Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirrilly Thompson, Adjunt Senior Research Fellow, University of South Australia

The Melbourne Cup is upon us. This year will be different due to COVID-19 — but one thing we don’t expect to change is concern about horses’ welfare, which seems to resurface each year.

Just days before the Cup, Victoria’s parliament has heard allegations that unwanted thoroughbreds continue to be slaughtered in knackeries and abattoirs in New South Wales, The Guardian reports.

Billionaire executive chair of Harvey Norman Gerry Harvey reportedly apologised after one of his ex-racehorses was sent to a pet food factory for slaughter, despite the state’s racing industry announcing rules against this in 2017. It’s not the first time we’ve heard of such gruesome cases.

Read more: Who’s responsible for the slaughtered ex-racehorses, and what can be done?

Beyond this, there are persisting concerns about how racehorses have been ridden for more than a century. In particular, the use of the whip to “encourage” horses to run faster and straighter has been shown to potentially be both painful and dangerous.

For our research, published yesterday in the journal Animals, we analysed more than 100 race reports to determine exactly how whip use influences the dynamics of a race.

We found whips make no difference to horse steering, jockey safety, or even a horse’s speed. Our study offers scientific findings that support Racing Victoria’s recently announced plan to gradually phase out whip use until whips are only being used when absolutely necessary.

Justifications from the racing industry

Advocates of whip use, such as Racing Australia and the British Horseracing Authority, claim it’s necessary for horse and rider safety. They argue it facilitates the steering necessary to reduce interference between horses on the course.

Another justification given is that whipping makes horses run faster. This is considered fundamental to racing integrity. In a billion-dollar industry that relies on gambling, all parties — including punters, trainers, breeders and owners — want to know the horse they’ve backed will be given every opportunity to win.

For many racing aficionados, breaches of “integrity” and the thought of a horse not being fully “ridden out” on its merits is just as corrupt as the horse being doped, or a race being fixed by some other means.

The growing importance of racehorse welfare

But animal welfare is also important to racing integrity, according to the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities and other racing bodies.

Racing stewards are in the unenviable position of enforcing horse welfare during races, while also having to ensure whips are used to give each horse full opportunity to win.

For all official races in Australia, there are detailed regulations for the number and style of whip strikes allowed at the different points of a course.

Research over past decades has concentrated on jockeys’ accuracy, compliance with whip rules, the link between whip use and catastrophic falls that can injure or kill horses or jockeys and simply whether or not whipping hurts.

But until now, few have stopped to ask whether whips actually work. That’s simply because there hasn’t been a way to scientifically test the culturally entrenched assumption they do.

Read more: Whips hurt horses – if my leg’s anything to go by

Racing without using the whip

However, since 1999, a form of whipping-free racing has been conducted in Great Britain via the “hands and heels” racing series for apprentice jockeys. In this form of racing, jockeys are permitted to carry whips but can’t use them unless under exceptional circumstances, such as trying to avert a collision.

After races, stewards produce an official report noting any unusual or unorthodox jockey behaviour (which may or may not have affected race placings), jockey infringements, horse movement on the course, interference between horses, and veterinary issues.

We analysed reports for 126 races involving a total of 1,178 starters (horses and jockeys). These included all 67 hands and heels “whipping-free” races in the period starting January 2017 and ending December 2019. For these, we were able to case-match 59 traditional “whipping-permitted” races.

Thus, we were able to compare the performance of racehorses under both “whipping-free” and “whipping-permitted” conditions in real racing environments, to figure out whether whipping makes horses easier to steer, safer to ride and/or more likely to win.

Our results indicated no significant differences between horse movement on the course, interference on the course, the frequency of incidents related to jockey behaviour, or average race finishing times.

Put simply, whip use had no impact on steering, safety or speed. Contrary to longstanding beliefs, whipping racehorses just doesn’t work.

The way forward

Our findings reinforce the need for more support for whipping-free races. Importantly, they indicate whip use could potentially be banned without any adverse effect on horses, riders or racing integrity.

“Whipping-free” races are not the same as “whip-free” races. While some might argue for races with no whips at all, an agreeable compromise would be to let jockeys carry whips, but only use them if their safety is jeopardised.

This approach has already been adopted in Norway, where whipping-free races have been held for more than 30 years with no apparent negative consequences.

Given evolving social values, we believe transitioning to a whipping-free approach is essential for the future of an industry that relies on a social licence to operate.

Read more: Dressing up for Melbourne Cup Day, from a racehorse point of view

– ref. Research shows whipping horses doesn’t make them run faster, straighter or safer — let’s cut it out – https://theconversation.com/research-shows-whipping-horses-doesnt-make-them-run-faster-straighter-or-safer-lets-cut-it-out-144405

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Lupton, SHARP Professor, Vitalities Lab, Centre for Social Research in Health and Social Policy Centre, UNSW

On Halloween this Saturday, it won’t be just trick-or-treating children who are wearing spooky costumes. Adults handing out sweet treats may also be sporting Halloween-themed face masks, which are now readily available online.

Come the festive season, you will also be able to wear a Christmas-themed face mask as you unwrap gifts with family and friends. You may even find some handmade cloth masks as part of your present haul.

Read more: Friday essay: vizards, face gloves and window hoods – a history of masks in western fashion

As social researchers completing a book on face masks during COVID, we are keeping a close eye on the social trends and popular culture related to these simple objects.

We have observed increasing evidence masks are becoming normalised and part of everyday life, noting they are currently compulsory in Victoria. They are now commonly seen in public places around Australia and a thriving industry has sprung up to cater for every possible face mask need.

Before coronavirus, masks were a rarity

Pre-COVID, face masks are commonly worn in parts of Asia for a variety of reasons — including protection from pollution and the sun, personal privacy, and warding off seasonal flu and the common cold.

But in countries such as Australia, masks were rarely seen. A year ago, few Australians would not have given much thought to the humble surgical face mask, or ever considered buying, much less wearing one. Face masks were only for healthcare professionals.

But with the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic, the face mask has taken on a new significance. Even though we were initially advised against wearing them to reduce the spread of coronavirus, state health authorities in NSW and Queensland now recommend face masks should be used in situations where physical distancing is not possible.

The Victorian government has also mandated the use of face coverings for its citizens since the second lockdown in August. Earlier this month, fitted face masks (not bandanas or scarves) were made compulsory every time people leave their homes.

As Victoria opened up earlier this week, Premier Daniel Andrews noted, “masks need to be with us across the whole state for some time to come”.

Read more: Which mask works best? We filmed people coughing and sneezing to find out

In Australia, we haven’t seen the intense political debates and activism around face masks that have emerged in the United States. Compared with the US, Australians tend not to see preventive health as a political issue. In fact, there is evidence of a growing acceptance face masks are becoming part of our everyday lives.

Steady increase in Australians wearing masks

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show the proportion of Australians wearing face masks has steadily increased over the past few months.

Back in April, only about 17% of Australians reported wearing a face mask as part of their precautions against COVID-19.

By September, this number had increased dramatically. In total, 66% of Australians reported wearing a face mask “in the past week”.

Not surprisingly, the figures were much higher for people in Victoria, with 97% of reporting they wore a face mask. Even in New South Wales, where there have been sporadic but well-controlled outbreaks of COVID-19, most people (78%) were masking up.

It is notable that in all other states and territories, 23% reported wearing a mask in the past week at the time of the survey. This shows significant normalisation of mask-wearing, even when it’s not recommended by health authorities.

Other surveys have also shown significant levels of support for mask wearing.

An ABC survey conducted in September found two-thirds of Australians agreed mask use should be mandatory in all public places. Meanwhile, an August Australian National University study revealed some interesting findings when it comes to different social groups.

It found 39% of surveyed Australians said they mostly or always wore masks indoors in public places, while 37% did so outdoors in public places. Younger Australians (aged 18 to 24 years) and older Australians (aged 75 years and over) were more likely to be mask wearers, as were those who spoke a language other than English at home, had a university education, and lived in a capital city.

A mask for every occasion

In the course of writing our book, we have noticed some fascinating developments in how face masks are portrayed in popular culture. In addition to being available in a range of prints and fabrics (including Australiana themes), there are face masks for every occasion and milestone.

Masks are promoted as a new form of bridal wear, with luxury face masks embellished with beads, diamantes and lace. Wedding guests may also find customised face masks as gifts to wear as part of the celebrations.

There is also a wide range of customised masks on offer for footy matches, birthdays, baptisms, bar and bat mitzvahs, first communions and even funerals (“in loving memory…”).

These new ways of presenting and decorating masks demonstrates they are becoming not only part of everyday life, but also central elements of special occasions during COVID times.

Wearing a mask is more than showing the wearer is taking a responsible, caring approach to protecting others’ health. Masks are now also part of a culture of decoration and fashion. So they are not just a preventive health device but a mode of self-expression.

Are face masks here to stay?

Of course COVID and its path through our society is unpredictable. But it is highly likely COVID outbreaks will continue to occur well into 2021 and possibly beyond, and mask wearing will continue to be promoted as one of the key measures to contain the spread in these situations.

Read more: Millions of face masks are being thrown away during COVID-19. Here’s how to choose the best one for the planet

In some countries pre-COVID, face masks had already become part of everyday life. Our research suggests the widening meanings, purposes and diversity of face masks could support a normalisation of masking in Australia, even once the critical phase of the pandemic has passed.

This will not necessarily mean that people will automatically wear them every day. But they are likely to have a selection of different styles waiting, ready to be used for higher-risk public activities or even special occasions.

– ref. From scary pumpkins to bridal bling, how masks are becoming a normal part of our lives in Australia – https://theconversation.com/from-scary-pumpkins-to-bridal-bling-how-masks-are-becoming-a-normal-part-of-our-lives-in-australia-148718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ray Moynihan, Assistant Professor, Bond University

It’s no secret the COVID-19 pandemic has changed many aspects of our lives. One is how often we access health care.

We’ve conducted what we believe is the first systematic review on this topic, bringing together studies documenting changes to health-care use during COVID-19 from around the world.

We found a 37% reduction across all parts of the health system, from February to May this year, compared to the same period in previous years.

Many people will suffer as a result of having missed out on lifesaving care, such as for heart disease or cancer. But others may benefit, by avoiding care they did not need in the first place.

Dramatic drops across all categories

Together with a global team of researchers and doctors, we identified 81 studies from 20 countries, including Australia. It’s important to note our work is currently undergoing peer review, although in keeping with much pandemic-related research, it’s available as a preprint.

Between February and May 2020, those studies reported on around 7 million health services, such as having a scan or an operation, compared to roughly 11 million in the same period the year before.

Overall, there was a 37% median reduction across all categories of health care. Visits to seek care, such as going to a GP or the emergency department fell by 42%; admissions to hospital dropped 28%; the use of diagnostic tests fell 31%; and the use of treatments, such as procedures to treat heart disease, dropped by 30%.

One of the biggest individual studies in our review found a 42% reduction in visits to all United States emergency departments during April. Weekly visits fell from 2.1 million in 2019 to just 1.2 million in 2020. For visits among children the drop was 72%.

A smaller study in Australia found a 37% fall in emergency department visits at two hospitals in Victoria during April.

There are many possible reasons for these trends. For example, people may have stayed away from hospitals for fear of contracting COVID-19. People have also been unable to access some types of health care, as services like elective surgery were suspended.

Rates have bounced back in many places, but some remain significantly lower than previous years. Total admissions to hospitals in New South Wales, for example, were still down in the most recently available figures (up to the end of June).

Read more: Victorian emergency departments during COVID-19: overall presentations down but assault, DIY injuries up

In a small number of studies we also found some things increased, including treatments for acute stroke. And future studies will likely find large increases in services such as telehealth.

Reductions are greater for less severe illness

Many of the studies in our review found reductions in use were greater for people with milder illness. That US study found the biggest fall in emergency department attendance was for people with abdominal pain.

Likewise, the Australian study found bigger falls among those with the least acute problems. For example, attendance was lower than expected for people with gastroenteritis and wrist fractures — but there was no change in category 1 triage patients (the most severe who require urgent attention).

Notably, several studies found larger reductions in admission for milder forms of heart attacks than for more severe forms. A large English study in late March found national admissions for the more severe form dropped 23%, while admissions for the milder form dropped 42%.

In terms of mental health, a study from Paris found a 55% reduction in emergency visits in the first four weeks of lockdown, but with greater reductions in visits for anxiety and stress, and smaller reductions for psychotic disorders.

At the height of the pandemic, doctors in Northern Italy found a 68% drop in presentations to children’s emergency departments. The reduction in attendance for the “white” triage category, the minor conditions which don’t require a doctor, was 89%.

Read more: Most people want to know risk of overdiagnosis, but aren’t told

An opportunity to reduce unneeded care

Clearly many people will have been harmed by missing out on needed care. As the authors of the English study on heart attack admissions made clear, public campaigns are important to assure people that visiting hospital is safe. Reluctance to call an ambulance when experiencing severe symptoms, they write, results in “unnecessary deaths and disability”.

But many experts around the world are also seeing this crisis as a potential opportunity to wind back unnecessary care, and to free up resources for those most in need.

The Italian doctors who found significantly fewer children presenting to hospital with mild complaints suggested this has freed resources to “provide critical services to patients suffering from medical emergencies in a timely manner”.

There’s already a lot of evidence about overuse of medical services and overdiagnosis, also known as low-value care. Examples include the inappropriate use of antibiotics and opioids, unnecessary diagnoses of prostate cancer, and the overuse of CT scans for children.

As health systems continue responding to the pandemic and deal with the urgent backlog of care, addressing this harmful waste becomes even more pressing.

Read more: The coronavirus ban on elective surgeries might show us many people can avoid going under the knife

Commentators in the British Medical Journal and the New England Journal of Medicine, and influential doctors’ groups, have echoed this view.

The tragedy of the pandemic has underscored the importance of reducing unnecessary and harmful care, and offers us a real opportunity to address this problem.

– ref. COVID-19 slashed health-care use by more than one-third across the globe. But the news isn’t all bad – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-slashed-health-care-use-by-more-than-one-third-across-the-globe-but-the-news-isnt-all-bad-148537

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Woolaston, Lawyer, Queensland University of Technology

Human damage to biodiversity is leading us into a pandemic era. The virus that causes COVID-19, for example, is linked to similar viruses in bats, which may have been passed to humans via pangolins or another species.

