we are not talking about is the risks around rushing student teachers into classrooms before they are fully trained and ready.

We are academics with a focus on teacher education and leaders of the Network of Academic Directors of Professional Experience. We are alarmed about the growing trend of sending unqualified teachers into classrooms.

Student teachers are teaching

Our colleagues around Australia are regularly telling us about their students being recruited into paid teaching roles with special permissions to teach. This can be as early as their first, second or third year of study.

In New South Wales, university staff tell us between 20% and 30% of their final year (fourth-year) students are employed in teaching roles. Prior to the pandemic, this only occurred in exceptional circumstances.

In Victoria, as of July, the Victorian Institute of Teaching (the teaching regulator) has approved 782 “permission-to-teach” applications for final-year education students. This is a category specifically established at the beginning of 2022 to help support schools with COVID-related workforce shortages.

In Queensland, we are seeing students teaching in classrooms before they have graduated in the hundreds, rather than handfuls. Industry partners are telling us they predict more than 600 “permissions to teach” for student teachers in Queensland in 2022. This is up from 320 in the state in 2021.

Mixing work and study

All states and territories have schemes to allow student teachers into the classroom in a paid (non-studying) role. For example, in Tasmania, when a suitable registered teacher cannot be found, a school can apply to employ a student under a “limited authority to teach”. In the Northern Territory, a similar process allows schools to recruit people to teach in hard-to-fill or specialised teaching roles.

Western Australia has also opened up opportunities for final year students to work part-time in public high schools (with mentoring) and to register in the casual teacher pool.

The state also has uses an existing fast-track to put students into the classroom as paid teachers. The Teach for Australia program employs “associates” in a school after six-weeks of intensive training. From this point on, associates balance study in a master of teaching program with employment as a teacher, with support from mentor teachers and Teach for Australia.

WA currently has 175 full-time equivalent staff in public schools, who may be Teach for Australia associates, or working towards a teaching qualification. This is up from 112 in 2020. Taking into account casual and part-time workers, the actual number of students teaching in the system is likely to be higher.

A risky fix

Putting student teachers in the classroom to help deal with the teacher shortage seems logical. But it is a quick and risky fix.

Arguably, education students are already less prepared for the classroom than their pre-pandemic peers. Around the world, student teachers have experienced disrupted study because of the pandemic with shortened, simulated and irregular practical placements.

Read more:
Could more online learning help fix Australia’s teacher shortage?

This is on top of interruptions to their regular coursework, thanks to disruption the pandemic has caused within and beyond their studies.

Additionally, student teachers are entering a stressed and depleted workforce.
COVID has added to teachers’ already demanding workloads, made them sick (and therefore absent at times) and seen some reach the end of their tether and leave.

When more experienced staff are stretched, under-prepared teachers cannot be well-supported by those around them.

While all this is happening, it is becoming harder for student teachers to get supervised practical experience as part of their teacher training – there are less teachers to supervise them.

These factors mean student teachers are less prepared than in previous years and are entering workplaces that are demanding more of them.

Graduates will burn out

From an administrative perspective, this situation is placing a huge strain on teacher registration bodies around Australia, who are not structured to assess and process masses of “special authority” applications.

We are alarmed about the potential fallout here. Under-prepared and fast-tracked teachers cannot be well-supported. Nor can they be expected to perform as highly effective graduate teachers when they are drawing on disrupted university preparation and limited placements.

This leaves them vulnerable to burnout and leaving the profession prematurely.

Importantly, these factors are also likely to exacerbate the impact of COVID on children’s learning and development.

The increased needs of many children and young people have increased the complex demands of teaching them. The training of future teachers needs to prepare them for the new realities and requirements of teaching.

This will not improve ‘quality’

The current approach contradicts the federal government’s talk about improving teacher “quality” and we fear universities will be blamed for the outcomes of putting under-prepared graduates into schools.

Read more:
No wonder no one wants to be a teacher: world-first study looks at 65,000 news articles about Australian teachers

We need to put our focus back on preparing high-quality teaching graduates – even if this takes more time and resources to get them into the classroom.

Alongside other strategies and responses, employers need to prioritise placements for student teachers. This will allow them to progress through to career entry under conducive conditions. Good preparation is essential for teacher effectiveness and retention.

What we are doing at the moment is equivalent to giving student teachers an umbrella to go out into a raging thunder storm. This is not sensible, justifiable or sustainable.

This approach also has the potential to worsen teacher shortages in the coming years and risks seeing teacher attrition levels like we have never seen before.

Chad Morrison is part of the Network of Academic Directors of Professional Experience, which is part of The Australian Council of Deans of Education. The Council aims to ensure Australia produces teacher graduates of the “highest quality”.

Brendan Bentley is part of the Network of Academic Directors of Professional Experience.

Jennifer Clifton is part of the Network of Academic Directors of Professional Experience.

Susan Ledger is part of the Network of Academic Directors of Professional Experience.

– ref. Growing numbers of unqualified teachers are being sent into classrooms – this is not the way to ‘fix’ the teacher shortage – https://theconversation.com/growing-numbers-of-unqualified-teachers-are-being-sent-into-classrooms-this-is-not-the-way-to-fix-the-teacher-shortage-186379

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charlotte Dunn, Lecturer in Classics, University of Tasmania

Alexander the Great was a successful conqueror, but a poor planner. He died without an acceptable heir to inherit the empire, just a soon-to-be-born baby son, and a half-brother not quite up to the task.

And as Game of Thrones fans will know, such circumstances can lead to quite the power struggle, with poisoning plots, dramatic marriages, incest and a whole lot of fighting. We find all this and more in the Hellenistic Age, which is what we call the time period 323 BCE-33 BCE, starting with Alexander’s death and ending with Cleopatra’s famous snake bite.

These circumstances began the career of Demetrius the Besieger, one of the more outrageous rulers of the time. Like many others who fought for a piece of Alexander the Great’s empire, Demetrius was never supposed to be king. But he and his father Antigonus the One-Eyed didn’t let a lack of royal blood get in the way of ambition. The two of them spent many years fighting, stealing territory, and eliminating rivals.

In 306 BCE, they both claimed the title King. They were trendsetters in this area, and soon self-made kings popped up all over the place, dividing Alexander’s empire into smaller kingdoms of their own. But even during this time of royally bad behaviour and a multitude of rival kings, Demetrius still managed to gain a standout reputation.

Work hard, play harder

Demetrius’ biographer, the ancient author Plutarch, tells us Demetrius had a policy akin to work hard and play harder. He was famous for his ingenuity and extravagance when it came to siege equipment and his skill in this type of warfare earned him the name Besieger.

His repertoire included the use of a monstrosity called the Helepolis (city-taker), a type of mobile tower block estimated to be between 30-40 metres tall, with a base of 21 metres.

This terrifying creation was filled with soldiers, and would screech as it moved slowly towards its target city. This was such an amazing sight that, according to Plutarch, even those under siege had to admit they were impressed.

Coins and calendars

It can be difficult to tell fact from fiction in history, and the ancient writers certainly tell us some strange stories about Demetrius.

He is said to have manipulated time by changing around the calendar months, all so that he could complete his initiation into the Mysteries (a religious cult) faster than was legal.

He put his own portrait on his coins, and was probably the first living person to do so in the western world. Before this audacious move, the heads side of the coin had normally been reserved for images of gods or honouring important (deceased) individuals.

The Athenians even ended up addressing Demetrius as a living god in a special hymn, calling him the son of Poseidon and Aphrodite.

Parties and polygamy

Demetrius’ partying earned him an even more notorious reputation.

He had a handful of wives (Demetrius was a polygamous king, and ended up marrying at least five women), but his favourite companion was the courtesan Lamia, whose name refers to a flesh devouring monster.

There are plenty of tales of the two of them cavorting together, sometimes rather sacrilegiously. For example, the Athenians tried to honour Demetrius by allowing him a symbolic marriage to their patron goddess Athena – but the Besieger didn’t think too much of marrying a statue. Instead, he and Lamia went into the temple and committed various acts said to be rather shocking to the virgin goddess.

Demetrius is even accused of taxing the city 250 talents (about 6,000 kilos of silver or gold), only to turn it over to Lamia and his other mistresses so they could buy beauty products.

Popularity and public relations

All this irreverent behaviour can only take you so far. Kingship, like many careers, requires a certain amount of admin work. Demetrius’ Macedonian subjects were dismayed by the disinterest of their king, but on one occasion they gained a little hope.

Demetrius actually took their petitions as though he intended to read them. They followed the king along on his walk in great excitement, only to watch in horror as Demetrius then dumped all of the petitions over a bridge, into the river below.

Read more:
Pornography, the devil and baboons in fancy dress: what went on at the infamous historical Hellfire Club

He was run out of Macedonia a little while later, ancient evidence of the importance of public relations. This sort of reversal of fortune was something Demetrius was well-versed in, having won and lost many times over throughout his career. So he simply went on with campaigning until he was deserted, broke, and fell into the hands of one of his enemies.

It was a sorry end for such a colourful character, but during his captivity Demetrius applied himself as vigorously to leisure and drinking as he once had to besieging and love affairs. He might not have kept his throne, but he certainly earned his place in history, an outrageous and fascinating individual, and truly a king.

Dr Charlotte Dunn is co-author (alongside Associate Professor Pat Wheatley, of the University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ) of ‘Demetrius the Besieger’, a historical biography published in 2020 by Oxford University Press.

– ref. Siege warfare, polygamy and sacrilege: meet history’s most outrageous king, Demetrius the Besieger – https://theconversation.com/siege-warfare-polygamy-and-sacrilege-meet-historys-most-outrageous-king-demetrius-the-besieger-185866

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

If you’re outside staring in, you’d probably say the Albanese government is looking good. If you’re inside gazing out, you’d likely think its challenges appear little short of dire.

Next week the new parliament will commence with a fortnight’s sitting. There’ll be focus on the government-Green negotiations on the legislation for Labor’s 43% climate target. But it’s the economy and COVID that will actually be the more immediately worrying issues.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers, perhaps with an eye to the politics, has been using a megaphone to say he’ll have bad news when he gives a state-of-the-economy address to the House of Representatives on Thursday – a day after the release of the latest inflation figure, expected to be a shocker.

The revised economic projections will be affected by a range of factors, including to an extent the current, still-worsening, COVID wave, which governments are trying to manage without the imposition of restrictions people would no longer accept.

As we confront this wave, it would be desirable for the new parliament to have a repeat of the COVID Senate committee that did good work in the last term in questioning officials and extracting information.

Determined to show it is serious about its promises, the government released on Wednesday a list of the first pieces of legislation it will introduce.

These are bills for aged care reform, a new jobs and skills statutory body, domestic violence leave, and the climate change target. The integrity commission legislation will wait for the September sitting.

Bringing in the bills is the easy bit. Take aged care. The government says its legislation “will put nurses back into nursing homes, it will put a stop to high administration and management fees for home care [ .. ] and it will improve integrity and accountability for residential aged care homes”.

But finding all the needed nurses – to say nothing of the increased number of other staff vital for effective reform – will be enormously difficult.

Those who might have seen Labor’s win as an end to our national climate wars were prematurely optimistic. Ironically, the early days of the new parliament will see another stage in this battle.

Labor doesn’t need to legislate its new target, but wants to do so to underline its intentions and send strong signals to investors and the world in general. To get the legislation through will require the support in the Senate of the Greens and one more senator.

The Greens party room on Wednesday reiterated its view that Labor’s policy is not ambitious enough, but gave leader Adam Bandt authority to negotiate.

After the meeting the Greens said: “Areas of concern remain the adequacy of the target, the need for targets to be ratcheted up and for the bill to operate as a floor not a ceiling, the lack of enforcement mechanisms, and new coal and gas projects that would lift pollution.”

One Greens source says “we’re at the diplomacy table, not in the trenches”.

Labor has indicated it is open to tinkering with detail but won’t budge on core substance. There will be no change in the target, no ban on new mines.

The government can’t afford to make sizeable concessions to the Greens, not least because that would cast doubt on the reliability of its word. It is also anxious to signal it is not hostage to the Greens, despite its dependence on them in the upper house when legislation is contested.

Can the Greens afford to give in to the government and not oppose the bill? They would disappoint their hard-line supporters. They too, in political terms, need differentiation. But if they were to sink the legislation, they’d be accused of putting purist ideology ahead of supporting progressive policy. The Greens have quite a lot on the line in their decision.

All this will take some time to play out. The legislation could go to a Senate committee. The final vote could be a way off.

The Coalition’s “internals” on the climate legislation will be interesting. Peter Dutton has flagged his opposition. “I’m making it very clear to the Labor Party now that we aren’t supporting the legislation,” he told the ABC in June. The much-reduced Liberal moderates are not happy with that “captain’s call” ahead of the party-room discussion. There is speculation one or two might cross the floor.

And what about the teals? Their votes are irrelevant in the lower house, but crossbencher David Pocock’s vote might be needed in the Senate. The government will want to be polite to the teals, but in the end it’s the numbers that count.

The parliamentary fortnight will be closely observed for its tone, its “vibe”, as well as its substance.

While the teals and other crossbenchers won’t be determining outcomes in the House of Representatives, the crossbench there, now numbering 16, will have a significant presence, including a reasonable opportunity to quiz and critique ministers.

When parliament is sitting an opposition has a platform, but the Coalition will be struggling to make the most of it, at least in the foreseeable future.

Dutton has a ragtag bunch to manage, with senior people having trouble finding their feet in their straitened political circumstances. There are still major arguments to be had about how the opposition positions itself.

This is not uncharted ground. Labor faced the same situation after its 2019 defeat when it was even more shattered, because the loss was unexpected. The lesson for Dutton (though it would go against the grain) should be to stay low-key for a while until he’s listened and thought things through. It’s a long road to the next election.

Presently the opposition is speaking with conflicting voices on current issues – for example, it has been divided over whether the border to Bali should be closed to keep out foot and mouth disease.

The government will spruik its own plans in parliament but it will also keep reminding the public of criticisms of the Morrison government. This will complicate the opposition’s attempts to pursue ministers. For instance, it would be logical for the opposition to home in on Minister for Aged Care Anika Wells, given the COVID crisis in residential facilities. But Labor would quickly hark back to the record of former minister Richard Colbeck.

In various areas, the government will be arguing “we can’t turn around a decade of neglect immediately”. That’s true enough although this crutch will reach its use-by date with many voters fairly soon. And it’s not just neglect the Albanese government is grappling with – fresh problems are emerging all the time.

Once Albanese sits in the PM’s chair at the parliamentary dispatch box, the reality of “accepting responsibility” will take on a new intensity.

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. Grattan on Friday: Climate bill front and centre when parliament starts but it’s the least of Albanese’s problems – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-climate-bill-front-and-centre-when-parliament-starts-but-its-the-least-of-albaneses-problems-187439

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

If you’re outside staring in, you’d probably say the Albanese government is looking good. If you’re inside gazing out, you’d likely think its challenges appear little short of dire.

Next week the new parliament will commence with a fortnight’s sitting. There’ll be focus on the government-Green negotiations on the legislation for Labor’s 43% climate target. But it’s the economy and COVID that will actually be the more immediately worrying issues.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers, perhaps with an eye to the politics, has been using a megaphone to say he’ll have bad news when he gives a state-of-the-economy address to the House of Representatives on Thursday – a day after the release of the latest inflation figure, expected to be a shocker.

The revised economic projections will be affected by a range of factors, including to an extent the current, still-worsening, COVID wave, which governments are trying to manage without the imposition of restrictions people would no longer accept.

As we confront this wave, it would be desirable for the new parliament to have a repeat of the COVID Senate committee that did good work in the last term in questioning officials and extracting information.

Determined to show it is serious about its promises, the government released on Wednesday a list of the first pieces of legislation it will introduce.

These are bills for aged care reform, a new jobs and skills statutory body, domestic violence leave, and the climate change target. The integrity commission legislation will wait for the September sitting.

Bringing in the bills is the easy bit. Take aged care. The government says its legislation “will put nurses back into nursing homes, it will put a stop to high administration and management fees for home care [ .. ] and it will improve integrity and accountability for residential aged care homes”.

But finding all the needed nurses – to say nothing of the increased number of other staff vital for effective reform – will be enormously difficult.

Those who might have seen Labor’s win as an end to our national climate wars were prematurely optimistic. Ironically, the early days of the new parliament will see another stage in this battle.

Labor doesn’t need to legislate its new target, but wants to do so to underline its intentions and send strong signals to investors and the world in general. To get the legislation through will require the support in the Senate of the Greens and one more senator.

The Greens party room on Wednesday reiterated its view that Labor’s policy is not ambitious enough, but gave leader Adam Bandt authority to negotiate.

After the meeting the Greens said: “Areas of concern remain the adequacy of the target, the need for targets to be ratcheted up and for the bill to operate as a floor not a ceiling, the lack of enforcement mechanisms, and new coal and gas projects that would lift pollution.”

One Greens source says “we’re at the diplomacy table, not in the trenches”.

Labor has indicated it is open to tinkering with detail but won’t budge on core substance. There will be no change in the target, no ban on new mines.

The government can’t afford to make sizeable concessions to the Greens, not least because that would cast doubt on the reliability of its word. It is also anxious to signal it is not hostage to the Greens, despite its dependence on them in the upper house when legislation is contested.

Can the Greens afford to give in to the government and not oppose the bill? They would disappoint their hard-line supporters. They too, in political terms, need differentiation. But if they were to sink the legislation, they’d be accused of putting purist ideology ahead of supporting progressive policy. The Greens have quite a lot on the line in their decision.

All this will take some time to play out. The legislation could go to a Senate committee. The final vote could be a way off.

The Coalition’s “internals” on the climate legislation will be interesting. Peter Dutton has flagged his opposition. “I’m making it very clear to the Labor Party now that we aren’t supporting the legislation,” he told the ABC in June. The much-reduced Liberal moderates are not happy with that “captain’s call” ahead of the party-room discussion. There is speculation one or two might cross the floor.

And what about the teals? Their votes are irrelevant in the lower house, but crossbencher David Pocock’s vote might be needed in the Senate. The government will want to be polite to the teals, but in the end it’s the numbers that count.

The parliamentary fortnight will be closely observed for its tone, its “vibe”, as well as its substance.

While the teals and other crossbenchers won’t be determining outcomes in the House of Representatives, the crossbench there, now numbering 16, will have a significant presence, including a reasonable opportunity to quiz and critique ministers.

When parliament is sitting an opposition has a platform, but the Coalition will be struggling to make the most of it, at least in the foreseeable future.