Environmental destruction such as land clearing, deforestation, climate change, intense agriculture and the wildlife trade is putting humans into closer contact with wildlife. Animals carry microbes that can be transferred to people during these encounters.

A major report released today says up to 850,000 undiscovered viruses which could be transferred to humans are thought to exist in mammal and avian hosts.

The report, by The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), says to avoid future pandemics, humans must urgently transform our relationship with the environment.

Humans costs are mounting

The report is the result of a week-long virtual workshop in July this year, attended by leading experts. It says a review of scientific evidence shows:

…pandemics are becoming more frequent, driven by a continued rise in the underlying emerging disease events that spark them. Without preventative strategies, pandemics will emerge more often, spread more rapidly, kill more people, and affect the global economy with more devastating impact than ever before.

The report says, on average, five new diseases are transferred from animals to humans every year – all with pandemic potential. In the past century, these have included:

• the Ebola virus (from fruit bats),
• AIDS (from chimpazees)
• Lyme disease (from ticks)
• the Hendra virus (which first erupted at a Brisbane racing stable in 1994).

The report says an estimated 1.7 million currently undiscovered viruses are thought to exist in mammal and avian hosts. Of these, 540,000-850,000 could infect humans.

But rather than prioritising the prevention of pandemic outbreaks, governments around the world primarily focus on responding – through early detection, containment and hope for rapid development of vaccines and medicines.

As the report states, COVID-19 demonstrates:

…this is a slow and uncertain path, and as the global population waits for vaccines to become available, the human costs are mounting, in lives lost, sickness endured, economic collapse, and lost livelihoods.

This approach can also damage biodiversity – for example, leading to large culls of identified carrier-species. Tens of thousands of wild animals were culled in China after the SARS outbreak and bats continue to be persecuted after the onset of COVID-19.

The report says women and Indigenous communities are particularly disadvantaged by pandemics. Women represent more then 70% of social and health-care workers globally, and past pandemics have disproportionately harmed indigenous people, often due to geographical isolation.

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

It says pandemics and other emerging zoonoses (diseases that have jumped from animals to humans) likely cause more than US$1 trillion in economic damages annually. As of July 2020, the cost of COVID-19 was estimated at US $8-16 trillion globally. The costs of preventing the next pandemic are likely to be 100 times less than that.

A way forward

The IPBES report identifies potential ways forward. These include:

• increased intergovernmental cooperation, such as a council on pandemic prevention, that could lead to a binding international agreement on targets for pandemic prevention measures

• global implementation of OneHealth policies – policies on human health, animal health and the environment which are integrated, rather than “siloed” and considered in isolation

• a reduction in land-use change, by expanding protected areas, restoring habitat and implementing financial disincentives such as taxes on meat consumption

• policies to reduce wildlife trade and the risks associated with it, such as increasing sanitation and safety in wild animal markets, increased biosecurity measures and enhanced enforcement around illegal trade.

Societal and individual behaviour change will also be needed. Exponential growth in consumption, often driven by developed countries, has led to the repeated emergence of diseases from less-developed countries where the commodities are produced.

So how do we bring about social change that can reduce consumption? Measures proposed in the report include:

• education policies

• labelling high pandemic-risk consumption patterns, such as captive wildlife for sale as pets as either “wild-caught” or “captive-bred” with information on the country where it was bred or captured

• providing incentives for sustainable behaviour

• increasing food security to reduce the need for wildlife consumption.

An Australian response

Australia was one of the founding member countries of IPBES in 2012 and so has made an informal, non-binding commitment to follow its science and policy evidence.

However, there are no guarantees it will accept the recommendations of the IPBES report, given the Australian government’s underwhelming recent record on environmental policy.

For example, in recent months the government has so far refused to sign the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature. The pledge, instigated by the UN, includes a commitment to taking a OneHealth approach – which considers health and environmental sustainability together – when devising policies and making decisions.

The government cut funding of environmental studies courses by 30%. It has sought to reduce so called “green tape” in national environmental legislation, and its economic response to the pandemic will be led by industry and mining – a focus that creates further pandemic potential.

Read more: New polling shows 79% of Aussies care about climate change. So why doesn’t the government listen?

Finally, Australia is one of few countries without a national centre for disease control and pandemics.

But there are good reasons for hope. It’s within Australia’s means to build an organisation focused on a OneHealth approach. Australia is one of the most biologically diverse countries on the planet and Australians are willing to protect it. Further, many investors believe proper environmental policy will aid Australia’s economic recovery.

Finally, we have countless passionate experts and traditional owners willing to do the hard work around policy design and implementation.

As this new report demonstrates, we know the origins of pandemics, and this gives us the power to prevent them.

– ref. UN report says up to 850,000 animal viruses could be caught by humans, unless we protect nature – https://theconversation.com/un-report-says-up-to-850-000-animal-viruses-could-be-caught-by-humans-unless-we-protect-nature-148911

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lawrence, Principal Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Australia has one of the highest-quality systems of medical research in the world. It has helped underpin the high standing of Australia’s health system — it’s ranked as one of the finest in the world.

Strong principles to protect safety and prevent harm underpin medical research. These have been developed due to a history of sometimes well intentioned, but ultimately harmful, medical interventions over the course of the 20th century.

Australia’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research is the primary guidance not only for medical research in Australia but for most research involving people, which includes education. But the harm and impact of educational programs — that are, on the surface, deemed important to educational improvements and well-being — face far less scrutiny in the applications process than do those of medical research.

No-one wants our children to be used as research guinea pigs. High standards of ethical oversight are needed to ensure no child is exposed to possible harm. While the medical research ethics model was developed to provide exactly this level of protection, perversely, in education, it may be exposing our children to harm.

Differences between medical and education research

There is a critical difference between medicine and education that impacts research. While drug and surgical therapies are administered to individuals, education is a shared activity. Students are taught in classes and schools.

Research ethics require individual signed consent from parents for their child to participate in any research project. This makes it difficult to study classroom teaching and class- and school-based programs. While few parents oppose educational research, families have busy lives, and notes home from school are easily overlooked or forgotten.

Studies show the requirement to sign a consent form results in research participation rates of between 30% and 60%. In this case, the educational intervention being studied can be altered to only be delivered to some of the students in the class. This can lead to biased findings. Or the study may not go ahead if only some parents sign the form. It is no wonder many programs used in schools lack an evidence base informed by rigorous educational research.

As one example, most of the more than 200 mental health programs recommended by the Beyond Blue Be You national education initiative have not actually been tested in Australian schools.

A Productive Commission report noted the largest gaps in Australia’s education evidence base relate to

the evaluation of policies, programs and education practices in Australian schools and early childhood education and care services to identify what works best, for whom and in what circumstances.

While educational research ethics are guided by the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, there is another critical difference between health and education. A new medical therapy can only be approved for the Medicare or Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme if it has been proven to be safe, effective, and more cost effective than existing therapies. There is no such requirement in education.

Read more: Not every school’s anti-bullying program works – some may actually make bullying worse

Schools and teachers are given wide latitude to adopt untested educational programs and strategies based on their professional judgements. Some programs such as Visible Learning, which helps teachers evaluate their own practices, have been developed to rigorous standards. But the implementation of such programs is less scrutinised, and questions are seldom raised about their potential harms.

Research into the high stakes NAPLAN test shows several negative effects. These include teachers limiting the scope of what they teach and concentrating only on what will be in the test, and encouraging students to write badly, to a formula that will get them higher marks. But despite this, not much has changed in terms of the way the testing is implemented.

Whose interests are being served?

The requirement by university ethics committees for individual signed consent for research studies sounds prudent. Yet is it ethical not to evaluate the impacts of programs that are actually being taught in schools? And how can it be ethical to teach a program in schools that has not been rigorously evaluated?

Ethics committees ought to routinely ask questions about whose interests are being served. Rather than a focus on harm minimisation, a focus on who benefits from the research might be more appropriate.

Children don’t generally die from poor quality teaching. However, high quality education is one of the main drivers of economic opportunity and increased choices throughout life.

Read more: Too many adjectives, not enough ideas: how NAPLAN forces us to teach bad writing

Some educational programs are evaluated and assessed for the outcomes they produce, as well as the methodologies they use. But a database of evidence of these studies, similar to the Cochrane Collaboration which summarises previous medical studies about one topic, could be used to inform educational policy and decision making. It could also offer conclusive evidence about these programs and interventions.

In the main, educational projects that intend to help schools respond to policy objectives, such as improving national or international test scores, are rarely evaluated for the potential harm that might arise. For example, the Australian government is investing $10.8 million to develop free phonics checks for Year 1 students to improve literacy levels. While there is mention of research that may help children, there is not, as yet, any adequate evidence-base for phonics testing.

Funding differences

Educational research in Australia is also underfunded compared with medical research. The Australian government provided $1.2 billion through the Medical Research Endowment Fund and the Medical Research Future Fund in 2019 — roughly 1% of the $103 billion Australian governments spend annually on health care. While the $11.2million of education funding provided by the Australian Research Council in 2019 is only 0.02% of the $58 billion Australian governments spend annually on school education.

Read more: Gaps in education data: there are many questions for which we don’t have accurate answers

Without research to guide what we invest in, we fail to learn from the experiences of the past and lack the information to guide improvements in our schools and education systems. Although researchers do question and contest educational policies, the impact of this research remains in our peripheral vision.

Australia needs to improve the education evidence base by systematically evaluating the effectiveness of policies, programs and practices. It must also evaluate and their implementation strategies within a cycle of learning, feedback and continuous improvement.

– ref. First, do no harm: education research should answer to the same standards as medicine – https://theconversation.com/first-do-no-harm-education-research-should-answer-to-the-same-standards-as-medicine-148904

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melanie Davern, Senior Research Fellow, Director Australian Urban Observatory, Deputy Director (Acting) Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

This article is part of our series on aged care. You can read the other articles in the series here.

In 2020, the coronavirus pandemic has exposed issues and inequities across society. How we plan for ageing populations and older people is one critical issue that has been neglected for decades. Fresher-faced youth and families have become the demographic focus of increasingly short-term electoral cycles, reinforcing a deep-seated prejudice against ageing and older people.

If Gandhi is right, and the true measure of a society can be found in how we treat the most vulnerable, then Australia has a lot to learn from the 683 deaths from COVID-19 in residential aged care this year. Australia needs a radical shift to policies that better support ageing in place — that is, in their own homes — rather than relying so heavily on underfunded and poorly resourced residential aged care.

Read more: Despite more than 30 major inquiries, governments still haven’t fixed aged care. Why are they getting away with it?

Residential aged care populations are growing, with 70% of facilities located in major cities and 30% in regional areas. These facilities and current policies are failing our older people as identified by the current Royal Commission into Aged Care. Reform is needed now.

However, residential aged care is only part of the problem of failing to plan adequately for ageing. Neoliberal policies have turned the ageing population into a growing consumer market while filial piety or family caring becomes rarer as economic and social pressures on working families (their adult children) become greater.

Read more: Asian countries do aged care differently. Here’s what we can learn from them

These trends have reinforced health inequities. More than 100,000 people are on the waiting list for in-home support package funding. Over the past two years, 28,000 people have died before receiving any funding.

Older women are particularly vulnerable. In 2007, 75% of women aged over 70 had no superannuation (with superannuation beginning in the 1980s). Two-thirds of residents in aged care were women.

Being age-friendly makes cities more liveable

We need to shift the conversation on ageing to healthy ageing and creating environments that better support ageing in place. Age-friendly places aren’t just good for older people. They also support the needs of children, people with a disability and everyone else in a community.

Read more: ‘Ageing in neighbourhood’: what seniors want instead of retirement villages and how to achieve it

The 50-year-old child-friendly cities movement has increasingly emphasised how the features of a city that make it safe, healthy and accommodating for its most vulnerable citizens can also make it much more liveable for everyone.

In recent research we looked at how the World Health Organisation’s Global Age-Friendly Cities Guide can be applied in local planning. The aim was to develop practical tools to help policymakers and planners assess the age-friendliness of local neighbourhoods. This included the use of spatial indicators to measure the eight domains of the Age-Friendly Cities framework.

Spatial indicators investigating the relationship between health and place are created using geographic information systems (GIS) to map the presence of features within a local area. We have suggested key indicators that can be created and mapped using desktop analysis to understand how age-friendly local spaces are.

One of the most striking features is that many of these suggested measures are important for everyone living locally and not just older people. Examples include good walkability, public open spaces, public transport, affordable housing, local services, cafes, doctors and internet connectivity. Others are age-specific such as in-home aged care.

Most importantly, all of these factors are essential ingredients of healthy and liveable communities. Together, they support better health and well-being outcomes for all. We have mapped many of the suggested measures of age-friendly communities in the Australian Urban Observatory.

Read more: How do we create liveable cities? First, we must work out the key ingredients

The use of additional technology such as sensor and robot technology should also be considered in future community and housing design, but this depends on household internet access. That can be a problem, particularly in regional and remote areas where populations are ageing rapidly and fewer aged-care places are available.

Some of these indicators might not necessarily be feasible for all regional and rural communities. Many regional communities have reduced access to services. However, these indicators still provide an important starting point for discussions with diverse rural older people about what is important and what constitutes reasonable access within their community.

Read more: The average regional city resident lacks good access to two-thirds of community services, and liveability suffers

If we have learnt anything from this difficult year, then post-COVID recovery must include a broader approach to ageing that extends beyond residential aged care to a focus on healthy ageing. That means better support for people to age in place.

Age-friendly communities enable older people to continue to make significant economic and social contributions to families and communities. However, this can’t occur unless local places plan for all ages and abilities from the beginning.

– ref. Aged care isn’t working, but we can create neighbourhoods to support healthy ageing in place – https://theconversation.com/aged-care-isnt-working-but-we-can-create-neighbourhoods-to-support-healthy-ageing-in-place-148635

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

One of the most concerning things that happens in any recession is the spike in unemployment. The COVID-19-induced recession in Australia and around the world is no exception – other than perhaps the magnitudes involved.

Being out of work is distressing, even in advanced economies with a social safety net (like Australia). Welfare payments rarely, if ever, replace the full loss of income from employment.

In many countries, such as the US, unemployment benefits expire after a certain period of time. This puts the unemployed at risk of being destitute. In Australia (and other countries) receiving unemployment benefits requires proving you are actively looking for work. These obligations can be quite onerous, even if well-intentioned.

Worse still, being unemployed can tilt the scales against an employer offering you a job.