Dutton has a ragtag bunch to manage, with senior people having trouble finding their feet in their straitened political circumstances. There are still major arguments to be had about how the opposition positions itself.

This is not uncharted ground. Labor faced the same situation after its 2019 defeat when it was even more shattered, because the loss was unexpected. The lesson for Dutton (though it would go against the grain) should be to stay low-key for a while until he’s listened and thought things through. It’s a long road to the next election.

Presently the opposition is speaking with conflicting voices on current issues – for example, it has been divided over whether the border to Bali should be closed to keep out foot and mouth disease.

The government will spruik its own plans in parliament but it will also keep reminding the public of criticisms of the Morrison government. This will complicate the opposition’s attempts to pursue ministers. For instance, it would be logical for the opposition to home in on Minister for Aged Care Anika Wells, given the COVID crisis in residential facilities. But Labor would quickly hark back to the record of former minister Richard Colbeck.

In various areas, the government will be arguing “we can’t turn around a decade of neglect immediately”. That’s true enough although this crutch will reach its use-by date with many voters fairly soon. And it’s not just neglect the Albanese government is grappling with – fresh problems are emerging all the time.

Once Albanese sits in the PM’s chair at the parliamentary dispatch box, the reality of “accepting responsibility” will take on a new intensity.

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. Climate bill front and centre when parliament starts but it’s the least of Albanese’s problems – https://theconversation.com/climate-bill-front-and-centre-when-parliament-starts-but-its-the-least-of-albaneses-problems-187439

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paula Lorgelly, Professor of Health Economics, University of Auckland

Earlier this week, New Zealand health minister Andrew Little stated what most who work in health already know.

Healthcare is all about people – the people being cared for and the people doing the caring.

Population growth, ageing and a pandemic mean there is no shortage of those needing care, but in New Zealand and globally, there is a chronic shortage of healthcare workers.

Little stopped short of calling it a crisis, but researchers and international agencies alike agree with a survey of New Zealand doctors that the health workforce is in crisis.

In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) projected a global shortage of 18 million healthcare workers by 2030. That was before the COVID-19 pandemic. Between 80,000 and 180,000 healthcare workers have died globally during the pandemic’s first 16 months, according to the WHO’s conservative estimate.

Add to this the impact the pandemic has had on the mental health of frontline health staff, including reports of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and a healthcare workforce seven times more likely to have severe COVID and now carrying the burden of long COVID. It’s clear healthcare is no longer the attractive sector it once was.

Read more:
Nurses are leaving the profession, and replacing them won’t be easy

A highly mobile workforce and a global shortage

Like the cost-of-living crisis, the health workforce shortage is not unique to Aotearoa New Zealand.

This year’s budget included NZ$76 million for medical training and primary care specialists, but doctors who started training this year will not be specialists until 2034. Meanwhile, Labour’s solution is to undertake an international recruitment drive. It is hailing New Zealand as one of the easiest places in the world for healthcare workers to come to. But are our newly opened borders attractive enough?

In my health economics lectures I often use an anecdote about the Indian doctor who gets a job in the UK (colonial ties and a multicultural society), the British doctor who moves to Canada (less administration and more family friendly hours), the Canadian doctor who moves to the United States (specialists have much higher earning potential), and the US doctor who undertakes missionary work in India.

This highlights two issues: the health workforce is highly mobile and employment isn’t always about money. Aotearoa New Zealand is competing in a global health workforce market, and minister Little recently acknowledged the health sector as “fiercely competitive”. But this isn’t a new phenomenon for New Zealand.

Read more:
A burnt-out health workforce impacts patient care

The health workforce in New Zealand has one of the largest shares of migrant workers, with 42% of doctors and almost 30% of nurses foreign-born (second only to Israel and Ireland, respectively). This is much higher than the aggregate estimates showing one in six doctors practicing in OECD countries studied overseas.

The OECD estimates the number of foreign-born doctors and nurses in OECD countries has increased by 20%, twice the growth rate of the overall increase across the workfery concerning.

The health workforce is not equally distributed. Migration of workers from low- and middle-income countries to high-income countries like Aotearoa New Zealand is a real threat to achieving universal health coverage and sustainable development goals. New Zealand needs to be mindful that promoting our open borders is not at the expense of under-performing health systems with much greater need.

Losing healthcare workers to Australia

Outflow is also a problem in New Zealand, with New Zealand-trained doctors and nurses crossing the Tasman every year. Add to this the international recruits leaving New Zealand for Australia and there most definitely is a health workforce crisis.

As our nearest neighbour, Australia is aggressively recruiting staff. And like pavlova and Phar Lap they are happy to claim what is ours as theirs. An easier route to citizenship and voting rights will make Australia even more desirable.

How can New Zealand compete in this market? Minister Little refers to encouraging Kiwis to return home, including lifting their pay. Research shows it’s not all about income. Location and professional development opportunities are important factors when choosing career moves.

The healthcare reforms helped tempt me back to New Zealand after 22 years away. Perhaps working in a system which has equity as its focus may encourage those who are clinically trained to return as well.

There is considerable research to inform policies around retention and recruitment. The New Zealand Ministry of Health may wish to look to the UK, which was historically dependent on EU health and care workers and now has a health workforce depleted by both Brexit and the pandemic.

In the recent LSE-Lancet Commission on the future of the NHS, British scholars argued a sustainable workforce needed integrated approaches to be developed alongside reforms to education and training that reflect changes in roles and the skill mix, and more multidisciplinary working.

The LSE-Lancet Commission authors flagged the need for better workforce planning. New Zealand’s approach to workforce forecasting has also been criticised previously.

Planning aside, a possible solution worthy of discussion is the required skill mix of the workforce, particularly with technological advancements and changing health needs. For example, the introduction of non-medical prescribers has improved job satisfaction, released clinical time and increased patient access.

New Zealand’s once-in-a-generation health reforms offer a logical time to undertake workforce reforms. We need to learn from our own historical mistakes and avoid disconnecting the workforce from the policy reforms.

If minister Little and the ministry are to solve this, he will first need to admit there is a health workforce crisis. Aotearoa New Zealand is unfortunately not alone in its quest to adequately staff healthcare, but the transformation of the health sector to create a more equitable, accessible, cohesive and people-centred system means New Zealand is uniquely placed to put those people who deliver care at the centre.

Paula Lorgelly 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. Despite what political leaders say, New Zealand’s health workforce is in crisis – but it’s the same everywhere else – https://theconversation.com/despite-what-political-leaders-say-new-zealands-health-workforce-is-in-crisis-but-its-the-same-everywhere-else-187256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angel Zhong, Associate Professor of Finance, RMIT University

Australia has one of the world’s most concentrated banking sectors, with its four biggest banks – Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank, Westpac and ANZ – holding more about three-quarters of the market,

Read more:
Four pillars or four pillows? Banking’s comfy collective

It will become even more concentrated if ANZ – the “minnow” of the big four – completes its plan to buy the banking division of Queensland-based Suncorp for A$4.9 billion.

Suncorp, which also has a large insurance division, is the second largest of Australia’s four major regional banks. It is a significant brand in Queensland, and known to the rest of Australia through the name of Brisbane’s rugby stadium.

This will be the largest consolidation in Australian banking since 2008, when Commonwealth Bank took over Perth-based Bankwest and Westpac acquired Sydney-based St George Bank. It will push ANZ from fourth to third place by loan value.

First though, it needs two regulatory approvals – from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which can block any merger that “substantially lessens” competition in any market; and the federal treasurer, who has specific powers over the financial sector.

Approval is by no means guaranteed.

ANZ’s chief executive Shayne Elliott has argued the deal will “improve competition”. But that’s probably true only for ANZ.

Every smaller competitor, and consumers, have good grounds to argue the competition watchdog, or federal treasurer Jim Chalmers, should be vetoing the deal.

This isn’t 2008

When the competition watchdog and then federal treasurer Wayne Swan approved the acquisitions of Bankwest and St George in 2008, it was feared the alternative was these banks collapsing in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Bankwest’s owner, the Bank of Scotland, was in dire financial straits (and in 2009 would itself be taken over, by Lloyds Bank).

St George was in trouble, having had to raise its interest rates more than its rivals because it had borrowed so much money to expand its loans business.

ANZ’s competition argument

Suncorp is under no such existential threat. The ANZ chief executive’s argument about why the merger is good for competition has instead been based overwhelmingly on what it means to ANZ:

As the smallest of the major banks, we believe a stronger ANZ will be able to compete more effectively in Queensland offering better outcomes for customers.

He told the Australian Financial Review: “Just as Suncorp probably feels dwarfed by ANZ, we feel dwarfed by CBA.”

Absorbing Suncorp’s $45 billion of deposits and $58 billion in commercial and home loans to its books will push up ANZ’s share of the home-lending market to about 15.4%, compared with Commonwealth Bank’s 25.9%, Westpac’s 21.5% and NAB’s 14.9%.

But for everyone else, including consumers, other banks and regulators, the deal will likely hinder competition.

Concentration and competition

High market concentration does not necessarily mean competition is weak or that community outcomes will be poor, as the Productivity Commission concluded following its 2018 inquiry into the state of competition in Australian financial services.

Rather, it is the way market participants gain, maintain and use their market power that may lead to poor consumer outcomes.

However, the Productivity Commission also concluded Australia’s major banks had charged prices above competitive levels, offered inferior quality products, and had acted to inhibit the expansion of smaller competitors.

All are indicators of the use of market power to the detriment of consumers.

Bucketloads more evidence has come from the banking royal commission, which found evidence that all four big banks (and many other financial services companies) had committed illegal or unethical acts to maximise profits at their customers’ expense.

Read more:
What are we teaching in business schools? The royal commission’s challenge to amoral theory

Tackling the ‘cosy olipoly’

Following the publication of the royal commission’s final report in February 2019, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s head, Rod Sims, said

A cosy banking oligopoly is surely at the heart of recent problems, so we must and will find ways to get more effective competition in banking.

This mission is a work in progress. Some hopeful experiments, such as the “neobanks” (pure digital banks) are failing. Australia’s first neobank, Volt, which was granted its license to operate as a authorised deposit-taking institution in 2019, collapsed last month. The second neobank, Xinja, quit the banking business back December 2020.

Read more:
It’s unanimous: Economists’ poll says we can fix the banks. But that doesn’t mean we will

Given this, it’s hard to argue that further concentration is good for competition.

For the competition watchdog to block the deal, however, it must be convinced of a “substantial” lessening of competition. That means ANZ gaining market power to “significantly and sustainably” increase its prices or profit margins.

By my reading this deal will certainly lessen competition – but it’s uncertain if it will do so according to the “substantial” test.

Either way, this will prove a major test for the ACCC’s new head Gina Cass-Gottlieb, who was appointed in March, and Austalia’s new treasurer Jim Chalmers.

Angel Zhong 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. ANZ’s takeover of Suncorp will reduce bank competition – but will that be enough to block it? – https://theconversation.com/anzs-takeover-of-suncorp-will-reduce-bank-competition-but-will-that-be-enough-to-block-it-187279

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Judith Nicholls, Honorary Senior Lecturer, Australian National University

Review: Paper City, directed by Adrian Francis

In his first feature-length documentary, Adelaide-born director Adrian Francis offers a rigorous understanding of the American firebombing of Tokyo via survivors’ perspectives.

In a brutal attack nearing the end of the second world war, on March 9 and 10 1945, around 100,000 Japanese civilians were killed.

Many burned to death; others threw themselves into the nearby River Sumida, preferring death by drowning. Others took flight into bomb shelters where they were asphyxiated en masse.

The American Air Force’s chilling rubric for their unspeakable act was “Operation Meetinghouse.”

In Paper City’s account, the aftermath is principally conveyed by in-depth interviews with three Japanese survivors. At the time of the attack, Tsukiyama-san was 16, Kiyooka-san was 21 and Hoshino-san was just 14.

These testimonies are joined by one-off interviews with fellow octogenarians and nonagenarians who also experienced the firebombing.

Their memories collectively inform the bleak unfolding narrative, attesting to ruthless acts of terror.

Read more:
Why do we pay so much attention to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

We must remember

Solidly researched and confronting, Paper City was seven years in the making.

The film opens with archival footage of US fighter jets Tokyo-bound, transporting incendiary bombs, underscored by Don Baker’s 1942 song There’ll be a Little Smokio in Tokio.

Baker’s jauntily vocalised racist lyrics underpin the brutal dehumanisation of Japanese civilians through horrific footage.

The wholesale civilian massacre of innocents acts as a meditation on the passage of time, on collective memory and probable permanent loss. American cruelty is also at the forefront, not by demonising perpetrators but because there isn’t any other credible interpretation.

Paper City’s pressing proposition is the imperative humankind must remember so such events aren’t repeated.

The Japanese interviewees don’t apportion blame. Some acknowledge the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy had also acted contra to how they should have.

Paper City is interspersed with deliberate, measured Japanese calligraphy, punctuating viewers’ mounting tension. These interventions mark a change of pace. The focus turns to classical Japanese aesthetics, craftsmanship and skill, evoking longstanding Japanese values.

Calligraphic artistry relies on artists’ mastery of breath control, lest there be mishaps. Paper – an important leitmotif in Paper City – attests to the beauty of the classical Japanese written word, but equally to fragility and impermanence.

In wartime Japan and for eons earlier, interior paper walls were used in mostly wooden dwellings. These building materials contributed to Tokyo’s violent conflagration, triggering the massive death toll; mass suffocation ushered in permanent cessation of breath.

Read more:
How Japanese avant-garde ceramicists have tested the limits of clay

Honouring the dead

Tsukiyama-san, Kiyooka-san and Hoshino-san advocate for lasting peace. The firebombing wasn’t an act of war between military groups, but a strike on an unarmed, peaceful demographic.

In one sequence, Kiyooka-san returns to her childhood neighbourhood, giving a public talk focusing on the experience of herself and her family. The audience of parents and children pay close attention.

Kiyooka-san explains she entered the river, spending the night tipping water over her head to avoid her hair burning. In the morning light, thousands of charred bodies were revealed. Kiyooka-san came across her own mother, who’d regained consciousness and was barely clinging to life.

Hoshino-san also addresses a sizeable audience in his neighbourhood. Expressing fears that today’s Japanese memory of this harrowing attack is virtually non-existent, he’s driven by a sense of responsibility to honour those who died.

Hos hino-san observes there has never been any governmental effort to collect the names of the dead and honour the civilians who died as a result of this attack.

But under Tsukiyama-san’s leadership, his Morishita 5 District remains a miraculous exception. Tsukiyama-san’s vision and work ethic prompted resident citizens to create a near comprehensive list of those who perished in the firebombing.

An extensive scroll is now permanently displayed in the Morishita Neighbourhood Centre, commemorating local residents who were killed. Underpinned by citizen power, local memorial services have now been held.

Regrettably, despite these elderly activists heroically fighting the good fight for remembrance, this unspeakable attack remains unmemorialised by generations of Japanese governmental leaders.

Regardless of the interviewees’ long term, uplifting dedication to Japanese national memory, Paper City is disturbing.

Then again, apropos of this, it is difficult to imagine a better film could have been made on this subject.

Paper City is available to stream through the Melbourne Documentary Film Festival until July 31.

Christine Judith Nicholls 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. In Paper City, Japanese survivors recount their experiences of the 1945 firebombing of Tokyo – https://theconversation.com/in-paper-city-japanese-survivors-recount-their-experiences-of-the-1945-firebombing-of-tokyo-187353

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabriela Quintana Vigiola, Senior Lecturer in Planning, University of Technology Sydney

Urban areas are often thought of as concrete jungles, but they encompass much more than that. Nature, people and built structures are interconnected. Together they comprise the urban environment of the cities and towns in which we live.

In the past five years, Australian cities have continued to grow. In fact, the State of the Environment Report released this week revealed most of our major cities have grown faster than many developed cities overseas.

This growth has increased demand for resources such as water and energy. It has increased other impacts, too, including urban heat, congestion, pollution and waste.

Australian energy consumption by fuel type, 1978–79 to 2018–19

These pressures are a threat to the liveability and sustainability of urban life in Australia. However, the report assessed the overall state of the urban environment as good and stable – among the most positive ratings of any category. That’s largely a result of actions across Australia, mostly at the level of states, local councils and communities, that are starting to make progress towards cities that will be more resilient to climate change and remain good places for us to live.

The State of the Environment Report contains fundamental information on how the country’s environment is faring in areas ranging from air quality to urban environments. Western Parkland City Authority CEO Sarah Hill, private consultant and Barkandji woman Zena Cumpston and I collaborated in assessing the state of the urban environment for this report.

We found state and local governments have responded to some challenges with great initiatives that take us closer to more resilient and sustainable urban environments. However, there is still a need for national approaches and for better collaboration and co-ordination between the private and public sectors.

What are the pressures on our cities and towns?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) defines urban as centres with more than 200 people. Australia has over 1,853 urban environments. However, 75% of people in Australia live in just 18 cities with more than 100,000 people each.

The report shows the population of these 18 urban areas grew by 20% in the past ten years. Most of that growth happened in the five years after the last State of the Environment report in 2016. At the same time, remote area populations decreased.

Property developers and the construction sectors have responded by increasing housing production. They have mainly focused on apartment buildings and semi-detached houses.

Trends in Australian new housing by type as a percentage of the total

Unfortunately, at the same time the public sector has greatly reduced its role in housing. Based on ABS data, we calculated that the government now develops only 1% of all new dwellings in Australia.

Residential building and house sizes have slightly increased while lot sizes have shrunk. This means there is less open space. And these smaller backyards and setbacks between buildings are now often paved.

As a result, we are seeing higher temperatures and reduced or endangered biodiversity. These changes have negative impacts on people’s and the environment’s well-being.

Despite local government policies to increase green cover in public areas and protect our urban forests, the changes in private properties have led to an overall loss of green spaces in our cities.

Trends in percentage of land cover by category across 131 local government areas

These developments are often found in the urban outskirts of expanding cities. Increased travel distances and limited access to jobs, education, food and services are reducing the liveability of these cities.

These pressures are even worse in smaller and more isolated areas. For example, in the report we note:

“Indigenous communities in smaller urban centres are often far from amenities such as shopping, health care, cultural business, education and social services. In 2014-2015, 75% of Indigenous Australians reported that they could not easily get to the places they needed.”

These areas also have more insecure access to resources such as digital infrastructure, energy and water. On top of this, they have suffered from shocks such as extreme bushfires, floods and mice plagues.