As MIT and Harvard economists Robert Gibbons and Lawrence Katz noted in a landmark 1991 paper, if employers have some discretion over whom to lay off – as is often the case – the labour market will rationally infer that laid-off workers are less desirable employees.

High unemployment also leads to what economists call “labour-market scarring”. This means all those starting work in a bad labour market can suffer long-term economic effects. Either because they don’t get on the job ladder as early as they would have, or because they start off in a job that doesn’t build their skills as well as would have been the case in a strong economy.

Rarely has Australia’s unemployment rate fallen below 5%

These effects can be significant and are of particular concern during this pandemic, as University of Michigan economist Betsey Stevenson has pointed out in an excellent paper on how to mitigate those effects.

Finally, a job also has non-financial benefits. As US presidential candidate Joe Biden has rightly reminded us, a job is about more than a paycheque:

It’s about dignity. It’s about respect. It’s about being able to look your kid in the eye and say everything will be okay.

All of this points to why policy makers need to make low unemployment one of their core missions.

This involves central banks using monetary policy to reduce unemployment and smooth out the business cycle, and governments using fiscal policy to boost demand when it is flagging.

Searching for jobs

That said, there are two important imperfections in labour markets that make some amount of unemployment inevitable. The first is that employers and employees need to be matched together. This involves workers searching for the right job – a process that takes time.

As Peter Diamond, awarded the 2010 Nobel prize in economics for his pioneering work on “search theory”, has observed:

We have all visited several stores to check prices and/or to find the right item or the right size. Similarly, it can take time and effort for a worker to find a suitable job with suitable pay, and for employers to receive and evaluate applications for job openings.

Indeed, searching for better matches between employers and employees is an important contributor to labour market efficiency. As Diamond noted, in the US on average 2.6% of employed workers have a different employer a month later. Some people spending some time unemployed is part of a healthy labour market.

A second important friction was pointed out by another Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz (joint winner of the economics prize in 2001 for his work on asymmetric information).

Efficiency wages

That is, employers might not want to pay their workers the bare minimum they can get away with. Paying above market – what is called an “efficiency wage” – can induce workers to work harder and more efficiently, because the prospect of losing their job is even more painful.

Another way to think about this was offered by George Akerlof (co-winner of the 2001 Nobel economics prize with Stiglitz and A. Michael Spence).

Akerlof brought insights from sociology into economics by viewing the contract between employers and employees as, at least in part, about “gift exchange”. As he put it:

According to this view, some firms willingly pay workers in excess of the market-clearing wage; in return they expect workers to supply more effort than they would if equivalent jobs could be readily obtained (as is the case if wages are just at market clearing).

What is ‘full employment’?

These frictions in the labour market mean full employment, practically speaking, is not zero. It’s almost surely not 1% or 2%, either. The level depends, in part, on how brutal we are willing to make being unemployed. It also depends on the level of the minimum wage.

I, for one, am glad Australia does not cut off unemployment benefits after 16 weeks (as in the US state of Arkansas) and consign the jobless to abject poverty. I’m also glad Australia’s national minimum hourly wage is A$19.84 (about US$14) – double the US federal minimum of US$7.25.

Does that make unemployment higher here than in countries that take a harsher approach? It does. But it also makes us a more compassionate and empathetic society that takes human dignity seriously.

So when federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said a few weeks ago that once Australia’s unemployment rate is “comfortably below 6%” the task of “budget repair” should begin, I gasped.

Read more: No snapback: the budget sets us up for an unreasonably slow recovery. Here’s how

If “comfortably below” means something like 4%, then fine.

Because of the labour market frictions mentioned above, and our approach to unemployment benefits, it’s going to be hard to get unemployment much below that in Australia.

But the idea we should tolerate unemployment of, say, 5.5% in normal times is, frankly, intolerable. Monetary and fiscal authorities should use all the firepower at their disposal to avoid that outcome.

– ref. Vital Signs: we’ll never cut unemployment to 0%, but less than 4% should be our goal – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-well-never-cut-unemployment-to-0-but-less-than-4-should-be-our-goal-149070

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alice Pung, Author (non-fiction, fiction, young adult), University of Melbourne

Having survived starvation and been spared execution, my father arrived in this new country, vassal-eyed and sunken-cheeked. I was born less than a month later and he named me Alice because he thought Australia was a Wonderland. Maybe he had vague literary aspirations for me, like most parents have vague infinite dreams for their babies, so small, so bewildered, so egoless. I arrived safe after so many babies had died under the regime created by a man who named himself deliberately after ruthless ambition — Political Potential, or Pol Pot for short.

“There was a tree,” my father told me when I was a teenager, “and this tree was where Pol Pot’s army, the Khmer Rouge, killed babies and toddlers. They would grab the infant by their ankles and swing them against the trunk and smash them again and again until they were dead.”

When I was an adult, I found out that there was not just the one tree. There were many such trees from which no cradle hung.

But as a child, growing up in Australia, the oldest of four, I knew the words to comfort crying babies. They’d been taught to me by my schoolteachers, with rhyme but without reason: when the bough breaks the cradle will fall and down will come baby, cradle and all. A gentle song to rock my sisters to sleep. If my mother understood the words I was singing, she’d yell at me.

My mother was always hollering at me about one thing or another. After the age of eight, I was never left in peace. She repeatedly told me that babies had really soft skulls, that there was even a hole in their heads that hadn’t yet closed. When I looked at my baby sister, I could see something pulsing on the top of her scalp, beneath the skin. Never drop a baby, they warned me, or your life will be over. They spoke in warnings and commands, like Old Testament sages. They’d seen babies dropped dead. Their language was literal, not literary, but it did the trick.

We could not complain that we were dying of boredom because they’d seen death close-up, and it was definitely not caused by a lack of Lego. We could not say that we were starving because at one malarial point in his life, my father thought that if he breathed inwards he could feel his backbone through his stomach. We could never be hungry or bored in our concrete house in Braybrook, behind a carpet factory that spewed out noxious methane smells that sent us to school reeking like whoopee-cushions.

But in this scatological suburb, I was indeed often bored shitless. Imagine this — you go outside and hoons in cobbled-together Holdens wind down their windows and tell you to Go Back Home, Chinks. So you walk home and inside, it’s supposed to be like home. But it’s not a home you know.

It’s a home your parents know, where the older siblings look after the younger ones and your mum works in an airless dark shed at the back making jewellery, and you think it’s called outworking because although she’s at home she’s always out working. Just like her mum in Phnom Penh and her mum’s mum in Phnom Penh and every other poor mum in the history of your family lineage.

“What are you doing here? Stop bothering me,” your mum would tell you. Or when she was desperate, she’d be cajoling: “Take your siblings out. Go for a walk. If you give me just one more hour, I’ll be done.” Her face would be blackened, her fingers cut. She’d have her helmet on, with the visor. She looked like a coal miner.

Back in Cambodia, the eldest siblings looked after the bevy of little ones, all the children roaming around the Central Market, en masse. Here, in these Melbourne suburbs they’d call it a marauding Asian gang, I bet. I preferred to stay at home. I had plenty to keep me occupied there. Our school library let me borrow books, but I can’t even remember the names of the librarians now. They didn’t like some of the kids because sometimes we stole books.

My best friend Lydia read a book about Helen Keller that so moved her, so expanded her 10-year-old sense of the world that she nicked it and stroked the one-line sample of Braille print on the last page until all the raised dots were flat. I nicked books too, books on needlecraft and making soft toys. Sometimes one of my aunts would come by and give us a garbage bag filled with fleecy fabric offcuts from her job sewing tracksuits in her own back shed.

Being a practical kid who bugged her parents at every opportunity possible for new toys, I wanted to have reference manuals on how to make them. I didn’t nick story books or novels because to me, those were like films I often only wanted to experience once.

One day, my baby sister rolled herself off the bed when I was supposed to be watching her. She was three months old. I had just turned nine. My mother ran into the house and railed at me like a dybbuk, “You’re dead! You’re dead!” She scooped my sister out of my hands. “What were you doing? You were meant to watch her!”

“She was asleep,” I sobbed, “I was reading a book.”

While my mother was working to support us in the dark back shed, I had been in the sunlit bedroom, staring for hours and hours on end at little rectangles, only stopping occasionally to make myself some Nescafé coffee with sweetened condensed milk. If this wasn’t the high life, then what was? Those books were not making me any smarter, she might have thought. Or even said, because it was something she was always telling me, because she couldn’t read or write herself. The government had closed down her Chinese school when she was in grade one, as the very first step of ethnic cleansing in Cambodia.

My mother called up my father and roared over the phone for him to come home immediately because I’d let my sister roll off the bed and she might be brain-damaged. “If she’s brain-damaged, you’re going to be dead,” my father said to me, before they both left for the hospital with my sister.

I hated my parents at that moment, but I hated myself more. I also hated the Baby-Sitters Club, all of those 12-year-old girls for whom looking after small children was just an endless series of sleepovers and car-washes and ice-cream parties and they even always got praised and paid for it. The only people I did not hate were my siblings. They were blameless.

This fucking reading, I thought, because this is how I thought back then, punctuated by profanity, because this is how I wrote back then in diaries I made at school of folded paper stapled together with colourful cardboard covers that I’d then take home and fill in with pages and pages of familial injustice. Sometimes the pen dug in so aggressively underlining a word of rage that I’d make a cut through the paper five pages deep. And this is how the kids talked at school, and also some of their parents who picked them up from school. But then I also realised, reading’s the only fucking good thing I have going for me.

It showed me parents who were not only reasonable, but indulgent. They were meant to be friends with their kids. They were meant to foster their creativity and enterprise. They hosted parties and baked cupcakes and laughed when their children messed up the house, and sat them down and explained things to them carefully with great verbal displays of affection. But only if the kids were like Kristy or Stacey or Dawn in the Baby-Sitters Club.

Read more: Friday essay: need a sitter? Revisiting girlhood, feminism and diversity in The Baby-Sitters Club

If they were anything like me, then they didn’t talk very much. We were refugees in school textbooks, there for edification, to induce guilt and gratitude. The presence of third-world people like us in a book immediately stripped that book of any reading-for-pleasure aspirations. We were hard work. We were Objects not Subjects. Or if subjects, subjects of charity and not agents of charity. Always takers, never givers. No wonder people resented us.

Hell, even I resented us! “Girls are more responsible,” my mother always told me. When my aunties dumped their children, my little cousins, with me, they’d always say, “Alice is so good. We trust her.” What’s one or two or three more when you already have so many in the house? they reasoned.

I imagined if some prying interloper had called the cops on my parents when I was young, seeing our makeshift crèche with no adult supervision around. “If you tell the government what I do,” my mother always warned me when I was a child, “they’ll take me away and lock me up and your brother and sisters will be distributed to your aunts and uncles or be put in foster homes.”

What she did — her 14-hour days in the back shed, working with potassium cyanide and other noxious chemicals to produce the jewellery for stores that would then pay her only a couple of dollars per ring or pendant — she thought was a crime. She got paid cash in hand, so she never paid any taxes. She just didn’t understand that she wasn’t the criminal; she was the one being exploited.

My mother began work at 13 in a plastic-bag factory, after her school was closed down. When all the men were at war, the factories were filled with women and children. One afternoon, she told me, she accidentally sliced open a chunk of her leg with the plastic-bag-cutting machine. She had to stay home for the next two weeks. She spent those two weeks worrying whether she’d be replaced by another little girl. In her whole working life, spanning over half a century, my mother has never signed an employment contract because she can’t write or read.

“People can rip me off so easily,” she would often lament, “that’s why I have to have my wits about me at all times.” She’d always count out the exact change when she went grocery shopping even though it mortified me as a kid, and drove those behind her in line nuts. “If they overcharge me and you’re not here, how can I explain anything to them?” she’d ask, “I don’t speak English.”

She’d memorise landmarks when driving, because she couldn’t read street signs. During elections, she would put a “1” next to the candidate who looked the most attractive in their photo. And she’d ask me to read the label on her prescription medicines.

“Tell me carefully,” she’d instruct, “too much or too little and you could kill me.” The power over life and death, I thought, not really a responsibility I wanted at eight. But power over life and death is supposed to be what great works of art are about. Sometimes, there’s not a huge chasm between being literate and being literary. They are not opposite ends of a continuum.

Sure, I enjoyed the classics, especially that line in Great Expectations when Pip determines that he will return a gentleman and deliver “gallons of condescension”. But the depictions of working children, children treated as economic units of labour, as instruments for ulterior adult ends – this was nothing new to me.

Looking after children is hard work. No one cares when things go right, it is the natural course of the universe. But everyone swarms in when things go wrong. A whole swat team, sometimes consisting of your own extended family members, ready to whack at you like a revolting bug if harm should befall your minor charges. The sad reality is that when you slap a monetary value onto these services, people sit up.

They pay attention. They first splutter about how outrageous it is. Then slowly they accept it. You hope that one day no children will be left at home, minding other children while their parents work, because all working parents will be able to access good, affordable childcare.

Often when people rail, think of the children! they are not really thinking of the children. Otherwise, they would listen to the children, not condemn the parents for situations beyond their control — illiteracy, minimum wages, poverty.

Jeanette Winterson wrote about art’s ability to coax us away from the mechanical and towards the miraculous. It involves just seeing the extraordinary in the ordinary. To understand that an eight-year-old can and will take responsibility and care of themselves when left to their own devices requires imaginative empathy, not judgement.

Reading showed me what the world could be. My life told me what the world was. It was not Jane Eyre or Lizzie Bennet or even Nancy Drew that opened my life to the possibility of a better existence. It was Ann M. Martin and her Baby-Sitters Club. That children should get paid was a crazy idea, that they should get paid for babysitting even more audacious.

That a handful of pre-teen girls could start a small business from Claudia’s home — beautiful artistic Asian Claudia Kishi with her own fixed phone line — and that they could muster all the neighbourhood children under their care and largesse was revolutionary to me.

In my life, the miraculous does not involve magic. There is nothing that makes the state of childhood particularly magical. There is a lot that is frightening, brutal and cruel about every stage of life. After all, I know that a single tree can harbour a cradle or a grave. But to be able to do what my hardworking, wonderful mother never could — time-travel, mind-read, even never to mistake dish detergent for shampoo because the pictures of fruit on the bottle are similar — this is a gift I will never take for granted.

This is an extract from The Gifts of Reading: Essays on the Joys of Reading, Giving and Receiving Books curated by Jennie Orchard, with all royalties to be donated to Room to Read (RRP $32.99, Hachette Australia), available now.

– ref. Friday essay: Alice Pung — how reading changed my life – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-alice-pung-how-reading-changed-my-life-147442

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

Anticipating reactions to political attacks can be a tricky business.

When Scott Morrison spectacularly trashed the reputation of Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate over her now-notorious gift of Cartier watches to high-performing employees, he assumed “quiet Australians” would be outraged at the largesse in a government-owned business.

Whether they are will be tested in the focus groups. But the prime minister almost certainly didn’t anticipate Australia Post’s small-business stakeholders, as well as some top-end-of-town voices and conservative commentators, would come out so strongly for Holgate.

Many Post franchisees are furious over the attack – because the deal with three big banks for which the employees were rewarded propped up their businesses.

At the other end of the wealth spectrum Marcus Blackmore, major shareholder in the well-known health empire where Holgate was preciously chief executive, told The Australian the way she’d been treated was “bloody disgusting”. He added, as testament to her business ability, “Blackmores’ business has been dismal since Christine left”.

Morrison has also received a hiding from commentators such as News Corp’s Terry McCrann who labelled him an “outrageous misogynist”.

Assuming Morrison did not have some prior agenda against Holgate before the revelations about the watches at Senate estimates, he has put the government in a bind by acting on the spur of the moment.

He’s called an inquiry that will cost a deal more than the nearly $20,000 value of the Cartier gifts. On Thursday Holgate’s lawyer was weighing into the argument, which raises the spectre of a costly legal fight.

Regardless of the inquiry’s findings, Holgate’s position is near impossible. Presumably she will end up out of Australia Post, sparking a search for a new CEO just when the business is facing upheavals caused by COVID. In the unlikely event she remained, she’d be damaged and relations with the government beyond awkward.

On a very different front, the parliamentary motion moved by Labor this week to congratulate Victorians for overcoming the COVID second wave is also a notable case study in the vagaries of reaction.

By far the strongest speech in the brief debate was from Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. A Victorian, he highlighted the costs of the lockdown and attacked the Andrews government, saying “it all comes back to the failures in hotel quarantine, for which we still do not have any answers”.

The speech won both high praise and deep condemnation. Critics variously saw it as an assault against Victorians, the wrong tone on a day of celebration, and a distasteful exercise in politicking.

The backlash revealed not just the sharp divisions over the Andrews government’s COVID handling, but also the intensity of feelings.

Only a misreading could portray Frydenberg’s speech as an attack on the people of the state. His first line was: “The Victorian people have been magnificent”; what he said subsequently did not undermine that sentiment.

Whether negatives should have been put aside on such a positive day is a matter of opinion, but there wasn’t anything confected about Frydenberg’s sentiments. He has been genuinely angry for months about the state government’s mistakes, highly cognisant of the economic damage but also concerned about the mental health implications (remember, his mother is a psychologist).

Where his speech was at fault was not in calling attention to the origin of the second wave, but in narrowing the blame for how it panned out.

The Andrews government – its quarantine bungle and its inadequate contact tracing – must absolutely wear blame. But the Morrison government must assume its share too. Most of the hundreds of deaths were in aged care, which comes under the federal government (intersecting with the state government, which is responsible for public health). The residential aged-care sector was simply not up to the task of protecting those living in it, as the royal commission has pointed out.

With Melbourne now entering (according to some retailers) an early Christmas mood as it comes out of lockdown, Andrews can expect to maintain for the immediate future the solid support he’s enjoyed, mistakes not withstanding.

But there are two major challenges ahead for him.

One is to ensure there is not another wave, which means the Victorian health system needs to be (finally) up to scratch. On Thursday NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, talking about when she might open her border to Victorians, said it would take a couple of weeks to test the robustness of that system.

The other challenge is how Andrews responds when the inquiry into hotel quarantine reports, which surely must make very tough findings. The premier has pushed aside many questions, saying he wouldn’t pre-empt the investigation.

On Thursday the inquiry was extended. There will be an interim report on November 6 with recommendations for a proposed quarantine program.

But the findings on the botched hotel quarantine program will be delayed until the final report, now due December 21. That’s uncomfortably close to the holidays which, however, must not be used by the state government as political cover.

Facing an election on Saturday, Queensland Labor Premier Annastacia Pałaszczuk has been claiming her opponents would have left her state vulnerable to a second wave like Victoria’s by opening the border.

The Queensland poll will be the first COVID electoral test for a state government (we’ve had territory elections).

Before COVID, the Pałaszczuk government appeared in considerable trouble. During the pandemic, its chances improved substantially, with the border closure very popular. Recently, Labor has become more nervous.

The Liberal National Party would have to win some nine seats in net terms for majority government. Labor would be pushed into minority government if it lost a net two seats.

Pałaszczuk, who’s been under attack from the federal government for months over her border, is using her record on COVID as a very large crutch.

Berejiklian this week said (unhelpfully for the LNP) that Queensland Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington “has been very open … that she would have opened to NSW, and I commend her for that position”.

But it is notable this isn’t Frecklington’s current public line. She is assuring voters she’d rely on the health advice in determining border policy.

Such is thought to be the political potency of COVID.

If Labor suffers a serious knock in Queensland, the result will be interpreted as the likely beginning of the end for COVID’s role as a protective vaccine for incumbents. If COVID is seen to have shielded Pałaszczuk, that will further embolden the states, which have become extremely assertive during the pandemic.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: As Melbourne’s Christmas arrives early, Queensland’s election will test whether COVID is a vaccine for incumbents – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-as-melbournes-christmas-arrives-early-queenslands-election-will-test-whether-covid-is-a-vaccine-for-incumbents-149086

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

Anticipating reactions to political attacks can be a tricky business.

When Scott Morrison spectacularly trashed the reputation of Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate over her now-notorious gift of Cartier watches to high-performing employees, he assumed “quiet Australians” would be outraged at the largesse in a government-owned business.

Whether they are will be tested in the focus groups. But the prime minister almost certainly didn’t anticipate Australia Post’s small-business stakeholders, as well as some top-end-of-town voices and conservative commentators, would come out so strongly for Holgate.

Many Post franchisees are furious over the attack – because the deal with three big banks for which the employees were rewarded propped up their businesses.

At the other end of the wealth spectrum Marcus Blackmore, major shareholder in the well-known health empire where Holgate was preciously chief executive, told The Australian the way she’d been treated was “bloody disgusting”. He added, as testament to her business ability, “Blackmores’ business has been dismal since Christine left”.

Morrison has also received a hiding from commentators such as News Corp’s Terry McCrann who labelled him an “outrageous misogynist”.

Assuming Morrison did not have some prior agenda against Holgate before the revelations about the watches at Senate estimates, he has put the government in a bind by acting on the spur of the moment.

He’s called an inquiry that will cost a deal more than the nearly $20,000 value of the Cartier gifts. On Thursday Holgate’s lawyer was weighing into the argument, which raises the spectre of a costly legal fight.

Regardless of the inquiry’s findings, Holgate’s position is near impossible. Presumably she will end up out of Australia Post, sparking a search for a new CEO just when the business is facing upheavals caused by COVID. In the unlikely event she remained, she’d be damaged and relations with the government beyond awkward.

On a very different front, the parliamentary motion moved by Labor this week to congratulate Victorians for overcoming the COVID second wave is also a notable case study in the vagaries of reaction.

By far the strongest speech in the brief debate was from Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. A Victorian, he highlighted the costs of the lockdown and attacked the Andrews government, saying “it all comes back to the failures in hotel quarantine, for which we still do not have any answers”.

The speech won both high praise and deep condemnation. Critics variously saw it as an assault against Victorians, the wrong tone on a day of celebration, and a distasteful exercise in politicking.

The backlash revealed not just the sharp divisions over the Andrews government’s COVID handling, but also the intensity of feelings.

Only a misreading could portray Frydenberg’s speech as an attack on the people of the state. His first line was: “The Victorian people have been magnificent”; what he said subsequently did not undermine that sentiment.

Whether negatives should have been put aside on such a positive day is a matter of opinion, but there wasn’t anything confected about Frydenberg’s sentiments. He has been genuinely angry for months about the state government’s mistakes, highly cognisant of the economic damage but also concerned about the mental health implications (remember, his mother is a psychologist).

Where his speech was at fault was not in calling attention to the origin of the second wave, but in narrowing the blame for how it panned out.

The Andrews government – its quarantine bungle and its inadequate contact tracing – must absolutely wear blame. But the Morrison government must assume its share too. Most of the hundreds of deaths were in aged care, which comes under the federal government (intersecting with the state government, which is responsible for public health). The residential aged-care sector was simply not up to the task of protecting those living in it, as the royal commission has pointed out.

With Melbourne now entering (according to some retailers) an early Christmas mood as it comes out of lockdown, Andrews can expect to maintain for the immediate future the solid support he’s enjoyed, mistakes not withstanding.

But there are two major challenges ahead for him.

One is to ensure there is not another wave, which means the Victorian health system needs to be (finally) up to scratch. On Thursday NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, talking about when she might open her border to Victorians, said it would take a couple of weeks to test the robustness of that system.

The other challenge is how Andrews responds when the inquiry into hotel quarantine reports, which surely must make very tough findings. The premier has pushed aside many questions, saying he wouldn’t pre-empt the investigation.

On Thursday the inquiry was extended. There will be an interim report on November 6 with recommendations for a proposed quarantine program.

But the findings on the botched hotel quarantine program will be delayed until the final report, now due December 21. That’s uncomfortably close to the holidays which, however, must not be used by the state government as political cover.

Facing an election on Saturday, Queensland Labor Premier Annastacia Pałaszczuk has been claiming her opponents would have left her state vulnerable to a second wave like Victoria’s by opening the border.

The Queensland poll will be the first COVID electoral test for a state government (we’ve had territory elections).

Before COVID, the Pałaszczuk government appeared in considerable trouble. During the pandemic, its chances improved substantially, with the border closure very popular. Recently, Labor has become more nervous.

The Liberal National Party would have to win some nine seats in net terms for majority government. Labor would be pushed into minority government if it lost a net two seats.

Pałaszczuk, who’s been under attack from the federal government for months over her border, is using her record on COVID as a very large crutch.

Berejiklian this week said (unhelpfully for the LNP) that Queensland Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington “has been very open … that she would have opened to NSW, and I commend her for that position”.

But it is notable this isn’t Frecklington’s current public line. She is assuring voters she’d rely on the health advice in determining border policy.

Such is thought to be the political potency of COVID.

If Labor suffers a serious knock in Queensland, the result will be interpreted as the likely beginning of the end for COVID’s role as a protective vaccine for incumbents. If COVID is seen to have shielded Pałaszczuk, that will further embolden the states, which have become extremely assertive during the pandemic.

– ref. As Melbourne’s Christmas arrives early, Queensland’s election will test whether COVID is a vaccine for incumbents – https://theconversation.com/as-melbournes-christmas-arrives-early-queenslands-election-will-test-whether-covid-is-a-vaccine-for-incumbents-149086

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Frauenfelder, PhD Candidate in Palaeontology, University of New England

North-central New South Wales today is known for its arid, drought-prone climate. During the Cretaceous period, however, it was a lush coastal floodplain with a high diversity of vertebrates including dinosaurs, crocodiles, turtles and soaring pterosaurs.

New insights gleaned from opalised teeth, found near the town of Lightning Ridge, are now helping paint a picture of the most enormous dinosaurs to ever roam the planet: sauropods.

Our work, published today in the journal Lethaia, reveals up to three different sauropod species once lived in the region, feeding at different heights within the forest canopy.

Scintillating and sizeable specimens

Opalised fossils are natural casts made entirely out of opal. While they generally don’t preserve the original organism, they do preserve its shape.

In Lightning Ridge, opalised fossils are a rich source of palaeontological information. For decades, miners have excavated these fossils — including the sauropod teeth we studied — from deep underground its opal fields.

The sauropods were a group of dinosaur species with markedly long necks, long tails and a herbivorous diet. Potentially weighing up to 90,000 kg, they were the largest animals to have ever walked the Earth.

Sauropods were an extremely important component of the known vertebrate fauna in northern Australia. Until recently, we knew of four named species from Queensland: Savannasaurus elliotorum, Diamtinasaurus matildae, Austrasaurus mckillopi and Wintonotitan wattsi.

However, whether this diversity was unique to Queensland, or extended into more southern regions, remained unknown.

Read more: Meet Savannasaurus, Australia’s newest titanosaur

The wisdom in studying teeth

For our study, we examined 25 sauropod tooth fossils aged between 95-100 million years old. From these, we identified five “morphotypes”, or tooth-shape categories. Several features of a tooth can define its morphotype, including its symmetry, the presence or absence of grooves and wear patterns.

Humans have multiple morphotypes within their mouths, such as molars for grinding, incisors for nipping and canines for grasping. But unlike humans, we know all the teeth of sauropod species would have served similar functions and would have thus had little variation.

This is good news for us, because it means we can be pretty confident sauropod tooth fossils with different shapes came from different species.

We interpreted three of the five morphotypes in our fossil collection as coming from the upper jaw and the other two from the lower jaw. By comparing our fossils with those from more completely studied sauropods, we were able to link them with at least three distinct species that would have cohabited the area around what is now Lightning Ridge.

While we couldn’t assign the 25 tooth fossils to specific species (as we’d need more than just teeth to identify a dinosaur species), we do know all the teeth belonged to a large group of sauropods known as Titanosauriformes.

This group included the late Jurassic Brachiosaurus, which famously reared-up on its hind legs in the 1993 movie Jurassic Park.

Also, one of the morphotypes likely came from a later subgroup of Titanosauriformes, called Titanosauria. This group contained species such as the truly gigantic dinosaurs Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan.

A tooth tells the truth

Tooth fossils aren’t only useful to gauge past diversity, but also to infer diets of long-extinct animals. The dietary link is evident since teeth are the primary tool for obtaining and processing food.

When studying teeth, one way we can interpret diets is through looking for “microwear”. This refers to an assortment of small features found on teeth from tooth-to-food or tooth-to-tooth contact.

These features can be preserved in tooth fossils as scratches or pits visible on worn surfaces. Specifically, the ratio of scratches to pits can indicate the grittiness, or smoothness, of a dinosaur’s diet.

More pits means more grit (dust minerals) in the diet. This shows feeding took place closer to the ground. Conversely, more scratches indicates a diet of smoother food, such as foliage, found higher in the forest canopy.