So, the overall liveability of smaller urban areas with fewer than 10,000 people has been assessed as poor. The liveability of larger cities, on the other hand, has remained good over the past five years.

However, we need to beware of generalisations. Differences in liveability between inner and outer areas of the bigger cities are noticeable.

Inner-city areas have higher levels of liveability based on factors such as walkability, access to green spaces and services. The urban fringes tend to have poorer access to services and longer commute times. Higher socio-economic areas tend to benefit from better tree canopy cover and digital access.

Smaller urban areas have some advantages – mainly shorter commute times – but are disadvantaged by fewer services and job opportunities.

What are we doing about the challenges we face?

Population growth and its effects on resource consumption, waste generation, travel and pollution continue to pressure the urban environment. However, our biggest challenge is climate change.

Sea-level rises, more extreme events such as bushfires, drought, extreme rainfall and flooding, and higher urban temperatures are expected to have significant impacts on cities’ biodiversity and people.

Many state and local governments are taking a hands-on approach to some of these challenges and pressures. Through urban planning policies, they are managing urban sprawl and protecting public green areas.

Governments have also been investing in more integrated infrastructure – for example, better co-ordinating the development and use of roads, public transport, cyclepaths and walkways – better waste management and reducing disaster risk.

Commonwealth City Deals, the Resilient Cities Framework applied in Sydney and Melbourne, and the National Waste Policy Action Plan are just a few of the approaches being adopted in Australia.

Trends in waste management by category, 2016–17 to 2018–19

We are on the right path with great initiatives all over Australia working to achieve more sustainable and resilient urban environments. However, they are in the early stages.

We do need more inter-agency and public-private collaboration. We need more community education, too. Policies can also be better implemented and followed up to continue improving management of the pressures on urban areas, which in turn will improve the well-being of people and the environment.

I would like to acknowledge Sarah Hill and Zena Cumpston, the co-authors of the State of the Environment Urban chapter. The joint work we did in the writing of the chapter informed this article.

Gabriela Quintana Vigiola was contracted by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water as a researcher in the development of the Urban Environment chapter of the 2021 Australian State of Environment Report. Sarah Hill, CEO of the Western Parkland City Authority, and Zena Cumpston, a private consultant and Barkandji woman, are co-authors of this chapter.

– ref. State of the Environment report shows our growing cities are under pressure – but we’re seeing positive signs too – https://theconversation.com/state-of-the-environment-report-shows-our-growing-cities-are-under-pressure-but-were-seeing-positive-signs-too-187265

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Spence, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Population Health, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University

Like adults, children can get “hangry” – a combination of angry and hungry. Hangriness may be caused by blood glucose levels dropping, leading to irritability, bad mood, anger or tantrums.

Children have smaller stomachs than adults so may become hungry again sooner. Some may not notice they’ve become very hungry until the moment of crisis.

So, what can parents do when hangriness strikes – and reduce the risk of it happening again?

Read more:
Health Check: the science of ‘hangry’, or why some people get grumpy when they’re hungry

What’s really going on?

First: is your child really hangry, or just angry? Feeding straight away isn’t always the answer. Ask yourself:

• how long has it been since they last slept, and how was last night’s sleep? If they’re actually tired, a storybook, toy or cuddle might do. Consider whether their next meal can be earlier today – before they’re too tired to eat.

• has anything else upset them? If so, act on this, rather than using food to distract or soothe.

• how long has it been since they last ate? Did you miss a meal in the parenting rush? It happens! Maybe it’s time to pause for a healthy snack.

If it’s not long until lunch or dinner, you could:

• just wait

• let them start on the vegetable component of the meal, or

• snack on some easy veggies (of age-appropriate texture) like a carrot, capsicum or cucumber.

Dinner could be trickier if they’ve filled up on yoghurt or biscuits, so try not to serve things they love (other than veggies) at this time.

If your child complains of hunger but only wants a particular food or refuses veggies, consider whether they really are hungry.

Try not to get foods and emotions too entwined

Many adults struggle with overeating to manage their emotions, a behaviour often learned in childhood.

It’s important to find other ways of improving moods so children don’t learn to rely on foods to manage emotions. Explore other activities like listening to music, playing, or having a cuddle. We can also teach children other non food-based ways to manage their emotions, such as mindfulness and deep breathing.

Using food as a reward or to calm can also lead to emotional eating. This may increase children consuming foods irrespective of hunger.

On the other hand, overly restricting food can have unintended effects and lead to emotional eating.

3 ways to reduce hangriness risk

1. Maintain a regular eating routine

For most young children, three meals and two snacks a day works well. Having these at predictable times helps children learn to eat at meal times and be able to wait until the next meal.

Try to limit grazing. Grazing can set up a cycle where children aren’t hungry at meal times, so eat little, but then become hungry (or hangry) again soon after.

This can frustrate parents who’ve prepared a meal that isn’t eaten, and then feel pressured to prepare extra foods between meals. Grazing, even on nutritious foods, can also contribute to tooth decay.

2. Include foods that help children feel fuller for longer

Try to serve nutritious, substantial snacks. Including some protein and carbohydrates can help maintain their energy levels from one meal to the next.

Try natural yoghurt, milk, hummus, nuts/nut butter (of age-appropriate texture), eggs, oat muesli or wholegrain bread, to go with fruit or veggie snacks.

3. Encourage children to pay attention to their hunger and fullness cues

It can be tempting to pressure kids to eat more at mealtimes, or offer different foods if they reject what’s served.

But this is unlikely to help in the long run and can create a rod for your own back. It can turn mealtimes into a battle and parents into short-order chefs.

Pressuring children to eat can override their ability to self-regulate; they can get into a habit of overeating instead of listening to their hunger and fullness cues.

“Parents provide, kids decide” reminds us a parent’s role is to provide nutritious foods at regular intervals; it’s the child’s role to decide how much to eat.

If you include something at each mealtime you know your child will eat, such as a favourite vegetable, then they’ll likely eat something if they are hungry.

If they really don’t want to eat then maybe they aren’t hungry, and that’s OK.

Other tips include eating together, eating the same foods, modelling enjoyment of those foods, and turning screens off while eating.

This is general advice for healthy children, but some may have more interest or enjoyment in food, or be more fussy, and may be particularly prone to difficult behaviour when hungry. If your child experiences severe fussiness, restricted eating, or you have concerns about their nutrition or health, speak with your child health nurse, doctor, or accredited practising dietitian.

If you are finding it financially difficult to get enough nutritious food for your family, support is available to access food and low cost recipes.

A well child’s health and nutrition is unlikely to suffer with occasional short bouts of hunger.

Yes, hangriness happens occasionally (it’s normal for children to test the boundaries!). But it’s OK to stay firm and ride it out. With an eating routine there’s another meal not too far away.

Read more:
Kids’ diets and screen time: to set up good habits, make healthy choices the default at home

Alison Spence is a member of Dietitians Australia.

Alissa Burnett is a member of the Nutrition Society of Australia

Georgie Russell is a member of the Nutrition Society of Australia and the Australian and New Zealand Obesity Society.

– ref. How to deal with hangry kids and reduce the chances of it happening again – 3 tips from nutrition experts – https://theconversation.com/how-to-deal-with-hangry-kids-and-reduce-the-chances-of-it-happening-again-3-tips-from-nutrition-experts-187175

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamal Barnes, Lecturer, Edith Cowan University

As one of its first acts in government, the newly elected Labor government turned back a boat of Sri Lankan asylum seekers trying to enter Australia.

Labor has vowed to continue Operation Sovereign Borders, including boat turnbacks and offshore detention. This is concerning. Not only do turnbacks violate international law, but offshore detention has resulted in torture and cruel and inhuman treatment of refugees.

Even more concerning is the lack of criticism Labor has received for continuing offshore detention and turnbacks. Apart from being condemned by human rights groups and minor political parties, Labor’s refugee policies appear to have gone without much comment from a large part of the Australian public.

As I found in my new research paper, the Australian government has used three forms of denial, creating physical and psychological distance between itself and refugees.

This allows the federal government to promote illegal and harmful policies while proclaiming to still be upholding human rights.

Creating indifference

Human rights abuses in offshore detention have been well documented.

On Manus Island (in Papua New Guinea) and Nauru, refugees have faced torture, inhumane detention, overcrowding, violence from guards, sexual assault and rape, and mental harm. Children as young as nine have suffered severe depression and attempted to commit suicide.

According to the latest data by the Refugee Council, 112 people remain on Nauru and just over 100 people are on Manus Island. Although New Zealand will now resettle many of them in the coming years, Nauru detention centre will continue to remain open indefinitely.

How can Australia continue to promote itself as upholding human rights, while at the same time maintain such policies?

One answer is that offshore detention has created indifference to the suffering of refugees. Australia’s policy framework has produced what the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has called “moral disengagement”. This involves “the self-deceptive denial of reality” by denying the wrongfulness of, responsibility for, or occurrence of, human rights violations.

These “self-deceptive” strategies reduce moral dilemmas that come from violating human rights norms.

My research found Australian federal governments have used three forms of denial to push refugees out of sight and out of mind – denial of responsibility, denial of fact, and denial of wrongdoing.

Read more:
Cruel, costly and ineffective: Australia’s offshore processing asylum seeker policy turns 9

3 types of denial

Denying responsibility

The government has denied responsibility over refugees in offshore detention by denying it has jurisdiction. The term “jurisdiction” is different from sovereign territory. A state can have jurisdiction outside of its sovereign territory when it exercises effective control over others.

Showing that a country has jurisdiction over others is important. It can help hold states accountable for human rights abuses and establish responsibility for those in its care.

The Australian government has argued that PNG and Nauru – which aren’t part of Australia – have jurisdiction over the detention facilities and the refugees in them. It claims all Australia does is provide financial and material support.

Such arguments make it difficult to hold Australia accountable. But they are also incorrect. A Senate inquiry, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and human rights groups, among others, have argued Australia exercises effective control and shares jurisdiction with Nauru and PNG.

Denying jurisdiction creates physical and psychological distance between itself and refugees, helping to create indifference. By denying responsibility, human rights abuses become someone else’s problem.

Denying fact

A second key strategy is denial of fact. The Australian government, along with the governments of Nauru and PNG, has denied human rights abuses and made it hard to find out what occurs in offshore detention.

Human rights monitors and journalists have been restricted or denied access to offshore detention.

Staff have been threatened with prosecution under confidentiality agreements if they speak publicly about detention treatment.

Operation Sovereign Borders has also been shrouded in secrecy. For example, it was common for Coalition ministers and border force officials to refuse to answer questions in the media about “on water matters”.

As Peter Young, the former mental health director of IHMS, the medical provider in immigration detention, stated: “Secrecy is necessary because these places are designed to damage”.

These policies have made it difficult to know what occurs in offshore detention. They also create doubt about whether such harm is even happening at all.

Denying wrongdoing

Along with “stopping the boats”, the government has argued offshore detention has been necessary to save lives at sea.

When former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Méndez criticised Australia for violating the UN Convention against Torture in 2015, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott stated

The most humanitarian, the most decent, the most compassionate thing you can do is stop these boats because hundreds, we think about 1200 in fact, drowned at sea during the flourishing of the people smuggling trade under the former government.

This is a key strategy of self-deception. By arguing the policy is saving lives, it focuses attention away from the harm refugees suffer, to the humanitarian goal of “saving lives”.

Moral dilemmas about torture or ill treatment are pushed aside, and so are feelings of wrongdoing.

Read more:
Australia’s temporary visa system is unfair, expensive, impractical and inconsistent. Here’s how the new government could fix it

Challenging indifference

Key to ending this illegal and harmful policy is to challenge these self-deceptive strategies that have produced moral disengagement.

Other countries, such as the UK, are following in Australia’s footsteps by introducing offshore detention for asylum seekers. This means challenging strategies that deny reality – and widening our circle of empathy – is more urgent than ever.

It’s indifference that’s helping to maintain offshore detention. And it’s this indifference that needs to be challenged to both respect international law and uphold the rights and dignity of refugees.

Jamal has received funding from the Australia-Germany JRC Scheme (UA-DAAD) and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

– ref. 3 types of denial that allow Australians to feel OK about how we treat refugees – https://theconversation.com/3-types-of-denial-that-allow-australians-to-feel-ok-about-how-we-treat-refugees-186294

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ausma Bernot, PhD Candidate, Griffith University

By now, most of us are aware social media companies collect vast amounts of our information. By doing this, they can target us with ads and monetise our attention. The latest chapter in the data-privacy debate concerns one of the world’s most popular apps among young people – TikTok.

Yet anecdotally it seems the potential risks aren’t really something young people care about. Some were interviewed by The Project this week regarding the risk of their TikTok data being accessed from China.

They said it wouldn’t stop them using the app. “Everyone at the moment has access to everything,” one person said. Another said they didn’t “have much to hide from the Chinese government”.

Are these fair assessments? Or should Australians actually be worried about yet another social media company taking their data?

What’s happening with TikTok?

In a 2020 Australian parliamentary hearing on foreign interference through social media, TikTok representatives stressed: “TikTok Australia data is stored in the US and Singapore, and the security and privacy of this data are our highest priority.”

But as Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) analyst Fergus Ryan has observed, it’s not about where the data are stored, but who has access.

On June 17, BuzzFeed published a report based on 80 leaked internal TikTok meetings which seemed to confirm access to US TikTok data by Chinese actors. The report refers to multiple examples of data access by TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, which is based in China.

Read more:
Concerns over TikTok feeding user data to Beijing are back – and there’s good evidence to support them

Then in July, TikTok Australia’s director of public policy, Brent Thomas, wrote to the shadow minister for cyber security, James Paterson, regarding China’s access to Australian user data.

Thomas denied having been asked for data from China or having “given data to the Chinese government” – but he also noted access is “based on the need to access data”. So there’s good reason to believe Australian users’ data may be accessed from China.

Is TikTok worse than other platforms?

TikTok collects rich consumer information, including personal information and behavioural data from people’s activity on the app. In this respect, it’s not different from other social media companies.

They all need oceans of user data to push ads onto us, and run data analytics behind a shiny facade of cute cats and trendy dances.

However, TikTok’s corporate roots extend to authoritarian China – and not the US, where most of our other social media come from. This carries implications for TikTok users.

Hypothetically, since TikTok moderates content according to Beijing’s foreign policy goals, it’s possible TikTok could apply censorship controls over Australian users.

This means users’ feeds would be filtered to omit anything that doesn’t fit the Chinese government’s agenda, such as support for Taiwan’s sovereignty, as an example. In “shadowbanning”, a user’s posts appear to have been published to the user themselves, but are not visible to anyone else.

It’s worth noting this censorship risk isn’t hypothetical. In 2019, information about Hong Kong protests was reported to have been censored not only on Douyin, China’s domestic version of TikTok, but also on TikTok itself.

Then in 2020, ASPI found hashtags related to LGBTQ+ are suppressed in at least eight languages on TikTok. In response to ASPI’s research, a TikTok spokesperson said the hashtags may be restricted as part of the company’s localisation strategy and due to local laws.

In Thailand, keywords such as #acab, #gayArab and anti-monarchy hashtags were found to be shadowbanned.

Within China, Douyin complies with strict national content regulation. This includes censoring information about the religious movement Falun Gong and the Tiananmen massacre, among other examples.

The legal environment in China forces Chinese internet product and service providers to work with government authorities. If Chinese companies disagree, or are unaware of their obligations, they can be slapped with legal and/or financial penalties and be forcefully shut down.

In 2012, another social media product run by the founder of ByteDance, Yiming Zhang, was forced to close. Zhang fell into political line in a public apology. He acknowledged the platform deviated from “public opinion guidance” by not moderating content that goes against “socialist core values”.

Individual TikTok users should seriously consider leaving the app until issues of global censorship are clearly addressed.

But don’t forget, it’s not just TikTok

Meta products, such as Facebook and Instagram, also measure our interests by the seconds we spend looking at certain posts. They aggregate those behavioural data with our personal information to try to keep us hooked – looking at ads for as long as possible.

Some real cases of targeted advertising on social media have contributed to “digital redlining” – the use of technology to perpetuate social discrimination.

In 2018, Facebook came under fire for showing some employment ads only to men. In 2019, it settled another digital redlining case over discriminatory practices in which housing ads were targeted to certain users on the basis of “race, colour, national origin and religion”.

And in 2021, before the US Capitol breach, military and defence product ads were running alongside conversations about a coup.

Then there are some worst-case scenarios. The 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed how Meta (then Facebook) exposed users’ data to the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica without their consent.

Cambridge Analytica harvested up to 87 million users’ data from Facebook, derived psychological user profiles and used these to tailor pro-Trump messaging to them. This likely had an influence on the 2016 US presidential election.

With TikTok, the most immediate concern for the average Australian user is content censorship – not direct prosecution. But within China, there are recurring instances of Chinese nationals being detained or even jailed for using both Chinese and international social media.

You can see how the consequences of mass data harvesting are not hypothetical. We need to demand more transparency from not just TikTok but all major social platforms regarding how data are used.

Let’s continue the regulation debate TikTok has accelerated. We should look to update privacy protections and embed transparency into Australia’s national regulatory guidelines – for whatever the next big social media app happens to be.

Ausma Bernot 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. Even if TikTok and other apps are collecting your data, what are the actual consequences? – https://theconversation.com/even-if-tiktok-and-other-apps-are-collecting-your-data-what-are-the-actual-consequences-187277

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Walker-Munro, Senior Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

You walk into a shopping centre to buy some groceries. Without your knowledge, an electronic scan of your face is taken by in-store surveillance cameras and stored in an online database. Each time you return to that store, your “faceprint” is compared with those of people wanted for shoplifting or violence.

This might sound like science fiction but it’s the reality for many of us. By failing to take our digital privacy seriously – as former human rights commissioner Ed Santow has warned – Australia is “sleepwalking” its way into mass surveillance.

Privacy and the digital environment

Of course, companies have been collecting personal information for decades. If you’ve ever signed up to a loyalty program like FlyBuys then you’ve performed what marketing agencies call a “value exchange”. In return for benefits from the company (like discounted prices or special offers), you’ve handed over details of who you are, what you buy, and how often you buy it.

Consumer data is big business. In 2019, a report from digital marketers WebFX showed that data from around 1,400 loyalty programs was routinely being traded across the globe as part of an industry worth around US$200 billion. That same year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s review of loyalty schemes revealed how many of these loyalty schemes lacked data transparency and even discriminated against vulnerable customers.

But the digital environment is making data collection even easier. When you watch Netflix, for example, the company knows what you watch, when you watch it, and how long you watch it for. But they go further, also capturing data on which scenes or episodes you watch repeatedly, the ratings of your content, the number of searches you perform and what you search for.

Hyper-collection: a new challenge to privacy

Late last year, the controversial tech company ClearView AI was ordered by the Australian information commissioner to stop “scraping” social media for the pictures it was collecting in its massive facial recognition database. Just this month, the commissioner was investigating several retailers for creating facial profiles of the customers in their stores.

This new phenomenon – “hyper-collection” – represents a growing trend by large companies to collect, sort, analyse and use more information than they need, usually in covert or passive ways. In many cases, hyper-collection is not supported by a truly legitimate commercial or legal purpose.

Digital privacy laws and hyper-collection

Hyper-collection is a major problem in Australia for three reasons.

First, Australia’s privacy law wasn’t prepared for the likes of Netflix and TikTok. Despite numerous amendments, the Privacy Act dates back to the late 1980s. Although former Attorney-General Christian Porter announced a review of the Act in late 2019, it has been held up by the recent change of government.

Second, Australian privacy laws are unlikely on their own to threaten the profit base of foreign companies, especially those located in China. The Information Commissioner has the power to order companies to take certain actions – like it did with Uber in 2021 – and can enforce these through court orders. But the penalties aren’t really big enough to discourage companies with profits in the billions of dollars.

Read more:
83% of Australians want tougher privacy laws. Now’s your chance to tell the government what you want

Third, hyper-collection is often enabled by the vague consents we give to get access to the services these companies provide. Bunnings, for example, argued that its collection of your faceprint was allowed because signs at the entry to their stores told customers facial recognition might be used. Online marketplaces like eBay, Amazon, Kogan and Catch, meanwhile, supply “bundled consents” – basically, you have to consent to their privacy policies as a condition of using their services. No consent, no access.

TikTok and hyper-collection

TikTok (owned by Chinese company ByteDance) has largely replaced YouTube as a way of creating and sharing online videos. The app is powered by an algorithm has already drawn criticism for routinely collecting data about users, as well as the ByteDance’s secretive approach to content moderation and censorship.

For years, TikTok executives have been telling governments that data isn’t stored in servers on the Chinese mainland. But these promises might be hollow in the wake of recent allegations.

Cybersecurity experts now claim that not only does the TikTok app routinely connect to Chinese servers, but that users’ data is accessible by ByteDance employees, including the mysterious Beijing-based “Master Admin”, which has access to every user’s personal information.

Then, just this week, it was alleged that TikTok (owned by Chinese company ByteDance) can also access almost all the data contained on the phone it is installed on – including photos, calendars and emails.

Under China’s national security laws, the government can order tech companies to pass on that information to police or intelligence agencies.

What options do we have?

Unlike a physical store, we don’t get a lot of choice about consenting to digital companies’ privacy policies and how they collect our information.

One option – supported by encryption expert Vanessa Teague at ANU – is for consumers simply to delete offending apps until their creators are willing to submit to greater data transparency. Of course, this means locking ourselves out of those services, and it will only have a big impact in the company if enough Australians join in.

Read more:
Facial recognition is on the rise – but the law is lagging a long way behind

Another option is “opting-out” of intrusive data collection. We’ve done this before – when My Health records became mandatory in 2019, a record number of us opted out. Though these opt-outs reduced the usefulness of that digital health record program, they did demonstrate that Australians can take their data privacy seriously.

But how exactly can Australians opt-out of a massive social app like TikTok? Right now, they can’t – perhaps the government needs to explore a solution as part of its review.

A further option being explored by the Privacy Act review is whether to create new laws that would allow individuals to sue companies for damages for breaches of privacy. While lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming, they might just deliver the kind of financial damage to big companies that could change their behaviour.

No matter which option we take, Australians need to start getting more savvy with their data privacy. This might just mean we actually read those terms and conditions before agreeing, and being prepared to “vote with our feet” if companies won’t be honest about what they’re doing with our personal information.

Brendan Walker-Munro receives funding from the Australian Government through Trusted Autonomous Systems, a Defence Cooperative Research Centre funded through the Next Generation Technologies Fund.

– ref. What do TikTok, Bunnings, eBay and Netflix have in common? They’re all hyper-collectors – https://theconversation.com/what-do-tiktok-bunnings-ebay-and-netflix-have-in-common-theyre-all-hyper-collectors-187274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Hanna, Honorary Associate Professor, Australian National University

In the long-delayed State of the Environment report released this week, there is one terrifying sentence: “Environmental
degradation is now considered a threat to humanity, which could bring about societal collapses.”

Hyperbole? Sadly not.

Climate change has already warmed Australia 1.4℃ and changed rainfall in some regions. Natural ecosystems are already struggling from land clearing, intensive agriculture, soil degradation and poor water management. Climate changes and related sea level rise are making this worse. It’s a mistake to think this won’t affect us.

It can be easy to live in cities and believe you’re somehow walled off from environmental disaster. This is a fiction. Healthy environments provide clean air, clean food, clean water and a safe place to live – all essential to a healthy life.

Our lives will not be easy if we continue eating away at the ecosystems that prop us up. It is no exaggeration to say societal collapse is a possible outcome.

Why is the news so bad?

Every day, we rely on services provided by healthy ecosystems.

The long-delayed report shows the sobering consequences of wilful disregard for environmental protection and focusing on natural resource exploitation. Burning fossil fuels causes climate change and ocean acidification. Land clearing destroys existing ecosystems. Intensive agriculture reduces biodiversity.

Australia’s fragile ecosystems are acutely vulnerable to decades of environmental disregard. Swathes of the continent are increasingly flipping from extreme drought and devastating fires to unprecedented floods under highly variable rainfall patterns. In the last few years, unprecedented bushfires and floods have forced thousands out of their homes. This worsens housing shortages, income insecurity and human health.

Our land temperatures have increased by 1.44°C since 1910. Very high monthly maximum temperatures have increased sixfold over the 60-year period since 1960. These effects have come from a 1.1℃ rise globally. We’re still on track for 3℃. This is highly problematic as humans have limited capacity to withstand heat exposure, and ecosystems suffer in the heat.

4 things a well-functioning environment does for us

1. Clean food

Food systems require intact ecosystems to remain productive, without which crop yields and rural incomes drop. Hunger can ensue. The consequences of food shortages to date in Australia have been small compared with other countries. But with repeated intense droughts, heatwaves, fires and floods these shortages could rapidly escalate. In 2008, we saw riots and social upheaval across multiple continents. A key cause was the global food crisis. This year, food prices have skyrocketed again in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

2. Clean air

Australia has traditionally had some of the cleanest air in the world. But smoke from the megafires over the Black Summer of 2019–2020 caused 417 deaths, as well as thousands of hospital admissions. Health costs were estimated at almost $A2 billion. People lost days at work and at school, and some will have ongoing health problems. Climate change is predicted to steadily worsen our bushfires.

3. Adequate clean water

Water is essential for human life, health and activity, and the healthy functioning of ecosystems. As the driest inhabited continent, Australia’s water is one of our most valuable resources. Unfortunately, it is often poorly managed. Many Indigenous communities do not have clean, healthy drinking water, while dozens of non-Indigenous communities had to truck water in during the last drought.

Land clearing disrupts ecosystems, threatens biodiversity and can alter stream flow and water quality. Run-off from agriculture damages aquatic ecosystems and encourages algal blooms and species loss. Again, this isn’t just pain for the environment.

The Murray–Darling Basin is home to more than 2.2 million people and more than four million people depend on these rivers for their water. Already, the basin’s rivers and catchments are rated as poor or very poor.

4. Liveable climate

Climate change is pushing the south-west of Western Australia into a new normal of near-permanent drought. This has already massively reduced the inflows into Perth’s dams, requiring more use of groundwater and desalination. South-eastern Australia is also drying, stressing plants and animals. We’re already seeing agricultural productivity dropping. As parts of Australia dry out, it’s hard to see how drought-prone towns and regions will remain viable.

Read more:
This is Australia’s most important report on the environment’s deteriorating health. We present its grim findings

What will happen if we don’t repair the environment?

Humans can only withstand heat up until a point. After that, exposure to extreme heat leads to damage to tissues and organs, and, eventually damage and death. The same goes for the livestock we rely on, which are at risk of serious health threats from heat. Heat hits weight gain, milk production and reproductive success.

The profitability of broadacre crops such as wheat and barley is an estimated 22% less since 2000 than it would have been if climate change wasn’t happening. In turn, this is leaving many Australians in rural and regional communities facing worsening incomes and health.

Irrigation water is less reliable, while increases in temperature reduce both quantity and quality of fruit and vegetable crops. The nutritional value of foods also declines under extreme heat.

In short, we can no longer pretend we live in a world walled off from nature. Damaging nature damages humans. Think of the cartoon trope where a character cuts off the tree branch they’re sitting on.

We have created these problems collectively. To avoid social upheaval, we have to repair the damage – together.

The federal government’s newly announced Environmental Protection Agency is a good start. It must be adequately resourced and have powers to enforce compliance.

Beyond that, we urgently need coordinated policies, sound supporting science and effective data systems, prioritised actions, commitment and investment and community support.

Read more:
This is Australia’s most important report on the environment’s deteriorating health. We present its grim findings

Liz Hanna currently chairs the Environmental Health Working Group for the World Federation of Public Health Association, and is an Honorary Associate Professor at the ANU Fenner School of Environment and Society. She has received research funding from the NHMRC and the Governments of Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and The Pacific Community, formerly the South Pacific Commission.

Prof Mark Howden is a Vice Chair of the IPCC Working Group II

– ref. Natural systems in Australia are unravelling. If they collapse, human society could too – https://theconversation.com/natural-systems-in-australia-are-unravelling-if-they-collapse-human-society-could-too-187263

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Soanes, Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne

The newly released State of the Environment report paints a predictably grim picture. Species are in decline, ecosystems are at breaking point, and threats abound. For many of us, it can feel like a problem that’s too big, too complex and too distant to solve.

But this report also shows every Australian can be on the conservation frontline. We can save species in the places we live and work. According to the report, Australia’s cities and towns are home to more than 96% of our population and 46% of threatened species. We have mapped the occurrence of hundreds of threatened species in urban areas.

Read more:
This is Australia’s most important report on the environment’s deteriorating health. We present its grim findings

We share our cities with iconic koalas, charming gang-gang cockatoos and floral wonders like Caley’s grevillea. And, as the report notes, some species are found only in urban areas – our cities and towns are the last chance to save them from extinction. What an incredible opportunity to reconnect Australians with our fantastic natural heritage and protect it at the same time.

Our research shows a huge appetite for saving nature in cities. Councils, industry and community groups all over the country are working to make change.

Read more:
The 39 endangered species in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and other Australian cities

Here are five things we can think about to improve the state of our city environments.

1. Small but mighty

Don’t have a lot of space? That’s OK! Whether it’s a small pond, garden strip or solitary gum tree, these often provide a key resource that isn’t found elsewhere in the nearby landscape. This means they pack a punch when it comes to supporting local nature.

And resources like these all add up. Researchers found that a collection of small, urban grassland reserves supported more native plants, and rarer species, than just a few large reserves.

So while making one small change might feel futile, it can make a big difference.

2. Embracing the ‘in between’

Conservation doesn’t just happen in nature reserves, which is good, because urban areas don’t have many. Backyards are already making huge contributions through “gardens for wildlife” initiatives.

Read more:
Want to help save wildlife after the fires? You can do it in your own backyard

But what about the more unconventional spaces? We found city-dwelling species take advantage of roadsides, schoolyards, carpark gardens, railway stations and rooftops. These are all opportunities for us to make a little more space for nature in cities.

3. Grand designs for wildlife

People aren’t the only ones facing a housing crisis – wildlife struggle too. The tree hollows, rock piles and fallen wood that many species call home are often removed in favour of sleek lines and tidy urban spaces.

You can provide valuable real estate for local critters by adding nesting boxes, bee hotels and lizard lounges. And simply leaving a designated “messy patch” in your garden improves the local habitat too.

4. Creative connections

Moving safely through cities can be risky for wildlife. They have to navigate cars, fences, roaming pets and swathes of concrete.

Many councils and road agencies are looking at creative ways to help wildlife get from A to B. Solutions range from rope bridges for western Sydney’s sugar gliders and tunnels for Melbourne’s bandicoots to forested bridges for Brisbane’s bush birds. Some gardeners in Bunbury even built their own backyard “possum bridges” to help the endangered western ringtail possum in their neighbourhoods.

Read more:
10 million animals are hit on our roads each year. Here’s how you can help them (and steer clear of them) these holidays

5. People power

Having threatened species live close to people is typically seen as bit of “negative’” in the conservation world. But this closeness can be an advantage if the community is aware and engaged.

Orchids like the sunshine diuris and Frankston spider orchid would surely be extinct if not for countless hours of volunteer work, crowd-funding and the passion of the local community.

Get involved through your local council or “Friends of” groups to see how you can support nature in your neck of the woods.

Urban habitats – often small and scrappy, always valuable

There are so many wonderful ways to support nature in cities. Recent examples include conservation goats saving native skinks, floating habitat rafts in city waterways and using flowerpots on concrete sea walls to support marine life. New ideas are being explored and tested all over the country.

Some of the best examples bring all these ideas together. For example, Melbourne’s Pollinator Corridor, led by the Heart Gardening Project, helps individual community members convert their own small urban patch into a bee-friendly garden. When complete, 200 individual gardens will create an 8km pollinator paradise between two of the city’s largest parks.

Right now, efforts to save nature in cities are driven by champions – individuals in our communities, local councils or industry who see an opportunity to make a difference, no matter how small, and fight to make it happen. Imagine what we could achieve if more of us pitched in.

So, look around. Can you add just one small patch? Contact your local council about turning a neglected roadside strip into a pollinator paradise? Or maybe set up a little B&B for wildlife in your backyard?

Read more:
B&Bs for birds and bees: transform your garden or balcony into a wildlife haven

Kylie Soanes previously received funding from the Australian Governments National Environmental Science Program. She is affiliated with the Ecological Society of Australia and Science and Technology Australia.

– ref. Yes, the state of the environment is grim, but you can make a difference, right in your own neighbourhoood – https://theconversation.com/yes-the-state-of-the-environment-is-grim-but-you-can-make-a-difference-right-in-your-own-neighbourhoood-187259

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

Wouldn’t you know it? Last Thursday the Parliamentary Budget Office released more than 1,000 pages of costings, for promises in the election we just had.

They came in 16 parts, each separately downloadable, along with a video message, charts and tables, explanations, and summaries.

It was a lot of work, but it was too late to have an impact. We’d already voted.

The report was covered briefly by the Canberra Times, a couple of regional papers, and online site Crikey. It garnered close to zero attention.

In its wake, the shadow treasurer Angus Taylor issued a media release attacking Labor for increasing the projected budget deficit.

But that too was old news. During the campaign, Labor had said that’s what it would do.

The ratio of attention paid to the number of pages produced was dismal.

The letter of the law

This isn’t the fault of the Parliamentary Budget Office. It is required by law to release the report 30 days after the election. It doesn’t have the power to compel the parties to submit lists of their policies for analysis until 5pm on election eve.

Getting even that power was a close-run thing. Treasurer Wayne Swan added the requirement to the legislation in a 2013 amendment.

Trouble is, it is hard to discern from the public record why he did it. The explanatory memorandum and speeches assert it will be good for transparency and accountability but do not explain how.

Definitionally, to the extent there is more detailed information, there is greater transparency. But if the information is delivered after people have voted, it’s worth asking how it could improve accountability.

Data should be useful

It can’t be taken for granted that more data equals more accountability. Data needs to be used for something – to spark debate, or inform votes.

NSW had a Parliamentary Budget Office before the Commonwealth, which means the amendment might have been based on a NSW requirement for major parties to give the NSW office a list of their policies.

But the difference is that in NSW the report is published five days before the election. There’s a chance it can swing votes.

Read more:
Elections used to be about costings. Here’s what changed

Publishing it after the election, as the Commonwealth office does, means it is almost guaranteed to be ignored.

Does anyone really care what the costs were for the party that lost? Or those for the Greens or even the Member for Indi, who wasn’t required to take part but in 2022 did so voluntarily?

The information about the party that won might be useful, but it will soon be overtaken by the October budget which will provide updated costings.

Not that there is anything wrong with the PBO report. It is comprehensive, detailed, and has excellent methodology.

It goes beyond the numbers provided by the parties and includes discussion of measures that affect the government’s balance sheet but not the budget balance. But it’s at the wrong time.

It is far from the only long and complicated report with almost no impact. And if all that mattered was the direct cost of producing it, it wouldn’t much matter.

But there’s an opportunity cost: the other things the PBO staff weren’t doing while they were working long hours producing those 1,000-plus belated pages.

Before the election would be useful

The PBO produces research reports, budget explainers, chart packs and many other highly useful information pieces. Particularly notable was a timely and relevant series of publications on the budget impact of COVID-19.

Somewhere in Parliament House there’s an empty bookshelf full of unwritten reports that weren’t produced because of the time the PBO spent on reports like this one.

If the PBO published a report on promises before the election – accepting likely gaps due to time pressures or late promises – it could actually inform voters.

Read more:
Costing the promises: what is a Parliamentary Budget Office?

There is however a major barrier in the legislation. Whereas in normal times the PBO has to deal confidentially with costings requests, if a request is submitted during a campaign, the PBO is required to make policy and its costing public.

No sensible party is going to take the risk of submitting a policy, having it made public, and then finding out it is unaffordable.

The only policies anyone submits to the PBO in the caretaker period after an election is called are

• those from minor parties – they don’t mind if their policies get negative publicity for being expensive, they are grateful if anyone notices them at all

• policies where the costs are predictable or known

Changing this, and requiring the PBO to release summaries of the budget impact of promises (say) five days before the vote (as happens in NSW) would make the effort it puts in worthwhile.

Stephen Bartos was NSW Parliamentary Budget Officer for the 2015 and 2019 elections.

Stephen Bartos was NSW Parliamentary Budget Officer for the 2015 and 2019 elections. He has written for Crikey and The Mandarin.

– ref. Election promises should be costed before polling day, otherwise it’s too late – https://theconversation.com/election-promises-should-be-costed-before-polling-day-otherwise-its-too-late-187149

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Gray, Lecturer in Digital Cultures at The University of Sydney, University of Sydney

Earlier this month, the Internet Archive asked a US court to end a lawsuit filed against it by four large book publishers.