While microwear patterns of North American sauropods have been extensively researched, this is the first time they’ve been observed in sauropods from Australia.

Zooming in on pits and scratches

From our collection, two tooth fossils had preserved microwear features. The others were either not worn or had their microwear features obliterated during the opalisation process.

Interestingly, the fossils that did preserve microwear also had different morphotypes. This suggests at least two of the three sauropod species that once roamed NSW were able to coexist by consuming different food within the forest canopy.

One species had a higher proportion of scratches than pits, so it likely fed on soft vegetation between 1-10m above the ground. The other had a higher proportion of pits, which suggests it ate harder vegetation less than 1m above the ground.

Our research may have been limited to teeth, but it demonstrates even incomplete fossils can provide key insights into the lives of long-extinct creatures.

Importantly, it discloses the fascinating sauropod diversity that once inhabited New South Wales, previously identified only in Queensland.

Much like animals today, we believe their coexistence would have depended on them eating different foods in the same area. This would have led to a colourful, cosmopolitan dinosaur landscape in a past, much different, Australia.

Read more: Has dinosaur DNA been found? An expert explains what we really know

Acknowledgements: we’d like to thank the Australian Opal Centre and the Australian Museum for supplying the fossils for our research.

– ref. Colourful opal fossils point to a diverse group of giant dinosaurs that shared Australia’s terrain – https://theconversation.com/colourful-opal-fossils-point-to-a-diverse-group-of-giant-dinosaurs-that-shared-australias-terrain-148541

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Carroll, Rutherford Discovery Fellow, University of Auckland

After close to a decade of globe-spanning effort, the genome of the southern right whale has been released this week, giving us deeper insights into the histories and recovery of whale populations across the southern hemisphere.

Up to 150,000 southern right whales were killed between 1790 and 1980. This whaling drove the global population from perhaps 100,000 to as few as 500 whales in 1920. A century on, we estimate there are 12,000 southern right whales globally. It’s a remarkable conservation success story, but one facing new challenges.

The genome represents a record of the different impacts a species has faced. With statistical models we can use genomic information to reconstruct historical population trajectories and patterns of how species interacted and diverged.

We can then link that information with historical habitat and climate patterns. This look back into the past provides insights into how species might respond to future changes. Work on penguins and polar bears has already shown this.

But we also have a new and surprising short-term perspective on the population of whales breeding in the subantarctic Auckland Islands group — Maungahuka, 450km south of New Zealand.

Spying on whales via satellite

Known as tohorā in New Zealand, southern right whales once wintered in the bays and inlets of the North and South Islands of Aotearoa, where they gave birth and socialised. Today, the main nursery ground for this population is Port Ross, in the subantarctic Auckland Islands.

Adult whales socialise at both the Auckland and Campbell Islands during the austral winter. Together these subantarctic islands are internationally recognised as an important marine mammal area.

In August 2020, I led a University of Auckland and Cawthron Institute expedition to the Auckland Islands. We collected small skin samples for genetic and chemical analysis and placed satellite tags on six tohorā. These tags allowed us to follow their migrations to offshore feeding grounds.

It matters where tohorā feed and how their populations recover from whaling because the species is recognised as a sentinel for climate change throughout the Southern Hemisphere. They are what we describe as “capital” breeders — they fast during the breeding season in wintering grounds like the Auckland Islands, living off fat reserves gained in offshore feeding grounds.

Females need a lot in the “bank” because their calves need a lot of energy. At 4-5m at birth, these calves can grow up to a metre a month. This investment costs the mother 25% of her size over the first few months of her calf’s life. It’s no surprise that calf growth depends on the mother being in good condition.

Read more: I measure whales with drones to find out if they’re fat enough to breed

Females can only breed again once they’ve regained their fat capital. Studies in the South Atlantic show wintering grounds in Brazil and Argentina produce more calves when prey is more abundant, or environmental conditions suggest it should be.

The first step in understanding the relationship between recovery and prey in New Zealand is to identify where and on what tohorā feed. The potential feeding areas for our New Zealand population could cover roughly a third of the Southern Ocean. That’s why we turn to technologies like satellite tags to help us understand where the whales are going and how they get there.

Where tohorā go

So far, all tracked whales have migrated west; away from the historical whaling grounds to the east near the Chatham Islands. As they left the Auckland Islands, two whales visited other oceanic islands — skirting around Macquarie Island and visiting Campbell Island.

It also seems one whale (Bill or Wiremu, identified as male using genetic analysis of his skin sample) may have reached his feeding grounds, likely at the subtropical convergence. The clue is in the pattern of his tracks: rather than the continuous straight line of a whale migrating, it shows the doughnuts of a whale that has found a prey patch.

The subtropical convergence is an area of the ocean where temperature and salinity can change rapidly, and this can aggregate whale prey. Two whales we tracked offshore from the Auckland Islands in 2009 visited the subtropical convergence, but hundreds of kilometres to the east of Bill’s current location.

As Bill and his compatriots migrate, we’ve begun analysing data that will tell us about the recovery of tohorā in the past decade. The most recent population size estimate we have is from 2009, when there were about 2,000 whales.

Read more: Humans threaten the Antarctic Peninsula’s fragile ecosystem. A marine protected area is long overdue

I am using genomic markers to learn about the kin relationships and, in doing so, the population’s size and growth rate. Think of it like this. Everybody has two parents and if you have a small population, say a small town, you are more likely to find those parents than if you have a big population, say a city.

This nifty statistical trick is known as the “close kin” approach to estimating population size. It relies on detailed understanding of the kin relationships of the whales — something we have only really been able to do recently using new genomic sequencing technology.

Global effort to understand climate change impacts

Globally, southern right whales in South Africa and Argentina have bred less often over the past decade, leading to a lower population growth rate in Argentina.

Concern over this slowdown in recovery has prompted researchers from around the world to work together to understand the relationship between climate change, foraging ecology and recovery of southern right whales as part of the International Whaling Commission Southern Ocean Research Partnership.

The genome helps by giving us that long view of how the whales responded to climate fluctuations in the past, while satellite tracking gives us the short view of how they are responding on a day-to-day basis. Both will help us understand the future of these amazing creatures.

– ref. Genome and satellite technology reveal recovery rates and impacts of climate change on southern right whales – https://theconversation.com/genome-and-satellite-technology-reveal-recovery-rates-and-impacts-of-climate-change-on-southern-right-whales-147168

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Davis, Professor of Finance, University of Melbourne

The current governance/management crisis at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC has seen a deputy chairman resign and the chairman step aside under a cloud.

It might have arisen simply because of lax internal accounting, compliance, and reporting procedures regarding payments (larger than those approved) benefiting the chairman and deputy chairman (a bad look for a regulator).

Or it might reflect something more substantive about whether the way ASIC is set up is consistence with good governance.

The financial system inquiry set up by the Coalition after taking office examined the governance structure of ASIC in 2014. I was one of members of the inquiry.

ASIC’s governance (and also that of Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and other statutory authorities) is built around a “commission” structure.

A small group of full-time executives (appointed by the government as “commissioners” and one designated as the “chairman” or chief executive) are responsible for both the governance and management of the organisation.

Read more: ASIC chair James Shipton steps aside after adverse finding by Auditor-General

This contrasts with the conventional corporate structure found in the private sector where a board (in theory appointed by the shareholder owners, but often a self-perpetuating “mates club”) is separate from the day-to-day management of the business which is undertaken by the chief executive and other full-time employees.

The board is responsible for monitoring company performance, determining strategy (including approving funding plans), and hiring and firing the chief executive.

We considered carefully the best way to run ASIC

In considering the governance structure we noted that a board structure involving part-time external directors was put in place when the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority was established in 1998 but discarded after a few years.

This reflected the recommendation of the royal commission into the collapse of HIH insurance, which concluded that the board structure had blurred accountability between management and the board.

Our inquiry (the Murray financial system inquiry) also decided that a board structure was not appropriate.

What was needed was oversight

Why not? Well, it is very hard to imagine the federal treasurer giving up the powers to appoint (and sack) the chief executive, determine the funding level, and set mandates and performance objectives. In practice the board would have little to do.

In fact all that would really be left would be monitoring the performance of the regulator.

While the regulators are required to report to the minister and are monitored in other ways (including by the audit office) we came to the view that a separate overarching Financial Regulator Assessment Board (FRAB) would be the best way to oversee the performance of all of the regulators.

Although the treasurer could do this, we came to the view that in practice things would slip under that treasurer’s radar.

It was one of the only two (out of 44!) recommendations rejected by the government.

But it has resurfaced as a recommendation of the Hayne royal commission into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industries.

Recommendation 6-14 is for the establishment of a new oversight authority, differing in some details from our recommendation, but otherwise similar.

In its response to the Hayne report the government accepted this recommendation, despite having earlier rejected ours.

Consultation on draft legislation to set up such a body took place in early 2020, but the bill has not yet been brought to parliament.

Whether having such an oversight authority will help resolve ASIC’s internal management and governance failings is an open question.

The current structure isn’t helping

In the 2015 ASIC Capability Review (led by Karen Chester – subsequently appointed as an ASIC Commissioner), a significant recommendation was to “realign its internal governance structure to achieve a clear separation of the non-executive (governance) and executive line management roles”.

The primary focus of the commissioners would become “setting the strategy of the organisation and supervising overall delivery and performance against the strategy, along with making, and taking ultimate responsibility, for key regulatory decisions”.

Read more: It’s about to become easier to lend irresponsibly, to help the recovery

Commissioners would no longer be in charge of individual divisions, a change ASIC later adopted in 2018.

Has it worked? If reports on internal ASIC conflicts in the media are to be believed, not really.

The proposed assessment authority wouldn’t help with uncovering compliance failings such as those prompting the current crisis – they remain the responsibility of the auditor.

Our idea could help put it right

But it would help with the broader goal of ensuring ASIC is working well.

Its remit would include how ASIC’s governance and management arrangements enable it to achieve the mandate and performance expectations set for it by the government.

Whether the government will go beyond a knee-jerk reaction to the current scandal and actually adopt such a more considered approach is anyone’s guess!

– ref. We put forward a way to govern ASIC better. The government said no – https://theconversation.com/we-put-forward-a-way-to-govern-asic-better-the-government-said-no-149002

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lenoir-Jourdan, PhD candidate and author, Deakin University

Yoko Ono once noted: “people respect wizards. But a witch, my god, we have to burn them”.

Witches were maligned for centuries because of their perceived dark power and influence — but could this fear have stemmed from their commercial success?

Witches have been savvy business women since the 13th century, when they flourished in the seaside towns of Scotland, England and Finland.

Today, witchy toys, crystals, and potion kits are big business and the craft has even cast its spell on some global brands.

Read more: Toil and trouble: the myth of the witch is no myth at all

Helping sailors, healing villagers

Some 800 years ago, superstitious sailors would seek out sea witches to purchase wind knots — magical ropes bearing three knots. Untying one was believed to bring a breeze, two a stronger wind and three to cause a gale.

When women were killed during the witch hunts of the Early Modern period around 1450 to 1750, sailors sought other methods to control the wind. But villagers who couldn’t afford doctors were more dependent on them.

Many witches were excellent healers despite being banned from practising medicine in the 13th century. They offered a variety of treatments that are still found in drugs today. These include willow bark for inflammation (aspirin was developed from a chemical found in the willow tree), garlic for cholesterol (though research on its efficacy is inconclusive) and flying ointment of henbane, nightshade and mandrake. While we don’t use it for flying now, the plant henbane contains hyoscine used for motion sickness and nightshade contains atropine, a muscle relaxant.

In 17th century France, witches could earn a grand living selling love potions and poisons. Catherine Deshayes, also known as La Voisin, amassed a fortune selling women potions to poison a spouse or competitor — including selling to Louis XIV’s mistress. She also provided abortions. Deshayes was burned at the stake in 1680.

Witch hunters often treated independent women with suspicion. Between 1620 and 1725 in New England, 89% of women put on trial for witchcraft were wealthy, with no male children nor male siblings to share in their inheritance.

Pagan rituals to social media

Deshayes was a satanist. The wind sellers were pagan because they did not adhere to Christian beliefs. Yet they led the way to the development of the Wicca form of modern witchcraft in the mid-20th century.

In 1954, Gerald Gardner, considered the founder of modern Wicca, published the book Witchcraft Today and founded his first coven.

By 2014, the Pew Research Center estimated almost 1 million Americans identified as Wiccan or pagan.

Spiritual pathways come with accoutrements, whether they be rosary beads, incense, or crystals. So, like the wind knots sold to 13th century sailors, witchcraft has enduring revenue potential.

On dark moonlit nights, Renate Daniel, a small business owner and witch from Newcastle, can be found working either in a cemetery in Wollombi, New South Wales, laying flowers on gravestones while showing tourists on a ghost tour, or assisting in a paranormal investigation.

Witches can combine different spiritual practices alongside their witchcraft. Sydney witch, Janine Donnellan combines healing magic with Reiki and chakra balancing. Books like the one written by musician Fiona Horne and businesses like Witchin’ Wares cater to the estimated 22,000 Australians who identify as Wiccan and pagan.

Witchcraft for most practitioners isn’t all about commerce. Donnellan says she has “a few people in the freezer” — meaning she has worked spells meant to keep negative energy away by putting someone’s name in a bag, filling it up with water and freezing it.

Read more: A murky cauldron – modern witchcraft and the spell on Trump

The American psychic services industry — including palm readers, mediums and astrologists — is worth US$2.2 billion (A$3.2 billion), mostly from small businesses.

Savvy witches are thriving on the internet. #witchtok on TikTok has had over 5.3 billion views, and #witchesofinstagram has more than 5.5 million posts. You can buy over 400,000 products tagged “witch” on Etsy, from candles to spell bottles to pentagram necklaces.

Corporate witchcraft

It isn’t just cottage psychics and online influencers getting in on the act. Large corporations are exploring the mystical — with mixed success.

The Ouija Board, a tool witches and spiritualists said helped them commune with spirits, was patented in 1891 by the Kennard Novelty Company. Within a year, the company grew from one factory in Baltimore to two in Baltimore, two in New York, two in Chicago and one in London. By 1967, the patent was in the hands of toy company Parker Brothers and annual sales reached 2 million — more than Monopoly.

In 2018, cosmetics giant Sephora launched their US$42 “Starter Witch Kit”, containing sage, tarot cards and rose quartz. After witches around the globe decried it as cultural appropriation, Sephora pulled the product from the market.