The Internet Archive is a not-for-profit organisation founded in 1996 that lends digital copies of books, music, movies and other digitised content to the public. It aims to support people with print disabilities, preserve digital content for future generations and democratise access to knowledge.

The publishers say the Internet Archive’s digital lending practices amount to wilful copyright infringement. Authors have also complained the site hosts pirated content.

The Internet Archive says it is behaving like an ordinary library, as it only loans digital copies of physical books it owns. Its supporters at the Electronic Frontiers Foundation say the publishers simply want “to control how libraries may lend the books they own”.

The National Emergency Library

Publishers were particularly concerned about the “National Emergency Library” set up by the Internet Archive in March 2020. This temporary project aimed to give teachers access to digital teaching materials in the face of widespread library closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In June 2020, the publishers Hachette, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins and John Wiley & Sons filed a copyright infringement action. The publishers appear to want to shut down not just the National Emergency Library, but all of the Internet Archive’s book-lending practices.

The publishers claim the Internet Archive is engaging in wilful mass copyright infringement by lending digital books without permission from and payment to publishers.

The Internet Archive argues that, because it allows only one person at a time to borrow a digital book, it is simply replicating regular library lending. However, this restriction was temporarily relaxed for the National Emergency Library.

Ordinary library lending does not require a payment to publishers. Once a library purchases a book, the library is free to lend it out to its members.

The publishers are arguing that digital books are not equivalent to physical books and should be treated differently under the law.

Copyright déjà vu?

Didn’t Google already win the argument about digital books years ago? Yes and no.

Google began digitising library books in 2002. In 2005, book publishers and authors brought a high-profile lawsuit against Google for copyright infringement, which took a decade to resolve.

Read more:
How to protect authors after Google Books wins its ‘fair use’ case, again

In the case against Google, US courts decided that making full copies of books and displaying snippets of those books to the public in the Google Books database is a “fair use”.

When deciding for Google, the courts paid particular attention to the historical purpose of copyright, which is to serve the public interest in access to knowledge.

A question of markets

But the Google Books decision does not mean book publishers will lose again against the Internet Archive.

In the United States, when deciding whether a use is fair or not, courts need to consider the extent to which the copyright owner’s markets are harmed.

Because book publishers often lend e-books commercially (including to libraries), the Internet Archive could be seen as harming that aspect of publishers’ market.

It could be said that, by providing online access to books in full, the Internet Archive is doing for free what the publishers do for payment.

This is different to the Google Books decision, in which providing access to snippets of books in Google’s database was considered to potentially enhance the market for books.

What counts as fair use?

The flexibility of fair use is one thing the Internet Archive has on its side, however.

There is room for the court to assess the public benefit of the Internet Archive’s lending practices which, as the National Emergency Library exemplifies, are undeniably strong.

Assessing whether the public interest arguments are strong enough to overcome the weight of the market harm may be key to deciding who wins this case.

Read more:
Selling MP3s? You should have stuck with CDs

The Internet Archive may also have difficulty establishing that its practices are simply an extension of the traditional role of libraries, and beyond the boundaries of publisher’s legitimate markets.

In a case in 2013 involving a “second-hand” market for digital copies of music, US courts decided that emulating analogue models of dissemination was not enough to evade copyright infringement.

Access matters in the digital age

Underlying this recent dispute is a now decades-old tension between media industries born before and after the advent of the internet.

Prior to the internet, media and entertainment businesses made money by selling individual copies of content (think books, CDs, DVDS).

But individual copies have lost value in the internet era. Online, we seek access to content rather than ownership of copies of content.

In the music and video industries, subscription or ad-supported streaming services such as Spotify and Netflix have largely prevailed.

However, the lawsuit against the Internet Archive shows we have not yet, in 2022, found the right legal and economic settings for access-based book-publishing models to thrive.

Finding a way forward

Entities like Internet Archive have been trying to operate in the grey area between old and new by, for example, limiting access to match the number of print books in storage.

Rather than aiming to eliminate these grey areas, publishers should look to these activities as evidence of unmet demand and a failure to be agile in times of crisis.

Publishers should adapt their dissemination models to the needs of society.

Rather than institute restrictive terms and conditions for access, they should work with libraries to build sustainable models for dissemination that ensure books are available to people who need access to our shared knowledge and culture.

Read more:
What is a book in the digital age?

The authors 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. Publishers vs the Internet Archive: why the world’s biggest online library is in court over digital book lending – https://theconversation.com/publishers-vs-the-internet-archive-why-the-worlds-biggest-online-library-is-in-court-over-digital-book-lending-187166

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, The University of Melbourne

A severe heatwave in Western Europe is shattering temperature records – including in the United Kingdom, where temperatures exceeded 40℃ on Tuesday for the first time on record.

The village of Coningsby in eastern England reached 40.3℃ – provisionally the hottest temperature in UK history. The record was previously held by Cambridge, which reached 38.7℃ in 2019.

I’m a scientist interested in climate change and extreme weather. I grew up in the UK and remember major heatwaves in 2003 and 2006 during my school holidays.

Traditionally, temperatures above 30℃ in the UK are considered hot. But to see temperatures already exceeding 40℃ is shocking.

Summer heat may be far from people’s minds here in Australia. But Europe’s ordeal is yet another sign that changes in Earth’s climate have already reached dangerous levels. If the UK can reach 40℃, Australia must brace for even deadlier temperatures.

A nation ill-prepared

Europe’s heatwave spread across Spain, Portugal and southern and western France, before a strong southerly wind fanned continental air across the English Channel. Background warming due to climate change boosts the odds of such severe heat.

In 2020, a UK Met Office study found under the current climate, there was likely a less than 1% chance of seeing 40℃ anywhere in the UK in a given year. Without human-caused climate change it would be virtually impossible.

The UK is simply not used to heat on this scale. In fact, buildings there are generally designed to retain heat rather than cool down. A report last year found fewer than 5% of homes were air-conditioned.

Urban green space in the UK – which can help cool cities – has also declined in recent years.

The Met Office on Friday issued the first ever “red warning” heat alert, which said “illness and death may occur among the fit and healthy, and not just in high-risk groups”. It advised people to:

Close curtains on rooms that face the sun to keep indoor spaces cooler and remember it may be cooler outdoors than indoors. Drink plenty of fluids and avoid excess alcohol, dress appropriately for the weather and slow down when it is hot. Be on the lookout for signs of heat related illness. Cool your skin with water, slow down and drink water.

The death toll from the current heatwave is not yet known, but experts say it could be in the thousands across Europe.

But not all Britons see the extreme heat as a potentially lethal event. One Conservative MP went so far as to accuse those taking precautions against the heat of being “cowards” and “snowflakes”.

And media reports have routinely featured images of people sunbathing on beaches and eating ice cream in parks. Research shows this may create a false impression that spending time in the sun during heatwaves is safe.

Read more:
Britain isn’t built to withstand 40°C – here is where infrastructure is most likely to fail

Lessons for Australia

Australia has, of course, experienced many days with temperatures of 40℃ or more. But we struggle when it persists for several days.

Research shows the impacts of climate change are accelerating rapidly across ecosystems, food production, cities and towns, and health and well-being.

Heatwaves kill more Australians than any other extreme weather event. Hospitals are strained as admissions rise. Public transport can be disrupted, energy supplies come under pressure, and the bushfire risk increases.

Experts say extreme heat also poses a substantial threat to Australia’s economy.

In January this year, temperatures in the Western Australian town of Onslow peaked at 50.7℃ – equalling the Australian record.

Globally, the number of days over 50℃ has doubled since the 1980s. Such temperatures are still rare in Australia. But as climate change worsens, more extremely hot days will occur across the continent.

Australia has warmed by around 1.4℃ since 1910, well ahead of the global average of 1.1℃. Even if warming is kept below 2℃, Sydney and Melbourne are expected to see 50℃ days in coming years.

In the summer of 2019-20 the Western Sydney suburb of Penrith came close, reaching 48.9℃.

Read more:
This WA town just topped 50℃ – a dangerous temperature many Australians will have to get used to

No time to waste

Greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the world, including Western Europe. This raises the likelihood of more extreme high temperatures, including records broken by wide margins.

The UK heatwave is just the latest reminder of what’s in store for Australia and the world as the climate changes. Last year, a severe heatwave in western North America led to temperatures approaching 50℃ in Canada and broke records in parts of the Pacific Northwest.

Clearly, nations everywhere must consider measures to better handle future heatwaves. This is especially important in Australia, the driest inhabited continent on Earth. Here, drought and severe fire conditions can exacerbate the harms caused by extreme heat.

The UK government is under fire for ignoring previous expert calls to create a national heat risk strategy. Australia must also do a better job on heatwave planning.

Finally, rapid emissions reduction is needed to limit further global warming. Until we reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions globally, the planet will continue to warm. We have the time and tools to avert an even worse planetary catastrophe, but we must act now.

Read more:
Australia ranks last out of 54 nations on its strategy to cope with climate change. The Glasgow summit is a chance to protect us all

Andrew King receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program.

– ref. The UK just hit 40℃ for the first time. It’s a stark reminder of the deadly heat awaiting Australia – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-just-hit-40-for-the-first-time-its-a-stark-reminder-of-the-deadly-heat-awaiting-australia-187347

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

The Albanese government has chosen its candidate to be the new speaker.

Milton Dick has been the member for Oxley in Queensland since 2016. The former Brisbane City Councillor is almost certain to be formally endorsed by the House of Representatives when the new parliament meets on July 26.

He was chosen in a factional deal ahead of Rob Mitchell, the second deputy speaker since 2013. Mitchell was Labor’s nominee when the respected Tony Smith stepped down as speaker in November 2021. But the Liberal Andrew Wallace was chosen along party lines, and is now the third shortest-serving speaker, after Ian Sinclair (1998) and the very obscure Carty Salmon (1909-10).

Dick’s selection should continue the pattern of the speaker being effectively chosen by the government. Like most speakers, he’s not regarded as a ministerial contender.

Why not an independent speaker?

Given Labor’s small majority in the House of Representatives, there had been conjecture that a cross-bencher may have been chosen.

Indeed, had Labor fallen short of a majority, the members themselves may have done so. Andrew Wilkie, first elected in 2010, was mentioned as having the requisite parliamentary experience. Rebekha Sharkie, a member since 2016, had also been suggested, by fellow cross-bencher Zali Steggall.

An independent incumbent could have strengthened the government’s position by virtue of the speaker only voting in the house when a casting vote is needed to resolve a tie.

But there’s a strong convention that speakers do not participate in policy debates. This is a big ask for any independent. The very first speaker, Frederick Holder, was a man of strong opinions who vented frustration over an “almost overwhelming desire to step out of the chair and tear off the gag”.

Albanese has also avoided emulating Prime Minister Joseph Cook. He came to office in 1913 with a one seat majority that saw the speaker, Elliot Johnson, repeatedly exercising a casting vote.

The opposition tried hard to catch Johnson and the government short through motions of censure and of dissent from the chair, and by refusing pairs. Yet Johnson used his casting vote in only ten of 69 divisions during this short-lived government, with most votes in the house then, as now, not being terribly controversial.

Read more:
Andrew Wallace becomes the new speaker – a role that’s never been more important in Australian politics

The role of the speaker

Given the Labor government’s small majority, the speaker’s role will be especially important in this parliament. The much larger cross-bench will be arguing for a greater voice.

There’s a push to make question time more informative. One suggestion is to cut back on “Dorothy Dixers”. These are questions typically concocted by ministers’ staff to be asked by compliant government backbenchers. Ministers invariably give prepared answers praising their own performance and disparaging the opposition.

Dick is no doubt pleased to have this prestigious post. His portrait will one day hang in the halls of parliament for posterity. On formal occasions, the speaker ranks ahead of the chief justice, the deputy prime minister and former prime ministers in the official table of precedence.

Yet speakers pretend to be reluctantly dragged to the position. This rather cute charade reflects a British political tradition. Standing up to the king as parliament’s representative was once a decidedly dangerous pastime.

The speaker is the House of Representative’s “principal officer”. The incumbent has wide ceremonial and administrative functions in Parliament House, many being shared with the president of the Senate.

The most public role speakers have is presiding over the debates in the House, ensuring these are conducted according to standing orders. This makes their job anything but a sinecure. Most Australians are well aware of televised images of the incumbent perched in the speaker’s chair at the head of the chamber during question time trying to manage 150 attention-hungry MPs.

Tolerance of procedural mistakes is next to zero, and blunders are slow to be forgotten. One speaker, Stephen Martin, was only half joking when he said his experience as a rugby league referee and high school teacher was good preparation.

Read more:
Question Time reforms are worthy but won’t solve the problem of a broken political culture

Why is the speaker important?

A good speaker is a bulwark against the worst excesses of political partisanship. Truly effective ones determine the tone of the house. They skilfully exercise their personal authority with a seemingly light touch.

Most have successfully balanced party loyalty with wider expectations of the office. They struck a workable compromise between partiality to their own government and keeping favouritism within bounds the opposition could tolerate.

Only a few, such as the truculent Archie Cameron in the 1950s, faced persistent opposition calls for resignation. Such qualified non-partisanship was probably helped by the speakership not usually having served as a stepping stone into the ministry.

This pragmatic model is supported by deep roots in our little appreciated parliamentary history and in the wider Australian “fair go” ethos. But it should never be taken for granted. It needs to be defended against the remorseless politicisation of public life.

The new speaker is likely to be sorely tested by the opposition, a near standard experience for freshly minted presiding officers. All eyes will be on whether Dick emulates the example set by Tony Smith, whose impartiality stretched to preparedness to defy his party peers. Typically, speakers step back from party politics, with many having chosen not to attend party room or caucus meetings.

Like Smith, Dick will have the support of the Clerk of the House Claressa Surtees and her staff in the Department of the House of Representatives. The department has been spared the worst of the hollowing out of skills and independence afflicting so much of the mainstream public service.

How Dick performs and is treated by both sides of the House will be an important reality check of the new government’s goal of lifting the standards of our political culture. Expectations, and hopes, are high!

John Hawkins was a former adviser to the House Economics Committee and secretary of the Senate Economics Committee. He contributed six essays to the Biographical Dictionary of the House of Representatives.

Stephen Wilks was employed by the ANU in 2018-2020 using funding from the Department of the House of Representatives to research Speakers and Clerks of the House of Representatives. His employment with the ANU has subsequently been funded by the ANU itself.

– ref. The Albanese government has announced the next speaker of the house. What’s the role and why is it important? – https://theconversation.com/the-albanese-government-has-announced-the-next-speaker-of-the-house-whats-the-role-and-why-is-it-important-184135

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dougal Sutherland, Clinical Psychologist, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

A recent survey of New Zealand workplaces revealed more than a third have no workplace well-being plan in place. Yet it is necessary, now more than ever, for organisations to understand what a healthy work environment looks like and to provide it for their employees.

The 2015 Health and Safety at Work Act requires workplaces to look after the physical and mental health and well-being of their staff. This means looking at work through a health and safety lens and understanding the risks that affect people’s well-being at work.

For many organisations, the legislation took them into new and unknown territory. Our experience working with organisations was that, understandably, many efforts initially focused on managing stress and mental illness only after they occurred.

However, evidence clearly points to the importance of having a proactive strategy to prevent psychological harm occurring in the first place – having the fence at the top of the cliff as well as the ambulance at the bottom.

The issue of workplace burnout has received lots of attention of late, particularly in relation to people working in the health sector. But, even beyond this, there is clear evidence aspects of work design, organisation and management as well as employees’ social and environmental context play a major role in workers’ psychological and physical health.

Read more:
A burnt-out health workforce impacts patient care

These psychosocial factors should be the focus of workplace well-being plans. Failure to address them can directly contribute to mental health problems in employees, including depression.

Recommendations for a well-being plan

A recent World Health Organization (WHO) report on mental health listed three key recommendations to prevent mental ill health at work:

1. organisational interventions to identify, remove or mitigate psychosocial risks

2. mental health training for managers to identify and support healthy work practices and healthy workers

3. interventions for employees to increase their personal coping capacity.

Historically, many workplaces have focused on the last recommendation. But to focus solely on boosting individuals’ coping abilities can place the blame on the person and mask the impact of broader environmental factors.

Our experience working with organisations suggests interventions that only target individuals and not the broader organisation implicitly give the message that employees are to blame if they’re not “resilient enough” to cope with overwhelming workloads and unmanageable deadlines.

Individually focused interventions can also be met with cynicism and lack of buy-in from employees.

Feedback from managers and staff leaders indicates many have monitored employee well-being implicitly and spontaneously in the past (for example, noting when a team member is looking down or feeling upset). But with many workplaces moving to hybrid models of staff working partly from home, these strategies may no longer be effective.

Training managers to spot signs of languishing in people working remotely is a new but much-needed component of many well-being plans.

Read more:
Languishing: what to do if you’re feeling restless, apathetic or empty

Considering employees’ personal circumstances

There are a few tips organisations should keep in mind when implementing these recommendations.

Firstly, it’s crucial to ask employees about what is stressing them. Use this information as a basis for your plan. It is vital to use a form of survey or assessment developed specifically for this purpose, rather than just guessing or assuming you know what your people think. This means you can track changes in well-being over time.

Secondly, involving employees in the design of any well-being plan will likely increase buy-in and improve uptake of any interventions.

Thirdly, employers need to consider both work and non-work factors. Some work factors may be obvious (such as bullying, high workload, exposure to traumatic material), while others may be less so (level of autonomy at work, being consulted about change) yet still critical. Non-work factors may include financial stress and parenting or relationship difficulties.

Some organisations may blanch at the thought of a workplace helping with aspects of employees’ private lives. But to do so may be a crucial component in contributing towards their well-being.

In addition to reducing risks, a good well-being plan promotes positive aspects of a workplace. These are the things that make employees want to be there, such as a great office environment, a culture of appreciation, and “fringe benefits” that come with the job.

Psychological well-being in the workplace may still be relatively new territory for many organisations and it’s tempting to pluck the low-hanging fruit by simply providing some extra tools to workers. A comprehensive well-being plan that addresses psychosocial factors will help expand interventions and prove the old adage that prevention is better than cure.

Amanda Wallis and Erika Clarry, at Umbrella Wellbeing, have contributed to this article.

Dougal Sutherland works for Victoria University of Wellington and Umbrella Wellbeing.