Read more: Cyclones, screens, lost souls: how the ghosts we believe in reflect our changing fears

This controversy hasn’t dissuaded other corporations. Last year Airbnb offered fall equinox rituals as holiday experiences. Urban Outfitters sell smudge sticks, tarot cards and crystals in their US stores and witch hat incense holders in Australian outlets. Booktopia sells tarot cards.

Witches can also claim globally recognised marketing iconography in the form of the black hat. Though COVID has put a dampener on Halloween, Americans are still expected to spend US$8 billion on the holiday with pagan roots.

The commercialisation of witchcraft has allowed modern witches to prosper financially without the fear of being burned at the stake, drowned or tortured. Now, having come out of the broom closet, there is no going back.

– ref. How witchcraft became a multi-billion dollar industry – https://theconversation.com/how-witchcraft-became-a-multi-billion-dollar-industry-148101

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jill Newby, Associate Professor and MRFF Career Development Fellow, UNSW

Many Melburnians are joyous at the prospect of a return to socialising, as the city regains some old freedoms this week following significantly eased coronavirus restrictions.

Social media is teeming with images of people looking ecstatic about the end of lockdown.

But in stark contrast to these images, some people might feel nervous about socialising or going out again — especially those who were anxious before the pandemic. If you feel like your social skills are a bit rusty, you might feel more comfortable at home. And the fear of another lockdown might also make you want to avoid going out altogether.

And on top of these, there’s a raft of new and often complicated rules to understand, which can be overwhelming and draining. Then there’s the stress and pressure of making plans and having busy schedules again.

However, it’s important to remember there are ways to cope.

Read more: Today marks the official end of the second wave in Victoria, as old freedoms return

Fear of going out

It’s helpful to remember you’re in an unusual situation with no perfect map of how to cope, or a “right” or “wrong” way to get through it. For most people, the anxiety will naturally ease over time. It’s normal to feel anxious, nervous, apprehensive, and even overwhelmed, and equally normal to find yourself feeling excited or joyous. It’s also OK to take your time and slowly ease back into how things were before the lockdown started.

It’s OK to say no to some events or situations if you don’t feel comfortable with them at first.

However, if you’re shy or nervous in social situations, avoiding social situations completely can make it worse. The more we avoid, the scarier socialising becomes, and the less chance we have to discover we often cope better than we expect.

To build your confidence, it can be helpful to take it step by step, using the principles of exposure therapy. Begin by socialising with people you feel more comfortable with, and then gradually building up to larger crowds, such as in shops, pubs or other large venues.

It’s also useful to be conscious of negative thoughts that make you feel more anxious, and learn techniques to challenge and change these thoughts into more realistic or helpful ones that help you feel more confident. Cognitive behavioural therapy teaches you practical techniques to manage anxious thoughts, and is available online.

Coronaphobia

Melbourne has conquered its second wave of COVID-19 and is now seeing very low new daily case numbers, with a 14-day rolling average of just 2.4.

Although the risk of contracting COVID-19 is now much lower, it’s normal to still feel some anxiety about contracting it, or worry about unwittingly spreading the virus to your loved ones. The invisible nature of the virus, and the fact it can be spread by people without symptoms, is what’s had public health authorities and epidemiologists so concerned. And with a lot of exposure to public health messaging to stay safe and protect yourself and the community, it’s easy to have internalised these messages so much that the outside world feels dangerous.

Our research at the Black Dog Institute with 5,070 Australian adults showed that while many feared contracting COVID-19, it was also common to worry about loved ones getting it.

It’s normal to feel a bit worried about COVID-19, as you return to restaurants, pubs, cafes and workplaces. But there are some signs to look out for that your worries might be getting out of hand, and that it’s time to seek some help.

If you find it hard to stop worrying, the worries are persistent or intense, you constantly check yourself for symptoms, you actively avoid certain situations, you’ve become overly obsessive about decontaminating surfaces or your clothes, or if anxiety interferes with your life, you might find it helpful to chat to a psychologist. The best place to start is to talk to your GP to get a referral to a psychologist, or you can complete a brief online assessment to get evidence-based treatment recommendations, such as the Black Dog Institute’s Online Clinic.

There are also ways you can manage these anxieties, including by reducing the time you spend reading media reports about the virus, avoiding googling about the virus, and learning ways to help you feel safe, but also work towards returning to normal at a pace you feel comfortable with.

Read more: 7 ways to manage your #coronaphobia

Feeling overwhelmed

Managing fear of another lockdown, anxiety about socialising, and fear of COVID-19 are all happening on top of rules like remembering to bring your mask with you and wear it. And no doubt many business owners and staff will be stressed about maintaining hygiene and ensuring their venues are COVID-safe.

There are undoubtedly good reasons for these rules. But processing, internalising, and remembering the various rules can be draining, and put more cognitive load on people who may already feel tired, uncertain, stressed and overwhelmed.

It can help to learn techniques to break down what feels overwhelming into smaller, more manageable steps, and to write things down (like the rules!) so you’re not overloading your already taxed memory. It might also help to learn ways to combat stress, such as improving your sleep habits, doing physical activity, learning relaxation techniques, and sharing how you’re feeling with others so you feel supported and not alone.

Go a bit easier on yourself if you’ve been expecting too much of yourself, or are too self-critical. It also helps to take breaks away from work, and from stressful situations, including smaller mini-breaks during the day, but also longer breaks like a holiday.

Read more: No wonder isolation’s so tiring. All those extra, tiny decisions are taxing our brains

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

– ref. Fear of going out? Here’s how Melburnians can manage anxiety when returning to ‘normal’ – https://theconversation.com/fear-of-going-out-heres-how-melburnians-can-manage-anxiety-when-returning-to-normal-148981

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angela Fitzgerald, Associate Professor of Science Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of Southern Queensland

Mesmerised by the cats of YouTube? Tumbled down the rabbit holes that are Insta Stories? Horrified by the US presidential debate, but kept watching regardless?

You are not alone.

Visual narratives have a powerful hold over us and, like the metaphoric train wreck, we are finding it increasingly difficult to look away. We often tend to bring a level of healthy scepticism and questioning to the stories we read or hear. But if we “see” the story, we are far less critical and more likely to be drawn to jump on board and go along for the ride.

As the train continues to run away, we need to pay significantly more attention. We need to question the value and quality of the visuals that constantly filter through our feeds and devices.

Reclaiming documentary from the dark side

The genre of documentary has a particularly important role to play. Thanks especially to the prolific work of David Attenborough and the like, we are now hardwired to connect with real-life stories as a form of indisputable truth.

In contradiction, we need to acknowledge the darker side of documentary and its ability to misinform. To have any hope of preventing conspiracies derailing the train, we need to sharpen the focus on quality documentary processes.

Read more: UK election 2019: after fake Keir Starmer clip, how much of a problem are doctored videos?

We first used documentary filmmaking as a process to inform an educational research project in 2018. We supported five graduate teachers to record their lived experiences by creating video journals as they embarked on their first year in the profession. The journals were curated as a documentary film, Mapping the Messiness, and provide compelling insights into their individual journeys.

Predictably, the visual product that evolved draws the viewer in and strongly connects them with the experiences of the graduates. It is difficult to avoid being deeply moved by their stories. Yet beneath this compelling surface lies a rigorous application of quality criteria that guided our interactions with the graduates.

Our learnings from this experience highlighted that the key factors informing a quality visual story are two-fold. It is about, firstly, supporting the storytellers to voluntarily share their own stories and, secondly, ensuring their input is clearly valued and conveyed in the final product.

Read more: In era of fake news, honest documentary makers have never mattered more

The ethics of visual storytelling

We have entered an era where it is vital to apply ethical standards in the capture and curation of visual stories. By applying quality criteria, we introduce a framework that invites peer review, which strengthens the ethical basis of the approach. The opinions and feedback of others provide a way to ensure the credibility and authenticity of the documentary.

Awareness of the need for such an approach is increasing. Changes to ethical codes and practices to counter fake news in our visual streams are being seen in countries like, for example, New Zealand. Collectively, these are steps to avert the consequences of the runaway train.

A recent legal case in New Zealand dismissed an attempt to block the use of a documentary film, developed by an independent current affairs organisation, as evidence. This legal precedent confirms visual storytelling is a legitimate means of delivering evidence and should be considered as a credible source.

Read more: Where are the in-depth documentaries calling to account the institutions that are failing us?

We will continue to be faced with train wrecks in our visual world and will continue to find it hard to draw our eyes away. That is OK. It is part of human nature. But, if we are to have any hope of minimising the wreckage, we need to be reassured that visual stories can be credible and honest. To achieve this, we need to continually question and challenge the quality of the visual content we consume.

All aboard.

– ref. Living with the train wreck: how research can harness the power of visual storytelling – https://theconversation.com/living-with-the-train-wreck-how-research-can-harness-the-power-of-visual-storytelling-147459

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Gerry, Professor and Queen’s Counsel, Deakin University

In January, the International Court of Justice ruled unanimously that Myanmar must take all measures to prevent acts of genocide against the Rohingya minority by its military and police forces.

Since then, Amnesty International has questioned whether Myanmar has been fully transparent in its reporting on its compliance with the order. And Human Rights Watch has argued the steps Myanmar has taken so far have not gone far enough to prevent genocide.

Last month, Canada and the Netherlands gave the concerns of the international community a major boost when they announced they would intervene in the ICJ proceedings

to prevent the crime of genocide and hold those responsible to account.

Australia has maintained military, diplomatic and trade relationships with Myanmar since the ICJ case was brought against it. If Myanmar is not fully complying with the order, this puts Canberra in a tricky position.

Should Australia follow the lead of the Canadians and Dutch and use its legal weight in the ICJ to ensure Myanmar complies with its obligations under international law?

What the UN Genocide Convention says

The case against Myanmar was brought to the ICJ in November by the tiny African nation of The Gambia, alleging Myanmar had carried out mass murder and rape and destroyed the communities of the Rohingya in Rakhine state.

The UN Genocide Convention of 1948 requires states to take measures to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.

Read more: Explainer: why the UN has found Myanmar’s military committed genocide against the Rohingya

Prevention must include averting any preparation, complicity in, or commission of genocide. And punishment is reserved for those who commit genocide, as well as those who conspire to commit or incite genocide, or are complicit in the act.

This is not merely an idealistic aim but requires practical steps to be taken by states. According to German scholar Björn Schiffbauer, this means

measures of prevention need to start as early as possible, which may include taking mere measures of precaution whether or not there is any known specific genocidal danger.

Myanmar, which is a party to the Genocide Convention, was effectively put on notice by a UN fact-finding mission in 2018, which collected extensive evidence of acts committed by the armed forces (known as the Tatmadaw) against the Rohingya, including

the killing thousands of Rohingya civilians, as well as forced disappearances, mass rape and the burning of hundreds of villages.

Has Myanmar abided by the ICJ order?

In May, Myanmar submitted its first report to the ICJ on its compliance with the order to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya, ensure the military and police do not commit genocide, and preserve any evidence of previous genocidal acts.

This report has not been publicly released, but news outlets have suggested it was based on directives issued by Myanmar President Win Myint’s office in April.

Read more: Why Aung San Suu Kyi is in The Hague defending Myanmar against allegations of genocide

According to Human Rights Watch, the directives are not enough to protect the Rohingya, particularly as they only appear to focus on the armed forces. A careful read also shows none of the directives appear to refer to preventing complicity.

In international law, both complicity and conspiracy can involve the commands and conduct of a range of actors, including political and military leaders, as well as third-party groups under their control or influence.

Amnesty believes Myanmar is in breach of the ICJ order. This ought to cause the Australian government severe concern, particularly as Australia has maintained trade and military ties with Myanmar.

Read more: Explainer: why the UN has found Myanmar’s military committed genocide against the Rohingya

Australia has placed sanctions and travel bans on five generals named in the UN fact-finding report, but not the commander in chief, General Min Aung Hlaing.

Australia also has an arms embargo in place for Myanmar. However, it has not placed sanctions on some Tatmadaw-controlled or foreign-owned companies that do business in or with Myanmar.

This was recommended by the UN fact-finding mission on its sanctions list.

What Australia should be doing

When Canada and the Netherlands indicated their intention to intervene in the case against Myanmar, they said they specifically wanted to provide assistance to the ICJ

with the complex legal issues that are expected to arise and … pay special attention to crimes related to sexual and gender-based violence, including rape.

Australia could assist in a similar way, particularly with regard to interpreting how the duty to prevent genocide works under international law. This could include whether states or foreign individuals would be considered complicit by maintaining trade or military ties with Myanmar.

These legal questions should also compel Australia to give serious consideration to checking its relationship with Myanmar.

In January, Min Aung Hlaing received the Australian ambassador, Andrea Faulkner, for a diplomatic visit, during which they exchanged gifts and discussed various topics. This included the provisional measures decided by the ICJ, according to a press release.

But the statement also stressed the “improved relations between Myanmar and Australia”, including cooperation between their armed forces.

Read more: Myanmar might finally be held accountable for genocide, but the court case must recognise sexual violence

Australia would be unlikely to breach its obligations under the Genocide Convention by simply maintaining diplomatic relationships with Myanmar. And in principle, continuing high-level diplomatic relationships with Myanmar may be instrumental in compelling it to comply with the ICJ order.

However, it could be argued providing support in the form of military aid and the benefits of trade could compromise Australia’s duty to use all reasonable means to prevent genocide in Myanmar — if this encourages or assists those who should be held accountable for past crimes.

This is supported by the ICJ’s 2007 decision in Bosnia’s genocide case brought against Serbia.

Australia’s current position is a concern. It could be improved greatly by joining the ICJ proceedings to clarify where the duty to prevent genocide ends and complicity begins, and how to ensure that Myanmar complies with the court orders.

– ref. Australia must do more to ensure Myanmar is preventing genocide against the Rohingya – https://theconversation.com/australia-must-do-more-to-ensure-myanmar-is-preventing-genocide-against-the-rohingya-147451

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlin Curtis, Research fellow, The University of Queensland

Every day we are likely to interact with some form of artificial intelligence (AI). It works behind the scenes in everything from social media and traffic navigation apps to product recommendations and virtual assistants.

AI systems can perform tasks or make predictions, recommendations or decisions that would usually require human intelligence. Their objectives are set by humans but the systems act without explicit human instructions.

As AI plays a greater role in our lives both at work and at home, questions arise. How willing are we to trust AI systems? And what are our expectations for how AI should be deployed and managed?

To find out, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of more than 2,500 Australians in June and July 2020. Our report, produced with KPMG and led by Nicole Gillespie, shows Australians on the whole don’t know a lot about how AI is used, have little trust in AI systems, and believe it should be carefully regulated.

Most accept or tolerate AI, few approve or embrace it

Trust is central to the widespread acceptance and adoption of AI. However, our research suggests the Australian public is ambivalent about trusting AI systems.

Nearly half of our respondents (45%) are unwilling to share their information or data with an AI system. Two in five (40%) are unwilling to rely on recommendations or other output of an AI system.

Further, many Australians are not convinced about the trustworthiness of AI systems, but more are likely to perceive AI as competent than to be designed with integrity and humanity.

Despite this, Australians generally accept (42%) or tolerate AI (28%), but few approve (16%) or embrace (7%) it.

Research and defence are more trusted with AI than business

When it comes to developing and using AI systems, our respondents had the most confidence in Australian universities, research institutions and defence organisations to do so in the public interest. (More than 81% were at least moderately confident.)

Australians have least confidence in commercial organisations to develop and use AI (37% no or low confidence). This may be due to the fact that most (76%) believe commercial organisations use AI for financial gain rather than societal benefit.

These findings suggest an opportunity for businesses to partner with more trusted entities, such as universities and research institutions, to ensure that AI is developed and deployed in an ethical and trustworthy way that protects human rights. They also suggest businesses need to think further about how they can use AI in ways that create positive outcomes for stakeholders and society more broadly.

Read more: Your questions answered on artificial intelligence

Regulation is required

Overwhelmingly (96%), Australians expect AI to be regulated and most expect external, independent oversight. Most Australians (over 68%) have moderate to high confidence in the federal government and regulatory agencies to regulate and govern AI in the best interests of the public.

However, the current regulation and laws fall short of community expectations.

Our findings show the strongest driver of trust in AI is the belief that the current regulations and laws are sufficient to make the use of AI safe. However, most Australians either disagree (45%) or are ambivalent (20%) that this is the case.

These findings highlight the need to strengthen the regulatory and legal framework governing AI in Australia, and to communicate this to the public, to help them feel comfortable with the use of AI.

Australians expect AI to be ethically deployed

What do Australians expect when AI systems are deployed? Most of our respondents (more than 83%) have clear expectations of the principles and practices they expect organisations to uphold in the design, development and use of AI systems in order to be trusted.

These include:

• high standards of robust performance and accuracy

• data privacy, security and governance

• human agency and oversight

• transparency and explainability

• fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination

• accountability and contestability

• risk and impact mitigation.

Read more: Will we ever agree to just one set of rules on the ethical development of artificial intelligence?

Most Australians (more than 70%) would also be more willing to use AI systems if there were assurance mechanisms in place to bolster standards and oversight. These include independent AI ethics reviews, AI ethics certifications, national standards for AI explainability and transparency, and AI codes of conduct.

Organisations can build trust and make consumers more willing to use AI systems, when they are appropriate, by clearly supporting and implementing ethical practices, oversight and accountability.

The AI knowledge gap

Most Australians (61%) report having a low understanding of AI, including low awareness of how and when it is used. For example, even though 78% of Australians report using social media, almost two in three (59%) were unaware that social media apps use AI. Only 51% report even hearing or reading about AI in the past year. This low awareness and understanding is a problem given how much AI is being used in our daily lives.

The good news is most Australians (86%) want to know more about AI. When we consider these factors together, there is a need and an appetite for a public literacy program in AI.

One model for this comes from Finland, where a government-backed course in AI literacy aims to teach more than 5 million EU citizens. More than 530,000 students have enrolled in the course so far.

Overall, our findings suggest public trust in AI systems can be improved by strengthening the regulatory framework for governing AI, living up to Australians’ expectations of trustworthy AI, and strengthening Australia’s AI literacy.

Read more: Your questions answered on artificial intelligence

– ref. Australians have low trust in artificial intelligence and want it to be better regulated – https://theconversation.com/australians-have-low-trust-in-artificial-intelligence-and-want-it-to-be-better-regulated-148262

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael Burgin, Lecturer in Law, Swinburne University of Technology

Changes to a Victorian law back in February made it an offence to publicly identify victim-survivors of sexual violence. These changes removed the capacity for survivors to give permission for their names or images to be published, as was the case under the previous law.

These “gag laws” were brought to light by the #LetUsSpeak campaign, led by Rape & Sexual Assault Research & Advocacy, End Rape on Campus Australia, Marque Lawyers and journalist Nina Funnell.

Now the Victorian government is “fast-tracking” reforms to the gag laws that would reinstate the rights of victim-survivors to speak out about their experiences of sexual violence and the criminal justice response.

But, in the rush to respond, have they got the details right?

What is hidden cannot be changed

There are good reasons to protect the identities of sexual violence victim-survivors. Sexual violence has long been a hidden crime — one that is often gruelling to prove in court. And, for many victim-survivors, it’s difficult to construct a new life that is not defined by their victimisation.

After experiencing a crime that removed their choice and agency, it is vital to ensure media or any other parties do not further intrude on victim-survivors’ lives.

But what if a victim-survivor wants to share their account of sexual violence?

Speaking publicly about their experiences has been an important way that victim-survivors have contributed to societal understandings of the nature of sexual violence. It is also vital in advocacy to improve our justice and support responses.

If sexual violence remains a mostly hidden crime, and one that is poorly understood by many Australians, how can we expect our community attitudes and responses to change?

What went wrong?

The government introduced the gag laws as it sought to address another problem with the law — there was no avenue to overturn a suppression order in a sexual offence case.

But, in addressing this issue for victim-survivors in cases subject to such an order, the government introduced a requirement that all victim-survivors of sexual offences had to seek a court order to be able to speak out. This applied even in cases where the perpetrator had been found guilty of the crime.

The process has proven problematic and expensive. For many victim-survivors, obtaining a court order would be impossible without legal representation to help navigate the court process.

But it is not only the financial cost at issue. For many, the courts are sites of great trauma. Victim-survivors who have had to go through a gruelling trial have referred to the process as a “second rape”. Others never get legal recognition of their experience.

The proposed reforms before the Victorian parliament go some way to restoring the rights of victim-survivors.

First, the bill states the prohibition on publication does not apply where a survivor self-publishes — for example, through social media posts.

The reforms would also allow adult victim-survivors over the age of 18 to give written permission for a third party to publish their identity. Those under 18 will need a doctor, psychologist or other prescribed person to “verify” their permission.

Consultation and reform still needed

While some of these proposed changes are steps towards restoring the agency of victim-survivors of sexual violence, the bill still has some flaws.

The new law states the prohibition on identification applies to both living and deceased victims of sexual offences. Because a deceased person cannot give written permission, naming them would require a court order.

This means the families of women who are raped and murdered cannot publicly name their loved ones without first applying for and receiving a court order. The families of women like Jill Meagher would need a court order to share her story. This also means we would not be able to include her name in an article like this.

Victoria has been plagued by a series of high-profile rape and murders in recent years. Under the proposed laws, Jill Meagher, Eurydice Dixon, Aiia Maarsarwe and other women raped and murdered at the hands of violent men would only be identified through reference to the perpetrator or the crime committed against them.

Keeping the pressure on governments to address all forms of violence against women through campaigns such as Counting Dead Women would not be allowed without a court order application from a family member, where sexual violence featured as part of the homicide.

Read more: How Australian media are changing the way they report violence against women

Media and third-party-generated social media posts wanting to name a victim-survivor would need to seek written permission from them each time. This potentially leaves victim-survivors who have already given permission to share their identity exposed to repeated requests for written confirmation of that permission.

Reforms to the law also raise questions about whether other victim-survivors of sexual violence warrant similar protections. For instance, a UK legal inquiry is considering extending anonymity protections to victims of image-based abuse. Advocates have argued such reforms are vital, as much of the harm is caused through public humiliation and shaming of victim-survivors.

Read more: Reports of ‘revenge porn’ skyrocketed during lockdown, we must stop blaming victims for it

Yet these people too should retain the right to speak about their experience and be identified if they choose. This should also occur without the expense, delay and navigation of a court order process.

These are all difficult matters to get right, and the new reforms are clearly trying to balance the needs and rights of victim-survivors of sexual violence.

However, if we are to respect the dignity and autonomy of victim-survivors, and continue challenging the systemic nature of these harms in our community, we must take the time to get the balance right.

If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault or family violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit www.1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000.

– ref. Explainer: why is Victoria fast-tracking reforms to sexual violence ‘gag laws’ and to what effect? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-is-victoria-fast-tracking-reforms-to-sexual-violence-gag-laws-and-to-what-effect-148905

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendon O’Connor, Associate Professor in American Politics at the United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

US President Donald Trump’s path to re-election requires maximising the support of his oft-mentioned “base” — white voters without college degrees — in the key battleground states where he eked out victory in 2016.

This is because Trump’s support among other voters has slipped. According to the Pew Research Centre, he still holds a 60-34% lead over Democratic challenger Joe Biden among whites without a college degree, but Biden has substantial leads among college-educated white voters, as well as Black, Hispanic and Asian voters.

As a result, Trump has a very narrow path to victory that will require high voter turnout by so-called “working-class whites” in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan. Based on the current polls, this path is increasingly unlikely.

But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. According to Dave Wasserman, an elections analyst from the Cook Political Report, Trump’s base is key.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, he estimates there are about 2.4 million non-college-educated white voters who did not cast ballots in 2016, but could do so this year. As Wasserman notes,

the potential for Trump to crank up the intensity of turnout among non-college whites is quite high.

Who are ‘white working-class’ voters?

Whites without a college degree in America are often referred to as the “white working-class”. In truth, this label is used rather loosely.

The “working class” has long been thought of as “blue-collar” factory, trades and construction workers.

But according to US political scientists, the working class today is defined by both education and income levels:

those who do not hold a college degree and report annual household incomes below the median, as reported by the Census Bureau (in 2016, for instance, the median annual household income was nearly US$60,000).

Under this definition, small business owners and various “white collar” workers (those in service jobs) and “pink collar” (jobs traditionally held by women such as caregiving roles) are also considered part of the American working class.

Read more: Appealing to evangelicals, Trump uses religious words and references to God at a higher rate than previous presidents

Working-class voters have long held the key

Working-class voters have long played an outsized role in US elections, despite the fact they have been a minority among wage and salary earners since the 1920s.

Working-class voters, particularly those who belonged to unions, were once steadfast supporters of candidates on the political left. These days, however, the left feels largely abandoned by these voters, while the right is increasingly dependent on them to win elections.

As working-class voters have drifted to the right, the labels used to describe them have changed. In the 1970s, they were called “hard hats”. By the 1980s, they were known as “Reagan Democrats”, and in the early 2000s, “NASCAR Dads”.

In the UK, they have been known as “working-class Tories”, and in Australia, “Howard’s battlers”.

The story of working-class whites abandoning left-wing parties makes for catchy journalistic copy. Each election cycle, there are numerous articles and television vox pops featuring machinists or miners who have moved rightwards, feeling disillusioned with the parties of their parents.

Books like The Inheritance, Hillbilly Elegy, Strangers in Their Own Land and What’s the Matter with Kansas? have also tried to capture the essence of this changing working class and why these voters have drifted to the right — and at times, voted against their own economic interest.

Read more: Trump could win again (without cheating)

Working-class voters are more complex than we think

The only problem with this narrative is that it is all too neat. In reality, the voting behaviours of the white working class is more complex.

Take for instance Trump’s supporters in the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton. As the data below show, Trump didn’t earn his largest share of votes among the poorest whites in America, but among those in the “middle class” (that catch-all label used to describe everyone between the rich and those living under the poverty line).

More than 10% of white voters with incomes under $30,000 actually voted for a candidate other than Trump or Clinton.

So, while Trump won large numbers of white working-class votes compared to Clinton, experts say it isn’t clear he motivated more of these voters to the polls.

Other factors may also have come into play in 2016 that weren’t related to either income or education.

As this chart shows, non-college-educated voters split their voting preferences evenly between Democrats and Republicans as recently as 1996.

An accelerated shift to the right began then, resulting in a remarkable 39% margin of support for Trump over Clinton in 2016. For many scholars, this “diploma divide” was the single most important explanation why Trump won.

But many commentators have also pointed to racism and xenophobia to help explain Trump’s rise among these white working-class voters.

According to Identity Crisis, a widely praised book on the 2016 election, Trump successfully “racialised economics” by promoting to white Americans

the belief that undeserving groups are getting ahead while your group is left behind.

Biden shows empathy with working-class voters, but few new ideas

Have the Democrats tried to woo back these white working-class voters in recent elections?

In recent elections, former President Barack Obama, Clinton and Biden have focused much of their economic rhetoric on industrial and construction employment, even though these sectors only make up 20% of all jobs (the rest are in the services sector).

Most politicians lack the language to explain the reality that most jobs are service jobs. Because of this, it is hardly surprising they also lack good ideas to address unequal wages and poor working conditions within the services sector.

Policies that address economic inequality are the best way to guard against the white working class being drawn to populist figures like Trump. Biden has not offered these voters much more than Clinton did, with the possible exception of more empathy.

But Biden may not need to win over working-class white voters to defeat Trump. With minority voter turnout expected to be high, and fewer white women and elderly voters expected to support Trump, the president’s hopes of winning on a shrinking base are looking ever more remote.

Read more: Trump has changed America by making everything about politics, and politics all about himself

– ref. Who exactly is Trump’s ‘base’? Why white, working-class voters could be key to the US election – https://theconversation.com/who-exactly-is-trumps-base-why-white-working-class-voters-could-be-key-to-the-us-election-147267

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ziggi Ivan Santini, Postdoctoral associate, University of Southern Denmark

We know having friends is generally good for your happiness and mental well-being. Likewise, keeping socially active and engaging in formal social activities like volunteering has been linked to better mental health.

But it is also possible to have (or do) too much of a good thing. In a recent study, we tracked people aged 50 and older from 13 European countries over a two-year period to explore how volunteering, education, involvement in religious or political groups, or participating in sport or social clubs influenced their mental health.

We also looked at how many close social relationships people had — the kind of relationships in which they would discuss important personal matters. We found social activities especially benefited individuals who were relatively socially isolated (with three or fewer close relationships).