– ref. Why it’s more important than ever for workplaces to have staff well-being plans – https://theconversation.com/why-its-more-important-than-ever-for-workplaces-to-have-staff-well-being-plans-186807

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Hannan, Head of Neural Plasticity and NHMRC Senior Research Fellow, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health

In a recent interview, Game of Thrones star Emilia Clarke spoke about being able to live “completely normally” after two aneurysms – one in 2011 and one in 2013 – that caused brain injury. She went on to have two brain surgeries.

An aneurysm is a bulge or ballooning in the wall of a blood vessel, often accompanied by severe headache or pain.

So how can people survive and thrive despite having, as Clarke put it, “quite a bit missing” from their brain?

The key to understanding how brains can recover from trauma is that they are fantastically plastic – meaning our body’s supercomputer can reshape and remodel itself.

Read more:
Growing up in a disadvantaged neighbourhood can change kids’ brains – and their reactions

Our fantastically plastic brains

Brains can adapt and change in incredible ways. Yours is doing it right now as you form new memories.

It’s not that the brain has evolved to deal with brain trauma or stroke or aneurysms; our ancestors normally died when that happened and may not have gone on to reproduce. In fact, we evolved very thick skulls to try to prevent brain trauma happening at all.

No, this neural plasticity is a result of our brains evolving to be learning machines. They allow us to adapt to changing environments, to facilitate learning, memory and flexibility. This functionality also means the brain can adapt after certain injuries, finding new pathways to function.

A lot of organs wouldn’t recover at all after serious damage. But the brain keeps developing through life. At a microscopic level, you’re changing the brain to make new memories every day.

This extraordinary kilogram and a half of soft tissue sitting in your skull – with more power and capacity than even the most powerful supercomputer – has an incredible ability to adapt.

What does it mean to say parts of the brain are ‘missing’?

The brain needs a constant and steady supply of oxygenated blood. When it is injured – for example by an aneurysm, sudden impact against the inside of the skull, stroke or surgery – oxygen supply can be interrupted.

Sometimes, a piece is surgically removed or a region dies off due to lack of oxygen.

For example, sometimes a person with epilepsy doesn’t respond to drugs. Thanks to extraordinary brain imaging techniques, we can potentially work out the exact place in the brain the seizure is starting and remove part of the brain.

Read more:
Brain stimulation can rewire and heal damaged neural connections, but it isn’t clear how – research suggests personalization may be key to more effective therapies

So how does the brain adapt after injury?

Your brain has about 100 billion neurons and over a trillion synapses (a junction between two neurons, across which an electrical impulse is transmitted). They are constantly rewiring themselves in response to new experiences, to store and retrieve information.

With brain injury, the changes can be bigger; you get certain rewiring around the injury. These synapses can rearrange themselves to work around the damaged part.

Axons (long, threadlike parts of a nerve cell that can conduct electrical impulses) form nerve fibres that get sent out to new spots in response to signals they are getting from the damaged area.

But there’s another form of plasticity called neurogenesis. This involves little pockets in the brain where new neurons continue to be born throughout life. And there’s evidence that after brain injury these neural stem cells can be stimulated and migrate to the area of injury and make new neurons.

Neurorehabilitation might include physical rehabilitation and speech rehabilitation. And there is also research into using drugs to enhance neuroplasticity. That might also apply to slower forms of degeneration such as in Parkinson’s or Huntington’s disease.

As Clarke notes, not everyone has a significant recovery after traumatic brain injury; a lot of people experience ongoing disability.

Many factors affect the way the brain responds to rehabilitation, including the extent and position of the brain injury, genetics, lifestyle and life history.

Some people also experience personality change after a traumatic brain injury.

The textbook case was Phineas Gage, who was involved in an accident in the 1840s that saw a metal rod thrust through his head, destroying a large part of his frontal lobe. He was able to survive and recover but his personality changed.

Read more:
Post-COVID psychosis occurs in people with no prior history. The risk is low but episodes are frightening

What can you do to give your brain its best chance in life?

I want to end with a message about the five factors of brain health:

1. diet: emerging evidence shows a relationship between brain health and body health, including your gut microbiome, so ensuring your diet is broadly healthy is good for your brain, as well as the rest of your body

2. stress: high levels of chronic stress can be bad for the brain

3. sleep: we know good sleep hygiene is very important for a healthy brain

4. cognitive or mental exercise: this is uniquely beneficial for the brain and can potentially slow brain ageing

5. physical exercise: physical activity is as good for your brain as it is for your body.

Even though you can’t do anything about your genetics, you can change your lifestyle to give your brain its best chance and potentially slow down brain ageing.

The healthier your brain is, the more likely it will be able to rewire itself and heal if injured, and be resilient to the negative aspects of brain ageing, such as Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia, so these can be delayed or prevented.

Read more:
What is it about the human brain that makes us smarter than other animals? New research gives intriguing answer

Anthony Hannan receives funding from the NHMRC and the ARC and some philanthropic funding for medical research.

– ref. Game of Thrones star Emilia Clarke is missing ‘quite a bit’ of her brain. How can people survive and thrive after brain injury? – https://theconversation.com/game-of-thrones-star-emilia-clarke-is-missing-quite-a-bit-of-her-brain-how-can-people-survive-and-thrive-after-brain-injury-187285

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renee Barnes, Senior Lecturer, Journalism, University of the Sunshine Coast

Twenty-something Melburnian Harrison Pawluck could be doing worse things than building a TikTok audience through “random acts of kindness”.

He’s not out on the streets pulling risky pranks or provoking angry confrontations. He doesn’t promote bogus cryptocurrency schemes, cancer cures or conspiracy theories. Instead he films strangers’ reactions to him doing things such as paying for their groceries or handing them flowers.

Even so, the controversy sparked by his most successful video to date (viewed nearly 65 million times) underlines the problematic ethics of “feel-good” content – both for creators and consumers.

The 19-second video shows Pawluck asking an elderly woman in a food hall to hold a bouquet of flowers as he puts on a jacket. He then wishes her a lovely day and walks off. “I hope this made her day better,” the caption reads. It didn’t.

Since becoming aware of the viral video, Melbourne woman Maree has spoken out about feeling patronised and exploited. Pawluk has offered an apology of sorts, but said he won’t stop make such videos:

I know my true intentions and I know that, if I can inspire even 1% of the people that watch my content to go out there and do something good, I have done something that I believe is good for the world.

This defence would work better if Pawluck weren’t monetising his videos. The fact there’s market for such content, however, raises questions. How can content be truly altruistic with so many commercial factors at play?

What is eudaimonic media?

From holding life-affirming signs in malls to hugging strangers, giving homeless people huge wads of cash and rescuing stray animals, “random acts of kindness” have proved a popular video genre on social media channels.

In media studies we call these videos “eudaimonic media” – from the ancient Greek word “eudaimonia”. This is often translated as meaning “happiness” but the philosopher Aristotle used it to refer to the highest human good – to living a life of virtue.

In contrast to hedonistic media – content that’s all about personal gratification and pleasure – eudaimonic media is meant to make us reflect on life’s purpose, potential, virtue and meaning.

Feel-good outweighs feel-bad

For all the focus on social media’s capacity to promote “engagement” through sensationalism, polarisation and appealing to people’s worst emotions, the market for eudaimonic content remains far bigger.

Read more:
Anger is all the rage on Twitter when it’s cold outside (and on Mondays)

A survey of more than 777 million Facebook posts in 2019, for example, found “love” emojis accounted for about half of all video reactions in 2018 (compared with 4.5% “angry” emojis).

Facebook’s most watched video that year, with more than 361 million views, was of Jay Shetty, a Hindu monk turned life coach/influencer giving an inspirational talk to school students (scored with poignant piano music).

All up Shetty reportedly earned US$1 million in Facebook advertising revenue in 2018 – something certainly to inspire Pawluck and his collaborators.

Show me the eudaimonia!

Studies indicate that eudaimonic media can be a “moral motivator”, inspiring prosocial behaviour.

But there’s a clear ethical problem when content creators have high hedonistic motivations – fame and fortune – to make “feel-good” videos. With that pressure, “acts of kindness” can become performative, even exploitative.

Part of any social media influencer’s strategy is a form of performance, of course. But with a “eudaimonic” content creator, it’s hard to reconcile virtuous action with contrived scenarios where the people being filmed are being used as a means to an end.

Read more:
Giving out flowers on TikTok: is this a ‘random act of kindness’ or just benevolent ageism?

We’re all responsible

It would be easy to focus on Pawluck and his fellow content creators, but this is part of the bigger systemic problem with social media: that it is often antisocial even when appearing, superficially, to be prosocial.

The bottom line with the entire social media business model is that appealing to, amplifying and manipulating emotions is a surefire way to increase engagement and monetise content.

This is where we all, as social media users, have the power to contribute to the higher good. We must be more discerning about the type of content we are encouraging people like Pawluck to make though our clicks and comments.

Read more:
What our negative comments and consumer gripes on social media reveal about us

Watching that video might have momentarily made us feel good, but did the content creator actually do good? Are they upfront about their financial motivations? Have they sought permission from their unwitting subjects?

As Maree noted after she unwittingly became the star of the latest commercially-motivated social media trend:

I feel like clickbait.

Consider the impact of your next hit of a feel-good video of a rescued dog or giving those less fortunate money or food. Is this a eudaimonic or money-making moment?

Read more:
Social media regulation: why we must ensure it is democratic and inclusive

Renee Barnes 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. Playing on good feelings: when ‘eudaimonic’ social media goes bad – https://theconversation.com/playing-on-good-feelings-when-eudaimonic-social-media-goes-bad-187074

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jill Sheppard, Senior Lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

The Albanese government’s turnback of a Sri Lankan asylum seeker vessel just a day after being sworn in suggests it’s business as usual for Australia’s treatment of arrivals by boat.

Ever since the 2001 Tampa Incident – when a freighter rescued several hundred drowning refugees from a dilapidated fishing boat but was prevented from bringing them to Australian shores – “boat arrivals” have featured prominently in public debates.

Australia’s draconian refugee policies receive bipartisan support and high public approval, despite attracting widespread criticism overseas.

In new research, we asked Australians what they thought of the country’s boat arrivals policy – and studied whether their views changed when they were told the policies breached international law, were immoral, or harmed Australia’s international reputation.

International criticism

The UN has repeatedly told Australia its boat arrivals policies violate international law, including a key anti-torture treaty. They also breach the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Doctors Without Borders says the mental health suffering in detention facilities is among the worst it has seen. Others describe the facilities as cruel and inhumane.

Still others argue Australia’s policy harms its international reputation, entrenching the nation’s pariah status on the issue.

Our study

Our recent research involved a survey using a nationally representative sample of over 2,000 Australians.

We found that over 56% of them agreed or strongly agreed with the policy. Only 37% disapproved or strongly disapproved. That’s generally consistent with what other surveys have found, although those views may be shifting.

We were also specifically interested in whether it matters how Australia’s policy is framed.

After (randomly) dividing our respondents into four groups, we then told one group that Australia’s policy breached international law, one group that it was immoral, and one group that it harmed Australia’s international reputation. The fourth group received no additional information.

Read more:
Australia’s temporary visa system is unfair, expensive, impractical and inconsistent. Here’s how the new government could fix it

Everyone who received negative information was more critical of current policy. It isn’t altogether surprising that negative information makes people more negative. But given how entrenched Australia’s policy has become, it’s interesting that attitudes are still movable.

Even more interestingly, we found that describing current policy as a breach of international law is far more effective at dampening support than describing it as morally egregious or harmful to our international reputation.

Of the three frames, the international reputation argument got the least traction. This lends some credence to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s claim that Australians are “sick of being lectured to by the UN”.

Getting people to act is much harder

We did find emphasising international law or morality makes people more willing to mobilise (compared to accentuating reputational harm).

But overall, most people just aren’t motivated to take political action – even if they strongly dislike the policy.

Our study found less than 30% of respondents were willing to sign a petition against current policy, and less than 10% were interested in protesting or donating.

Read more:
The ‘Biloela family’ are going home – but what will Labor do with thousands of other asylum seekers in limbo in Australia?

These findings are consistent with a longstanding body of research which shows people are less willing to mobilise as the costs of action go up.

They also corroborate an age-old challenge for activists. Most forms of political activism involve some cost in terms of time or money. Particularly when your own rights or interests aren’t at stake, turning that outrage into action rarely looks as appealing as staying on the couch.

Jill Sheppard is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery grant (DP210101517).

Jana von Stein 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. Does Australia’s harsh asylum seeker policy matter to the average Australian? It depends whether they have to get off the couch – https://theconversation.com/does-australias-harsh-asylum-seeker-policy-matter-to-the-average-australian-it-depends-whether-they-have-to-get-off-the-couch-180779

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Thompson, Lecturer, Australian Catholic University

Review: Future. Joy. Club., Finucane & Smith

The theatre of the occasion starts with a selfie-seat at the foot of the staircase: floral garlands, red backcloth and a teal throne complete with hand-held mirror ball. We’re all posting on our socials even before we enter.

Then it is up the stairs to the red carpet and a delightfully dinky ticket box – also draped in red – flanked by cast members and ushers who greet us like long lost friends and guide us to our tables in the dim, candlelit room.

At one end, a beautiful proscenium arch stage has been erected with a gold backdrop, red sashed curtains, candelabra-style lights and a catwalk thrusting into the auditorium where more members of the cast are mingling.

On any other night, this would be the La Trobe Ballroom in the Sofitel Melbourne Hotel at the Paris end of Collins Street. Tonight, it is Finucane & Smith’s Future. Joy. Club.

Read more:
Strippers on film: battlers, showgirls and hustlers

Dedication to the audience

Performer/writer/director Moira Finucane and writer/director Jackie Smith first joined forces as Finucane & Smith to present The Burlesque Hour in 2004.

Their work valorises burlesque, vaudeville and variety entertainment, injecting them with sharp, witty and often confrontational political and social provocations, drawing together an exceptionally talented and diverse family of performing artists.

The line between that show and this is marked by numerous works in venues as wildly different as 45 Downstairs, the Spiegeltent at Luna Park and the Hares & Hyenas bookshop.

At the heart of each of their productions is the company’s dedication to the experience of each member of their audience, a generosity of spirit even more evident in Future. Joy. Club.

Re-engaging with the audience experience – especially one as visceral as this – is at the heart of Finucane’s opening monologue underscored by the wonderful Rachel Lewindon at the grand piano playing a version of Cabaret’s Willkommen, evoking an era somewhere between silent movies and 1940s Hollywood nightclubs.

Finucane reminds us of what we’ve all shared over the past two years and reaffirms we must never forget how central to our culture and humanity our artists are.

A celebration

Mama Alto gives us a haunting version of the Roberta Flack hit The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face. Indie pop singer-songwriter Sophie Koh’s interpretation of Radiohead’s Creep is hypnotic.

Jazida – a captivating stripteaser, fan dancer and fire artist – delivers a remarkable lightshow embedded in her fans. The graceful, elegant gestural movements of classical Indian dancer Govind Pillai embody the term “boylesque”.

Statuesque in a red satin gown, “tradie by day, drag queen by night” Iva Rosebud strips back to a gold corset, then a strip of black tape, then nothing at all. Soulful Ngarluma jazz and blues singer Lois Olney and guitarist Dave Johnson round out the night with a languid rendition of George Gershwin’s Summertime.

Even the stage management of this show is entertaining, predominantly handled by Monkey (aka acrobat Kathryn Niesche, complete with articulated tail) who scoots around the stage setting up and clearing away – but she’s not alone. The precision mechanics of the show are equally shared by all members of the cast.

There’s a tendency when writing about theatre like this to start a sentence with the words “the highlight of the night was …”. No such sentence would be appropriate here. No one performance outshines another, in this finely plotted progression through emotions.

In one moment the room is in tears as Olney sings a song inspired by her brothers’ deaths in custody. The next moment, there is laughter and applause as Finucane invents an extemporised story created from audience prompts (in this case the words nadir, darling and manifesto) against the three minutes of sand flowing in an egg timer held by Mama Alto.

Future. Joy. Club. is a celebration of the body, of the voice, of diversity, of fluidity, of inclusion, of what happens when we all come together to share the performance experience.

In the program, Finucane is credited as “club host and chief alchemiser”. It is an apt description. The alchemy of this family of artists, designers and technicians promotes an optimism for how we can be better with each other in the way we are in the world. It creates a joy more than the sum of its parts.

Perhaps the positivity and optimism exuding from this show could be the future we all embrace.

The joy, however, is firmly in the present.

Future. Joy. Club. is at the Sofitel Melbourne on Collins until August 7.

Read more:
Strapped, packed and taking the stage: Australia’s new drag kings

Chris Thompson 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. In Finucane & Smith’s Future. Joy. Club. the joy is much more than the sum of its parts – https://theconversation.com/in-finucane-and-smiths-future-joy-club-the-joy-is-much-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts-186918

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Ho, Associate professor, University of Technology Sydney

The NSW state government has just announced a major overhaul of its selective school program. From the 2023 intake, up to 20% of the places on offer will be set aside for students from a disadvantaged background.

This is in response to long-held concerns these highly sought-after public schools were dominated by students from advantaged backgrounds.

But does this change do enough? How else can we ensure all students get a fair shot at a coveted selective school place?

What are selective schools?

Selective schools are public high schools where students sit a test in year six to be accepted in year seven. In NSW, the exam tests English, maths and “thinking skills” (largely based on logical reasoning).

It is very competitive to get a place. Selective schools are among the very top performers in the state in year 12 exams and many parents view them as as pathway to success.

The number of applicants for selective high schools increased from 14,961 in 2019 to 15,660 applications for 2023 for 4,248 places.

The first selective high school opened in 1849 and they include some of NSW’s oldest schools. Having increased in number since the 1980s, there are now 51 fully or partially selective schools around the state (this is compared to just four in Victoria).

À lire aussi :
New South Wales has 48 selective schools, while Victoria has 4. There’s an interesting history behind this

Their aim is to provide an environment for gifted students who may not have the same stimulation in a mainstream setting, and to give them a cohort of like minds.

But while the curriculum may be more accelerated, the rest of the set up is just like any other public school. The teachers are public school teachers and the facilities are public school facilities.

Selective schools only favour some gifted students

A 2018 NSW Department of Education review found the selection system for selective schools needed serious updating.

It found “unintended barriers” in the application process may be deterring some students from disadvantaged backgrounds, Indigenous students, students with disability and students in rural and remote areas from putting their hands up.

Researchers, including myself, have also pointed out how selective high schools are among the most “socio-educationally” advantaged in the state, surpassing even prestigious private schools. Socio-educational advantage is based on parents’ education and occupation, the school’s geographic location and proportion of Indigenous students.

A significant announcement … but

Overall, this announcement is a very significant and positive step. This is the first time since the release of the 2018 review that the state government has tried to address these equity issues in a meaningful way.

But it is not the complete answer and the details matter.

À lire aussi :
Selective schools mainly ‘select’ advantage, so another one won’t ease Sydney’s growing pains

A key concern is getting disadvantaged students to apply for selective places, through new targeted campaigns. For example, in April the Sydney Morning Herald reported the number of Indigenous students applying, being offered and accepting places was at its lowest level in four years, with just 29 students accepting a spot last year compared with 48 in 2018.

This entire program relies on the students applying for these schools in the first place. If they don’t apply, then these places will revert back to regular applicants.

A spokesperson for the NSW education department says it has a “program of work in place to increase awareness […] in under-represented groups”. However, given this change has only just been announced and begins immediately (for next year’s intake) there has not been a chance to promote the new rules to disadvantaged students and their families.

What about other ways to apply?

If there is a broader mix of ways to identify students (beyond the application process), this would maximise the chances of students from a diverse range of backgrounds going to selective schools.

One way would be to allow primary schools to nominate gifted or high potential students who wouldn’t otherwise apply. After all, there will always be a cohort of disadvantaged families who just won’t have the application, or test preparation, on their radar.

Then there’s the test

We also need to think beyond the test itself.

The test has been adjusted to make it less “coachable”, with less emphasis on maths and more on English. But I know from my research that the coaching industry has adapted, for example, by providing students with hundreds of sample “thinking skills” questions.

The admissions criteria are always going to favour kids who are good at tests and who have been trained to do this particular test. This in and of itself favours families who have the time and money to train their kids up for the test.

The test only measures a narrow range of abilities, when the NSW government’s high potential and gifted education policy defines “potential” as not just intellectual, but also creative, social-emotional and physical. The selective schools test does not identify students with these abilities.

Don’t forget the mainstream system

Lastly, we can’t forget the mainstream comprehensive public school sector.

Inevitably, this is where the vast bulk of gifted students are taught. Providing opportunities for all gifted students requires that all public schools are able to offer acceleration and enrichment programs to those who need them.

The door to the selective system may have opened slightly wider, but these schools are not the only solution when it comes to educational opportunity.

Christina Ho receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. NSW is trying to make the selective school application process fairer – but is it doing enough? – https://theconversation.com/nsw-is-trying-to-make-the-selective-school-application-process-fairer-but-is-it-doing-enough-187283

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thea van de Mortel, Professor, Nursing and Deputy Head (Learning & Teaching), School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University

Health departments are predicting another COVID surge related, in part, to more easily transmitted new variants and waning immunity.

Given COVID cases are rising and likely underestimated, Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly has strongly suggested people wear masks in indoor spaces.

So it’s important to get across how effective they are and which type to choose. Is it worth dusting off last year’s cloth masks, using a surgical mask, or going out to buy some N95 respirators to wear over the coming weeks?

Read more:
6 steps to making a COVID plan, before you get sick

COVID spread and the effects of winter

The SARS-CoV-2 virus (which causes COVID) spreads mainly through breathing in contaminated droplets or aerosols (tiny particles that are left when fine droplets dry out) released into the air when an infectious person breathes, talks, laughs, shouts, coughs or sneezes. This can happen even when they don’t have any symptoms.

Larger droplets fall to the ground quickly, so distancing yourself from others gives you some protection. Aerosols, though, can hang in the air for hours and travel all around a room.

So you can be infected by aerosols indoors even at a distance from an infectious person or after they have left the room.

COVID case numbers tend to increase during winter. This may be because:

• the virus remains viable (able to cause an infection) for longer in cool and less humid conditions

• we tend to remain indoors when it’s cold, and sharing indoor spaces with others increases the risk of contracting COVID.

Read more:
COVID hospitalisations and deaths are rising faster than cases – but that doesn’t mean more severe disease

Which indoor spaces are the most risky?

The most risky indoor settings are:

• places where people are talking loudly, laughing, singing or shouting, because more droplets and aerosols are released

• rooms where ventilation is poor, as the contaminated particles are not being quickly removed

• spaces that are crowded or where you are exposed for a longer period, as the risk goes up with extended contact.

In other words, spending two minutes in a small shop with an open door and one other person present is less risky than sitting in a crowded indoor bar for hours where everyone is talking loudly to be heard over the background noise.

What can I do?

Wearing a mask or respirator can protect you and others in the community from COVID infection. Some people are at greater risk of severe illness due to old age or poorly functioning immune systems.

As the table below shows, when both the infected and uninfected person wear a mask or respirator, the protection is greater than if just one of them wears one.

What is the difference between a mask and respirator?

Respirators are specifically designed to a standard that prevents 95% of particles from getting through them. So they drastically reduce airborne spread.

Surgical masks are designed primarily to prevent spread of large droplets, so they can stop an infected person spreading disease. This is called source control.

Cloth and surgical masks filter out viral particles by having multiple layers. Respirators (N95s, also called P2s) are more effective at filtering very small particles, because not only do they have multiple fibres, but are made of a type of plastic mesh with a charge that attracts and traps viruses and other particles.

Unlike masks, respirators are also designed to have a tight fit to the face so air enters the lungs only after passing through the respirator. Cloth or surgical masks allow some air entry around the edges because they are not so tightly fitted.

How well do masks and respirators work?

To assess COVID risk and masks, we have to rely on studies in which we are unable to control exactly what people’s exposure to the virus is. This is because we can’t deliberately put people in risky settings. But that means the results are less clear-cut than if we could control the duration and concentration of disease around each subject.

One meta-analysis (pooled results from multiple studies) of the performance of surgical masks versus respirators in healthcare workers found respirators tended to provide better protection than surgical masks, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, staff were more likely to wear respirators when they were working in high-risk areas with greater exposure to COVID, so the results were biased against respirators.

A recent community study compared the effectiveness of masks or respirators with no masks. People who had received a positive COVID PCR result were matched by age, gender and locality, with people who had a negative result. They were surveyed about their mask or respirator use in indoor public settings two weeks before the test.

Those who always wore any type of mask or respirator in indoor public spaces were 56% less likely to test positive than those that never wore one. There was an 83% reduction in the odds of getting a positive test in those who wore a respirator, compared with a 66% reduction in those wearing surgical masks. Those wearing a cloth mask had lower odds of having a positive PCR test result than those wearing no mask, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Those who wore any mask or respirator most of the time had better outcomes than those who wore them some of the time or not at all.

OK, so you’re reaching for a respirator. But which one?

If you are using an N95/P2 respirator, find a brand that fits snugly to your face. Try a few to find one that is most comfortable for you. Note they are not designed for children. And they don’t work well for people with beards, as the hair affects the seal.

Once worn, the respirator is considered contaminated so sanitise your hands before and after handling it, and store it in a paper bag between uses so it can dry out. Don’t reuse the device if it gets dirty, if the straps break or become loose, or if the strip over the nose breaks.

And remember: your mask or respirator is useless if you wear it under your nose.

Read more:
Time to upgrade from cloth and surgical masks to respirators? Your questions answered

Thea van de Mortel teaches into the Griffith University postgraduate Infection Prevention and Control programs.

– ref. Masks are ‘strongly suggested’ by health authorities as the winter COVID wave hits. Here’s how effective they are – https://theconversation.com/masks-are-strongly-suggested-by-health-authorities-as-the-winter-covid-wave-hits-heres-how-effective-they-are-187006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ellen K. Mather, Adjunct associate lecturer, Flinders University

In 1905, a fragment of a fossil wing bone discovered near the Kalamurina Homestead, South Australia, was described as an extinct eagle and named Taphaetus lacertosus, meaning “powerful grave eagle”.

Now research published by myself and mycolleagues can reveal this species was no eagle at all. It was an “Old World” vulture, which we have renamed Cryptogyps lacertosus, or “powerful hidden vulture”.

This is the first time one of these scavenging raptors has been found to have lived in Australia. Living more than tens of thousands of years ago, we believe Cryptogyps likely died out with ancient Australia’s megafauna. There’s much about the species we’ve yet to find out.

A puzzling absence

Vultures are birds of prey that feed almost exclusively on decaying flesh. They play a vital role in their ecosystems by speeding up the consumption of carcasses. In this way, they assist in redistributing nutrients, and help limit the spread of diseases.

They can be divided into two groups. “New World” vultures inhabit North and South America and belong to their own distinct family. “Old World” vultures are found in Africa, Europe and Asia, and belong to the same family as eagles and hawks.

Considering they’re so widespread today, it’s surprising vultures long appeared absent from Australia. It’s even stranger when you look at the fossil record across South-East Asia, where vulture fossils have been found as far south as the Indonesian island of Flores. Surely they could have flown a little further?

What’s more, the Australian environment would have been well-suited to support vultures until about 50,000 years ago. Back then, megafaunal marsupials were widespread and abundant across the continent, and would have provided plentiful carcasses for scavengers.

Read more:
This giant kangaroo once roamed New Guinea – descended from an Australian ancestor that migrated millions of years ago

The shape of a scavenger

We aren’t the first to consider there might be vultures in Australia’s fossil record. Other palaeontologists have previously suggested some Australian bird fossils could belong to vultures, and the Kalamurina “eagle” was one such example.

My colleagues and I wanted to find out if this really was the case, and so we began comparing the fossil bones of Cryptogyps to a wide range of living birds of prey, including vultures.

Being scavengers, vultures have a very different musculature and bone structure to eagles. This fact proved to be crucial in confirming Cryptogyps lacertosus was indeed a vulture.

The material used in our research included the original wing bone from the Kalamurina Homestead, two identical wing bone fragments from the Wellington Caves in New South Wales, and two “tarsi” (lower leg bones) – one from Wellington Caves and the other from Leaena’s Breath Cave in Western Australia. All of these bones are thought to belong to Cryptogyps.

Close examination of the bones, and comparison to eagles and vultures from around the world revealed their muscle scars and structure are more vulture-like than eagle-like, especially for the tarsi. This strongly indicates they belonged to a scavenger.

To further test this, we placed the fossils in an evolutionary tree with other birds of prey. Our results confirmed what the comparison suggested: Cryptogyps was indeed a vulture, and potentially a close relative of the Griffon Vulture found across Europe and Asia.

The life and death of a species

Based on the leg bones, we can infer Cryptogyps didn’t actively hunt and grab prey with powerful talons. Rather, it would have scavenged dead animals as vultures do now.

At this point in time, we don’t have enough of the skeleton to know exactly what Cryptogyps lacertosus looked like, or what it ate.

It could have been a social species, gathering in large flocks around the corpses of megafauna such as Diprotodon or Protemnodon. Or perhaps it was a solitary bird, searching and feeding alone, or in pairs. It may have fed on the soft insides of the body, or may have preferred the tougher muscle and skin.

Gaining this information will require more discoveries in the future. What isn’t in question, however, is that like all vultures today Cryptogyps lacertosus would have played an important role in ecosystem health.

Fossils of Cryptogyps are believed to date from the Middle to Late Pleistocene, somewhere between 770,000 and 40,000 years ago. Its extinction was very likely related to the demise of Australia’s megafauna around 60,000–40,000 years ago.

As large-bodied animals died off, the supply of carcasses scavengers need to survive would have dwindled significantly. Starvation would have become common, breeding attempts less successful and eventually the total population would have fallen below the threshold needed to survive.

Other more generalist raptors such as Wedge-tailed Eagles and Black Kites subsequently filled the reduced scavenging niche.

Australia has the sobering distinction of being the only continent to lose its vultures entirely. Sadly, around half of all living vultures today are endangered and under threat of extinction.

And the consequences of this decline have been dire, including increased disease transmission in both animal and human populations, potential impacts on the nutrient cycle, and the restructuring of ecosystems.

Read more:
The endangered condor surprised researchers by producing fatherless chicks. Could ‘virgin birth’ rescue the species?

Ellen K. Mather 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. It was long thought these fossils came from an eagle. Turns out they belong to the only known vulture species from Australia – https://theconversation.com/it-was-long-thought-these-fossils-came-from-an-eagle-turns-out-they-belong-to-the-only-known-vulture-species-from-australia-187017

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stanley Serafin, Senior lecturer, UNSW Sydney

The city of Mayapán was the largest Mayan city from approximately 1200 to 1450 AD. It was an important political, economic and religious centre, and the capital of a large state that controlled much of northwestern Yucatan in present day Mexico.

When the Spanish arrived in the early 1500s, Mayapán was fondly remembered and Mayans proudly claimed descent from its former citizens. But inherent instability meant that it was doomed to fail.

Or so the story went. This narrative has influenced views of this important city, and this period of Mayan civilisation more broadly, for some time.

In a new study, my collaborators and I show that warfare, collapse and abandonment at Mayapán were not inevitable. Instead, they were exacerbated by drought.

Traces of a massacre

Experts from a wide range of fields worked together to piece together this story. The team included included archaeologists, biological anthropologists, geologists and paleoclimatologists.

Archaeologists led by Carlos Peraza Lope of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia of Mexico and Marilyn Masson of the University at Albany – State University of New York have been investigating the ruins of Mayapán intensively since 1996 and 1999, respectively. Intermittent work has been going on at the site since the 1950s.

Researchers have long suspected that Mayapán collapsed violently, based on early colonial documents. These records describe a revolt led by the noble Xiu family that resulted in the massacre of the ruling Cocom family.

When archaeologists from the Carnegie Institute of Washington started to investigate the site in the 1950s, they were not surprised to find buried bodies that had not been given the usual respectful funerary treatment.

Desecration and destruction

I am a bioarchaeologist, which means my job was to look for evidence of trauma in the skeletons that may have contributed to the deaths of these individuals. This evidence would support the idea of a violent collapse of the city.

Most burials lacked evidence of violence. However, some exhibited injuries such as an embedded arrowheads, stabbing wounds or blunt force trauma to the skull.

The signs of violence were concentrated in important contexts at the site and found in association with evidence of desecration and deliberate destruction. It seems some of the site’s own elite inhabitants had been the targets of violence.

Rising violence

To find out when this conflict occurred, and how it related to changes in climate, required a large number of high-precision radiocarbon dates and paleoclimate data from the vicinity of Mayapán.

These analyses were carried out in the labs of Douglas Kennett of the University of California, Santa Barbara, David Hodell at the University of Cambridge, and colleagues.

As a result, we now have more radiocarbon dating information for Mayapán than for any other Mayan site.

Paleoclimate data, meanwhile, was obtained from a stalagmite recovered from a cave directly beneath the site’s principal temple pyramid, which was dedicated to the feathered serpent deity Kukulkan.

These analyses revealed that episodes of violence became more common later in the site’s history, corresponding with evidence of drought that began in the late 1300s and continued into the 1400s.

One mass grave in particular, recovered in Mayapán’s most sacred precinct at the foot of the temple of Kukulkan, appeared to date to around the time of the city’s purported collapse in the mid-1400s. Remarkably, this was confirmed through radiocarbon analyses, corroborating historical accounts of the site’s violent overthrow at this time.

Drought and decline

But the story does not end there.

Radiocarbon dating also provided the surprising result that Mayapán’s population started falling after approximately 1350 AD. Indeed, the city was already largely abandoned by the time of its famous collapse in the mid 1400s.

Read more:
Climate change hastened ancient civilisations’ collapse: study

It may be that as drought continued through the late 1300s, the residents of Mayapán started voting with their feet.

After Mayapán’s fall, the city’s former inhabitants returned to their ancestral homelands in different parts of the Yucatan Peninsula. By the time of Spanish contact in the early 1500s, the peninsula was divided into a number of independent provinces, some of which were thriving.

Climate migration

Although from a vastly different time and place, our study contributes to current efforts to combat global climate change.

When environmental conditions were favourable, populations expanded. But when conditions deteriorated, this put pressure on social and political institutions.

Read more:
‘Climigration’: when communities must move because of climate change

Mayapán’s people migrated away from the city to cope with the change in climate. While migration may be less of a solution in the face of today’s climate change, due to global population levels, climate refugees are expected to rapidly grow in number without significant action by governments and citizenry alike.

Big questions, big collaboration

To address big questions such as this requires a level of multidisciplinary collaboration that is difficult to achieve but essential.

Importantly, local Yucatecan Mayan communities have been integral to this process. Inhabitants of the equally ancient town of Telchaquillo, located just outside Mayapán, have contributed to this work in innumerable ways, including excavation, artifact cleaning, processing and analysis.

Read more:
Rainfall clues link climate change to Maya collapse

Stanley Serafin 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. Climate, conflict, collapse: how drought destabilised the last major precolonial Mayan city – https://theconversation.com/climate-conflict-collapse-how-drought-destabilised-the-last-major-precolonial-mayan-city-187165

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Wallis, Professor of International Security, University of Adelaide

The Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting hosted by Fiji last week was the first to be held in person since 2019. Following a particularly challenging period, it was an opportunity for leaders to reconnect and agree to the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. This document provides a blueprint for enhanced collaboration in the region over the next three decades.

Forum leaders’ meetings are critically important opportunities for Australia and New Zealand to deepen relationships and capitalise on being the only two non-island state members at the regional table.

This was even more visible this year, as the forum did not hold the traditional post-forum partners’ dialogue. This meant dialogue partners such as the US and China did not have the usual formal opportunity to meet forum leaders in Suva, although US Vice President Kamala Harris addressed forum members virtually.

Has Australia’s role in the Pacific changed?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese brought a refreshing change in Australia’s tone and attitude to the forum. He was aided by a policy platform that includes action on climate change, as well as improvements to Australia’s labour mobility schemes and opportunities for permanent migration to Australia for Pacific people.

Perhaps buoyed by his experience, when asked whether China’s influence in the Pacific had been weakened, Albanese responded that “Australia’s influence – which historically has been a country of great significance to the region – has been enhanced by this meeting”.

But the Australian government should be wary about overestimating any increase in its influence. Albanese will soon realise there is an important difference between presence and influence. It will take much more than a few days in Suva to achieve the latter.

While the Albanese government is still finding its feet, its commitments on climate change are insufficiently ambitious and undermined by plans to approve more coal and gas projects.

Conscious of the need to rebuild unity after a challenging few years, this meeting was not designed to push Australia, or indeed any other member, too hard. But the pressure on Australia will remain.

Read more:
Amplifying narratives about the ‘China threat’ in the Pacific may help China achieve its broader aims

Having been in office since 2017, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is a familiar face at forum meetings. But while Ardern and her foreign minister, Nanaia Mahuta, have travelled extensively to other parts of the globe over the past year, their presence in the Pacific has been light. Although the meeting was an opportunity for them to reconnect in the Pacific, there is no indication they intend to build on that momentum by increasing their engagement with the region.

Ardern may discover that her catchphrase of New Zealand “being in and of the Pacific” is no match for physically showing up. And physically showing up is no match for real connection.

Indeed, during the forum leaders’ week there were multiple occasions when Ardern and Albanese (or at least Mahuta and Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong) should have shown up to listen and learn about Pacific perspectives on critical regional issues, such as the historic signing of an agreement on the maritime border between Fiji and Solomon Islands.

Gaps in the trans-Tasman alliance

The forum also highlighted widening gaps in the trans-Tasman alliance. The Albanese government’s proposals concerning Australia’s Pacific policy approach stand in contrast to the Ardern government’s lack of concrete policy. The Ardern government will need to address this if it is to remain a credible partner to the Pacific – and a credible ally of Australia’s.

Read more:
Australia should not overstate the threat of China in the Pacific, and mend relationships in the region

The shift brought about by the Albanese government has altered the dynamics within the forum, and the Pacific more broadly. New Zealand can no longer rely on looking good in comparison to Australia. This suggests the Ardern government needs to review its approach in the Pacific. The rhetoric of New Zealand’s “Pacific identity” needs to involve deeper engagement that reflects Ardern’s call for a “family first” approach.

The announcement of the Partners in the Blue Pacific initiative in Washington last month suggests other partners seeking to be more involved in the region are likely to apply pressure to both Australia and New Zealand to clarify their regional roles.

As the only forum members that are part of this initiative, Australia and New Zealand have an important role in ensuring its commitment to “forum centrality” plays out in practice. In the first instance, they should ask difficult questions about why the initiative was done for, rather than with, the Pacific, and is operating outside the forum’s existing mechanisms for partner co-ordination.

Alongside this, China is likely to continue seeking support for its regional security and economic pact, putting more pressure on Pacific regionalism.

An Albanese-Ardern alliance could play an important role in facilitating Pacific-led regionalism and working with Pacific states to mediate the interest of outside partners. The next few months will tell us whether they recognise and take advantage of this opportunity.

Joanne Wallis receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Defence.

Anna Powles receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Solstice Middleby receives funding for her PHD from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Australia and New Zealand have a golden opportunity to build stronger ties in the Pacific – but will they take it? – https://theconversation.com/australia-and-new-zealand-have-a-golden-opportunity-to-build-stronger-ties-in-the-pacific-but-will-they-take-it-186924

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

Australia is currently in its third Omicron wave (second if you live in Western Australia). This one is caused by the subvariants BA.4 and BA.5.

New variants gain an advantage over previous variants by being able to spread more rapidly. This could be because they can replicate faster, are better able to latch onto human cells, or are better able to escape immunity.

Experts are worried our health system will soon be overwhelmed, and then there is the potential loss of loved ones. At this point, the number of COVID cases is rising but still well short of the peak seen early this year. Yet hospitalisations and deaths are nearing previous peaks. What is going on?

Read more:
How are Australia and NZ managing the rising COVID winter wave – and is either getting it right?

A gentler curve

The first wave of Omicron, caused by subvariant BA.1, began last November, with the epidemic curve rising sharply like a cliff face to about 100,000 cases a day nationally at its peak in early January.

The second wave, caused by Omicron BA.2, had a gentler curve, and peaked at the end of March with more than 60,000 cases per day.

The BA.4 and BA.5 curve is looking gentler still, with current daily case numbers at about 40,000. The peak is expected in August.

It is unclear why we are seeing these changes in successive Omicron waves, but it could be due to different levels of immunity in the population over time, along with changes in the genetic makeup of the subvariants.

Read more:
Australia is heading for its third Omicron wave. Here’s what to expect from BA.4 and BA.5

People admitted to hospital with COVID

The graph below plots cases in Australia versus hospitalisations this year.

As hospitalisations usually occur on average one week after diagnosis, the cases have been lagged by seven days. In other words, cases on January 1 2022 are plotted against hospitalisations on January 8 2022. However, it should be noted this diagnosis-to-hospitalisation time is from 2020, and might be different now.

Clearly, since the beginning of June, hospitalisations have been increasing at a faster rate than case numbers. But does this necessarily mean BA.4 and BA.5 are causing a more severe disease?

ICU admissions

Hospitalisations are a bit difficult to interpret as there is no agreed definition of what a hospitalisation is. For example, do you include hospital in the home, or patients diagnosed after they have been admitted for something else?

Admissions to hospital intensive care units (ICUs) are much easier to interpret. If someone is admitted to ICU, they are critically ill.

The chart below shows ICU admissions as a percentage of hospitalisations. The average time from being admitted to ICU after admission to hospital is one day, so no lagging has been applied here (with the same caveat about 2020 data as before).

Clearly, since the beginning of the year there has been a declining proportion of patients admitted to the ICU, and it has now levelled out at about 3.2%.

However, there are potentially many factors to consider. First, there are only a limited number of ICU beds, which could keep ICU numbers for COVID artificially low.

Lower numbers of COVID-19 patients in ICU could simply be a result of increasing deaths in ICU.

At the same time, better hospital treatment with antivirals such as Paxlovid, Lagevrio and Remdesivir, and monoclonal antibodies like Regdanvimab could be keeping hospitalised patients out of the ICU.

Read more:
COVID drugs in Australia: what’s available and how to get them

The winter effect

Winter sees an increase in respiratory diseases such as pneumonia, influenza and now COVID, as well as heart diseases.

Many people who are already in hospital may also have COVID, or may get COVID in hospital, but it’s not the primary reason they are there, and this has likely increased during the current winter season.

Cases that are undiagnosed or not reported

The number of diagnosed daily cases is only an estimate, with the true number of cases likely several times greater. This is because:

• asymptomatic people don’t usually test themselves without a good reason

• those with symptoms might think it is just a common cold and not test themselves, especially in winter

• those who test themselves with a rapid antigen test (RAT) have a reasonable chance of a false negative result, especially in the first 48 hours

• some people who test positive on a RAT might not report the result to authorities

• the definition of a reinfection has changed from 3 months to 28 days after the initial infection. This means many reinfections would have been missed until now.

In other words, the increasing number of hospitalisations we are seeing might be due to more undiagnosed cases in the community in the past few weeks. This week, the South Australian chief health officer said sewage testing indicated there were likely many more COVID cases than those being reported.

Lives lost

Finally, the graph below plots cases in Australia versus deaths. As deaths likely occur on average two weeks after diagnosis, the cases have been lagged by 14 days (this estimate is based on 2021 data). In other words, cases on January 1 2022 are plotted against hospitalisations on January 15 2022.

COVID deaths are now going up at a faster rate than cases. Again, this could simply be because there are more people in hospital with COVID plus other illnesses because of winter, leading to a higher death rate. This could also be why we are seeing more deaths now.

So, a discussion about whether the current wave caused by BA.4 and BA.5 is leading to more severe disease is complicated. Even though the charts show hospitalisations and deaths increasing faster than case numbers, this could be the winter effect, under-diagnosis or under-reporting – or a combination of these factors.

Regardless, we do know our health system is under increasing pressure, with not only more patients, but also increasing numbers of doctors, nurses and ambos off sick with COVID.

The best thing we can do to try and relieve this pressure is protect ourselves and others. This is not difficult. We simply need to make sure we are up-to-date with our booster shots, and wear a face mask when out and about.

Read more:
When can I get my next COVID booster or fourth dose? What if I’ve recently had COVID? Can I get my flu shot at the same time?

Adrian Esterman 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. COVID hospitalisations and deaths are rising faster than cases – but that doesn’t mean more severe disease – https://theconversation.com/covid-hospitalisations-and-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-cases-but-that-doesnt-mean-more-severe-disease-187163

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ashika Paramita, PhD Candidate, Deakin University

Thor: Love and Thunder, the latest movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, has just hit Australian cinemas. Following Thor’s adventure in the aftermath of Avengers: Endgame, the film re-introduces Jane Foster, played by Natalie Portman, now as the Mighty Thor.

The Mighty Thor’s introduction adds to Marvel Universe’s growing roster of female superheroes, which includes characters such as Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Captain Marvel, and Ms. Marvel.

But, more than just another name on the list, the Mighty Thor represents another type of female superhero: one who is physically strong and with the biceps to show for it.

Becoming the Mighty Thor

Jane Foster first appeared in Marvel Comics’ Journey into Mystery #84 as a nurse employed by Dr. Donald Blake, Thor’s alter-ego. In her early appearances, she serves as Thor’s love interest, often the damsel-in-distress in Thor’s daring exploits.

The Marvel Universe introduces Jane Foster in Thor as an accomplished astrophysicist. But, much like her counterpart in the comics, Foster’s arc revolves around being Thor’s love interest.

In the comics, Foster takes up Thor’s mantle after picking up the enchanted hammer Mjolnir following the original Thor losing his “worthiness”. And although Stan Lee and John Buschema emphasise that female superheroes in Marvel comics should be drawn “to look smooth and soft as opposed to the muscular, angular rendition of a man”, Foster’s Thor is anything but. As the Mighty Thor, Foster’s weak body, ridden with terminal cancer, transforms into a strong, statuesque body befitting a goddess warrior.

Thor: Love and Thunder loosely draws from Foster’s character arc in the comics. Natalie Portman’s Foster first appears in the film as she is undergoing treatment for her stage-four cancer. Having learned that Mjolnir gives its wielder great health, she travels to New Asgard seeking the hammer. Sensing Foster’s presence, the shattered pieces of Mjolnir restore itself and chooses Foster as its new wielder, transforming her into the Mighty Thor.

Portman, whose past roles often capitalise on her petite figure, spent 10 months training to “get as big as possible”. Fans got a first glimpse of Portman’s portrayal of the goddess of thunder in the film’s teaser trailer.

Like her comics counterpart, Marvel’s cinematic Mighty Thor sports a prominently muscular physique. When set photos of Portman in full Thor gears surfaced, the internet lost its collective mind over her jacked arms.

A different embodiment of the female superhero

The hyper-sexualisation of female superheroes in film is nothing new. Characters such as Catwoman, Black Widow and Wonder Woman have all suffered this fate. They are sexualised through their dialogues and mannerisms, not to mention the exposing costumes highlighting their bums and breasts, often with exposed cleavages. In the poster for Captain America: The Winter Soldier, for example, Black Widow is posed and positioned in a way that align the viewers with a sexualising gaze.

Films such as Black Panther and Captain Marvel have taken a better approach in representing their female characters.
The women in these films are neither visually objectified nor defined by their roles as love interests. Instead, they unapologetically display their agency, skills and powers. Thor: Love and Thunder takes another step forward in the representation of embodiment of female heroism and power.

The Mighty Thor’s depiction in Thor: Love and Thunder is not without its problems, including her function in the narrative as a love interest and a tool for Thor’s character development. But, the character opens the possibility for a more diverse and inclusive representation of women’s bodies in mainstream superhero movies.

In addition to the more practical superhero suit, the Mighty Thor does not shy away from showing her muscles. This is why the character is a refreshing departure from the hyper-sexualisation of female superheroes before her.

Read more:
For the love of Thor! Why it’s so hard for Marvel to get its female superheroes right

Representations of female superpowers are often limited by gendered stereotypes. This is exemplified by the “hands off” power sets most female superheroes have, such as Scarlet Witch’s magic, Jean Grey’s telekinesis, and Emma Frost’s telepathy. The Mighty Thor is one of the rare examples where a female superhero is characterised by explicitly physical powers.

In a recent interview, Portman noted that her physical transformation to embody the character gave her an empowering “state of mind as a woman”. For female audiences as well, the Mighty Thor’s physical stature is a powerful visual representation.

Additionally, representations of women’s bodies in popular culture reflect gender conventions that associate femininity with slender and soft bodies. With the rare appearances of muscular women on the big screen, the Mighty Thor introduces a different physical representation that challenges traditional gender expectations of what femininity looks like.

As cultural products, superheroes not only reflect our culture but also inform our understanding of it, including the discourse around gender. So, representation of diversity – in terms of race, sex, gender, economics, sexual orientation, and shape – is important. We need more representation of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. We also need more representation women of all shapes – tall, short, small, or large. For this reason, the Mighty Thor is a valuable addition to the new wave of strong female superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Ashika Paramita 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. Biceps instead of boobs and butts: how Natalie Portman’s Mighty Thor brings us a new physical reality for female superheroes – https://theconversation.com/biceps-instead-of-boobs-and-butts-how-natalie-portmans-mighty-thor-brings-us-a-new-physical-reality-for-female-superheroes-186716

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Donne Potter, Professor, Research Centre for Hauora and Health, Massey University

The latest Omicron variant BA.5 is fast becoming dominant worldwide, including in New Zealand and Australia. As it continues to surge, reinfection will become increasingly common and this in turn means more people will develop long COVID.

The two most concerning aspects of long COVID are its high prevalence (up to 30% of those infected) and a link between reinfection and a higher risk of harmful outcomes.

American science writer Ed Yong, commenting on government responses to the pandemic, described them as a case of débrouillez-vous, which approximates to “you work it out – you’re on your own”.

In the face of official attitudes that are increasingly laissez-faire towards the continuing pandemic, many people no longer take even those precautions over which we have individual control: mask wearing, physical distancing and choosing carefully whether to attend crowded events. The consequences are an increase in both daily case numbers and the lurking burden of long COVID.

Omicron’s first variant, BA.1, emerged in late 2021, substantially different – clinically and genetically – from earlier variants. It displaced the Delta variant and, in early 2022, was itself replaced by BA.2.

The degree to which BA.2 had evolved away from BA.1 is far greater than the genetic distance between the original version of SARS-CoV-2 and the Delta variant. BA.5, a sub-variant of BA.2, is now quickly overtaking other variants.

Omicron variants, and BA.5 specifically, show several worrying features. They can evade immunity acquired through earlier infections and breakthrough infections in vaccinated people. BA.5 is better able to infect cells, acting more like Delta than the previous Omicron variants.

Read more:
Long COVID affects 1 in 5 people following infection. Vaccination, masks and better indoor air are our best protections

What we know about long COVID

SARS-CoV-2 is not unique in its ability to cause post-acute symptoms and organ damage. Unexplained chronic disability occurred in a minority of patients after Ebola, dengue, polio, the original SARS and West Nile virus infections.

What is different is the sheer size of this pandemic and the number of people affected by long COVID. One of the absolutely critical issues about long COVID is that we should not underestimate it. It is now clear from multiple large studies that:

• It is a set of syndromes

• it affects multiple organs and systems

• it resolves in some but remains persistent in others

• it can be markedly debilitating

• its risk is reduced by vaccination

• its pathology is poorly understood

• we are just beginning to find ways to predict risk and monitor its course

• and management is, at best, ad hoc.

Perhaps most crucially, reinfection may now become a feature of the pandemic for at least the next 12 to 36 months, raising the risk of long COVID with each repeat infection.

Read more:
Why are there so many new Omicron sub-variants, like BA.4 and BA.5? Will I be reinfected? Is the virus mutating faster?

Some large studies in Denmark, England, and the US show 20-30% of people who tested positive for COVID-19 experienced at least one post-acute symptom, up to 12 months after infection. Symptoms included loss of smell and taste, fatigue, shortness of breath, reduced limb strength, concentration difficulties, memory disturbance, sleep disturbance and mental or physical exhaustion.

In England, the prevalence of persistent symptoms was higher in women and older people. Obesity, smoking or vaping, hospitalisation and deprivation were also associated with a higher probability of persistent symptoms. Those who were hospitalised with COVID in the UK showed even more severe outcomes.

In the US, younger survivors were at higher risk than people over 65 for heart-rhythm disturbances and musculo-skeletal pain. This is consistent with other observations that long COVID is not a disorder only of older age.

However, older survivors had a statistically significantly higher risk of developing certain conditions, including kidney failure, clotting disorders, cerebrovascular disease (stroke), type 2 diabetes, muscle disorders and a variety of neurologic and psychiatric conditions.

A US study involving more than five million people shows the risk of long COVID increases with the number of reinfections. But vaccination consistently reduces the risk of long COVID as well as severe disease, hospitalisation, ICU and death.

Read more:
Hybrid immunity: a combination of vaccination and prior infection probably offers the best protection against COVID

The century-old lesson we’re yet to apply

There are lessons from the 1918-19 influenza pandemic that we need to bring back into our repertoire, not for a month or two but for the long term.

Japan adopted mask wearing as a key public-health element on a short list of available measures. As science writer Laura Spinney notes in her excellent 2017 coverage of the flu pandemic’s history, it “probably marked the beginning of the practice of mask wearing to protect others from one’s own germs”.

In Japan, mask use was compulsory for some, such as the police. In some towns, people were not permitted on public transport or allowed to enter a theatre without a mask. Japan had the lowest death rate of all Asian countries in the flu pandemic and is looking to be close to the lowest cumulative mortality in the OECD for the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the 1918-19 pandemic, the US, unlike Europe, put considerable effort into public-health interventions, which reduced total mortality. San Francisco, St Louis, Milwaukee and Kansas City had the most effective interventions, reducing transmission rates by 30-50%.

In historian Geoffrey Rice’s Black November and Black Flu (together the most comprehensive coverage of the 1918-19 pandemic in Aotearoa), there are some photographs of people wearing masks and a reference to “gauze masks” for shop keepers. However, there is little evidence to suggest mask wearing was widespread or encouraged in New Zealand.

The influential Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported daily death tolls during the 1918-19 flu pandemic until civil authorities asserted it was stirring up anxiety and forced it to stop. As Spinney notes, people could see the exodus of dead bodies from their neighbourhoods and the silence was provoking even more anxiety.

The pandemic and the silence conspired to confuse people about the efficacy of public-health measures and compliance dropped off even further. People drifted back to church and race meetings – and left masks at home. Public-health infrastructure collapsed.

Vaccines (not available a century ago) are almost all that stands between us and a similar collapse. We would remain stronger and healthier – and reduce the burden of long COVID – if we increased vaccination coverage and universally adopted Japanese-style regular mask use and physical distancing.

John Donne Potter 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. Reinfection will be part of the pandemic for months to come. Each repeat illness raises the risk of long COVID – https://theconversation.com/reinfection-will-be-part-of-the-pandemic-for-months-to-come-each-repeat-illness-raises-the-risk-of-long-covid-186733