For people with a higher number of close relationships, engaging in social activities did not appear to enhance mental health. It could even be detrimental for some.

Who benefits from social activities

Social isolation is a major health issue. Apart from compromising the mental health of isolated individuals, it is linked to many other adverse health outcomes, including dementia, heart disease and stroke and premature death. But people who experience social isolation can take steps to improve their situation – for example, by engaging in formal social activities.

Read more: Here’s a mental health workout that’s as simple as ABC

Among individuals who were relatively socially isolated (people with three or fewer close relationships), we found more engagement in social activities was linked to improved quality of life and fewer symptoms of depression.

On a population level, our estimates suggest if such people were to engage regularly in social activities, we would see a 5-12% increase in people reporting better quality of life and a 4-8% reduction in people experiencing symptoms of depression. This would be a substantial change to population mental health, given more than 70% of people in our sample (aged 50+, in Europe) have three or fewer close relationships.

There are many reasons being socially active is linked to better mental health and well-being. Social activities can be a way to establish new relationships, provide opportunities for social support and foster a sense of belonging within a community.

‘Too much’ social activity

While research so far has suggested having more social relationships is always better, our study indicates this may not be the case. Just like too much physical activity can compromise mental health, too much social activity can also backfire.

When we looked at how the study variables (quality of life, symptoms of depression) mapped against our two variables of interest (number of social activities, number of close relationships), we found U-shaped curves. That is, poor mental health at low levels of social activity, good mental health at moderate levels of social activity, and again poor mental health at high levels of social activity.

Read more: Five activities that can protect your mental and physical health as you age

Depression appeared to be minimised when people reported having four to five close relationships and being engaged in social activities on a weekly basis. Any more social activity than this, and the benefits started to decline, disappear or turn negative.

This downturn was particularly clear among individuals reporting seven or more close relationships. For these very busy people, engaging in social activities was linked to an increase in depressive symptoms.

People typically report having an average of five close friends. Extroverts tend to report having more friends, but pay the price of having weaker friendships.

Because our social capital (essentially the time we have to devote to social interactions) is limited and roughly the same for everyone, extroverts in effect prefer to spread their social efforts thinly among many people. This is in contrast to introverts who prefer to focus their social efforts on fewer people to ensure those friendships really work well.

This trade-off is at the core of our capacity to engage in social activities. If you engage in too many, your social time is spread thinly among them. That thin investment might result in you becoming a peripheral member of numerous groups in the community rather than being embedded in the social centre where you can benefit from the support of your connections.

Another possibility is that too much social activity becomes a stress factor. This can lead to negative outcomes, such as social over-commitment, emotional and cognitive exhaustion, fatigue or feelings of guilt when social relationships are not properly nurtured because of limited time.

This raises another important consideration, albeit one we were not able to investigate empirically in our study. Family is an important part of our social world, not least in terms of the emotional and other support it provides. Devoting too much time to community activities means less time for family. That bottleneck might well prove to be detrimental to well-being because of the strain it could impose on family relationships.

So what’s the take-home message? Perhaps just this: if you want to live a happy and fulfilled life, be actively social — but do so in moderation.

– ref. Social activity can be good for mental health, but whether you benefit depends on how many friends you have – https://theconversation.com/social-activity-can-be-good-for-mental-health-but-whether-you-benefit-depends-on-how-many-friends-you-have-148255

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karen Martin, Asst Professor Population Health, University of Western Australia

The Australian government committed more than A$247 million over 2019-22 to continue funding chaplains in Australian schools. The National School Chaplaincy Program aims to “support the well-being of students through pastoral care services and strategies”.

Schools are eligible for $20,280 per year year ($24,336 for remote schools) to appoint a chaplain.

Since its inception by the Howard government in 2006, there have been concerns from many, including parents and education unions, about the religious affiliations of chaplains, and the conflict this presents when they work in secular schools.

It’s worth recapping what’s known about how the chaplaincy program has operated so far, and what alternatives exist.

Are all chaplains religious?

The 2018 agreement on the national chaplaincy program, between the Commonwealth government and all states and territories, sets out that the states must ensure chaplains may be of any faith. States must also ensure chaplains do not proselytise — that is, convert or attempt to convert a student to their religion.

But the agreement also says a chaplain must be “recognised through formal ordination, commissioning, recognised religious qualifications or endorsement by a recognised or accepted religious institution”.

The ACT ended the chaplaincy program in 2019 saying the fact that chaplains must have a religious affiliation is incompatible with the education act. In March 2019, Victoria agreed to change the job description of chaplains to say they could be of any faith or no faith. However, recent reports suggest non-Christian counsellor applicants are still being denied employment in Victoria on the grounds of their faith.

Read more: High Court torpedoes chaplaincy program – for the second time

And there have been reports of chaplains being encouraged to promote a Christian theology course to students in NSW.

Under the national agreement, chaplains are required to “respect, accept and be sensitive” to the beliefs of others. But it is possible some chaplains are unable to support children (LGBTIAQ+ students for instance) whose lives do not align with their religious affiliation.

Are chaplains effective?

An independent evaluation of the chaplaincy program — conducted from 2016-17 across government, Catholic and independent schools — concluded chaplains are “highly effective in boosting student well-being”. However, principals said only 30% of children received support from the school chaplain. And only 134 students nation-wide provided feedback.

This means there is still a distinct lack of evidence as to whether the chaplaincy program is effectively supporting children and young people’s mental well-being.

Authors of the evaluation highlighted that staff saw the chaplain as being good at supporting the emotional well-being of students. This included helping students manage relationship issues and to develop self esteem.

But chaplains were seen as less equipped to manage complex student problems. These included alcohol and drug abuse, sexuality, self-harm and suicide, academic achievement, and student exposure to violence, racism and neglect.

Read more: Talking about suicide and self-harm in schools can save lives

These limits are unsurprising, as the role of chaplains under the program is well-being support.

What are the alternatives to chaplains?

A chaplain in the government program must have a certificate IV in youth work or pastoral care. This must include competencies in “mental health” and “making appropriate referrals”. The courses can be completed within 12 months and have no minimum entry requirements.

In comparison, school psychologists must have a minimum six-year sequence of education, training and supervision. Psychologists are trained in managing students with academic issues, complex personal issues, psychological issues and those related to self-harm and suicide.

Psychologists are also required to maintain minimum standards for continued training and supervision to retain their registration.

Psychologists are relatively expensive in comparison with chaplains, and can be difficult to access due to their demand. The average psychologist salary in Australia is $90,900 per year. This falls well short of the $20,280 offered through the chaplaincy program. It would only be enough for psychologists to work little over one day per week in schools, unless the school supplemented the funding.

Chaplains can also only be employed part-time if schools are not supplementing the government funding.

Schools could employ the less expensive but lesser-trained counsellors. But people aren’t expected to have specific qualifications or accreditation to work as a counsellor in Australia. The average salary for counsellors in Australia is $82,578 per year.

At the moment anyone can call themselves a counsellor regardless of their training, including people with no training at all. In contrast, the title of “psychologist” is protected.

Employing social workers in schools would likely support children and families, particularly those with more complex needs. Social workers in Australia are required to completed a bachelor of social work and are paid an average $85,331 per year.

Read more: A traumatic past can make you a better social worker, but it might block you studying it in the first place

There isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution to our youth mental health crisis. But we do need better regulation of mental health practitioners and further evaluation of the role and impact of psychologists, social workers, counsellors and chaplains in schools.

Our recent research, exploring teenagers’ use of mental health services, noted an under-resourcing of mental health support in schools. Teenagers said there were few mental health services easily accessible to them, and they needed more support from schools.

The 2019 submission to an inquiry into mental health (by a national professional association for school psychologists, school counsellors and guidance officers) recommended schools stop spending money on “staff unqualified to occupy titles in schools if they are ill-equipped for the purpose of professional student mental health support”.

Substantial funding of any program should be linked with rigorous evaluation. Evidence about the extensive mental health and well-being needs of children and young people at school should be considered in any decision on national program funding.

– ref. School chaplains may be cheaper than psychologists. But we don’t have enough evidence of their impact – https://theconversation.com/school-chaplains-may-be-cheaper-than-psychologists-but-we-dont-have-enough-evidence-of-their-impact-148521

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glen Searle, Honorary Associate Professor in Planning, University of Queensland, University of Sydney

The 2020 federal budget forecasts Australia’s population growth will slow to almost zero over several years because of COVID-19 and related restrictions. This leads to the question: will this period allow the big cities to catch up on infrastructure shortfalls that developed before the pandemic?

One of us recently conducted research on how infrastructure shortages – such as rail lines, open space and affordable housing – linked to Sydney’s pre-pandemic rapid growth arose in the context of government support for a lot more population. The findings gives us some insights into whether an infrastructure catch-up might happen.

Read more: City planning suffers growth pains of Australia’s population boom

The impacts of fiscal imbalance

The research centred on the consequences for infrastructure provision in Sydney of the vertical fiscal imbalance in Australia. The Commonwealth collects more than 80% of tax revenue while the states rely on the Commonwealth for 45% of their revenue.

The federal government, especially the Treasury, favours population growth. That’s because it generates extra tax revenue, reduces the risk of recession and spreads the welfare costs of an ageing society across a wider base.

The state government is also positive about growth, though less so than the Commonwealth. As a public marker of successful government, growth provides political legitimacy. However, it also requires the state, under the Australian Constitution, to provide most of the infrastructure needed to support that growth.

On the other hand, the Commonwealth garners most of the extra tax revenue from growth. Extra state revenue from a growing population is absorbed into the unavoidable recurrent costs of health, education and so on to service the increased needs. As a result, the state government is unable to fund enough new public infrastructure.

Commonwealth infrastructure funding to the state is only a small fraction of the total required. The federal budget says New South Wales will receive A$2.7 billion from the Commonwealth for infrastructure over the next decade. The state government’s forecast infrastructure spending is more than A$100 billion over the next four years.

As a result, the state needs to call on private sector funding as much as possible. This means infrastructure that can’t be fully paid for by users, such as rail lines, open space and affordable housing, is under-provided. And, as is the case in Victoria, existing assets such as public housing are sold to the private sector.

Read more: Public land is being sold exactly where thousands on the waiting list need housing

An over-reliance on growth?

This context suggests the pandemic-induced flatlining of population growth won’t necessarily allow the infrastructure shortfall to be overcome. Cities are unlikely to catch up unless the Commonwealth greatly increases its funding of state infrastructure.

State budgets rely heavily on growth-sensitive revenue such as property transfer taxes and the GST. And these are set to fall. NSW GST revenue, for example, is forecast to be A$3.5 billion lower this financial year than anticipated before the pandemic.

For states to fund infrastructure beyond user-pay projects like motorways, they have to take on debt to offset reduced taxation revenue. But this will be constrained by their desire to preserve their credit ratings as a marker of good governance.

The federal government is less constrained. The combined influences of ultra-low interest rates and the Reserve Bank’s availability to buy government bonds mean much higher Commonwealth debt is now fiscally tolerable.

The question then becomes: can the Commonwealth’s ability to shoulder increased debt be used to provide the states with more infrastructure funding? The Commonwealth’s huge budgeted outlays to offset the economic impacts of the pandemic are obviously a major constraint on this happening.

Read more: Should the government keep running up debt to get us out of the crisis? Overwhelmingly, economists say yes

Nevertheless, infrastructure projects are generally seen as an important vehicle for responding to the effects of the pandemic. And state government projects count just as much as Commonwealth projects for economic recovery.

However, the federal budget provides little cause for optimism here. The big cities received relatively little infrastructure funding, and certainly very little to overcome current shortfalls.

For instance, the main Sydney project funded was the St Marys-Western Sydney Airport rail line. However no business case for the line has been released, and it is likely to be a decades-long white elephant with little passenger traffic.

A case for more federal funding

The case for more Commonwealth funding of state infrastructure goes beyond helping a post-pandemic recovery. The big cities need funding for public goods such as public housing and mass transport.

Read more: Why more housing stimulus will be needed to sustain recovery

But developing infrastructure of this kind offers limited opportunities for user-pays financing, especially where current shortfalls are significant. These public-good projects range from relatively small projects such as dedicated cycleways to big-ticket items like Sydney’s Metro West and Brisbane’s Cross River Rail, as well as low-job but high-need items like land purchases for new public open space.

The role government played in responding to the pandemic reminded us just how important leadership, accountability and public-sector-led co-ordination are in times of crisis.

Climate change is another crisis that requires such a response, particularly when it comes to infrastructure investment and delivery. Infrastructure that reduces our dependency on carbon involves investment in high-quality public transport, active transport (walking and cycling) and public open spaces.

Read more: Cycling and walking can help drive Australia’s recovery – but not with less than 2% of transport budgets

In some areas the private sector is well placed to deliver greener outcomes. But in areas such as transport, open space and housing, government investment must play a central role. The transformation that the challenges of the 21st century demand of us needs bold leadership from our elected officials.

As our research has concluded, a deep analysis of the costs and benefits of big city population growth for state government finances should provide the basis for a new federal-state financial accord that addresses the imbalance of such costs and benefits between the two levels of government.

– ref. Will the population freeze allow our big cities to catch up on infrastructure? – https://theconversation.com/will-the-population-freeze-allow-our-big-cities-to-catch-up-on-infrastructure-148263

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Nottage, Professor, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney

The death of Brittney Conway, the three-year-old Gold Coast girl killed by swallowing a button battery, has again drawn attention to deaths and injuries caused by consumer goods – and to a longstanding deficiency in Australia’s consumer safety laws.

About 20 Australian children a week are hospitalised due to swallowing batteries, and three have died since 2013. Preventing such cases was one of the top product safety priorities of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in 2019.

In 2019 a total of about 780 Australians were killed by consumer products, and a further 52,000 injured, according to the consumer watchdog.

Misadventure can never be eliminated, but more safety measures could be implemented. Product makers, for example, could ensure small batteries cannot be easily removed from devices by children.

Consider the 31,000 LED wristbands distributed to spectators at the AFL grand final in Bribane last Saturday. The AFL issued a safety recall on Tuesday, days after child safety group Kidsafe Queensland warned the wristband’s battery compartment, containing two button batteries, was not adequately secured.

The problem, as acknowledged in March 2019 by the consumer watchdog’s head, Rod Sims, is that it is generally not against consumer protection regulations to supply unsafe goods in Australia.

Only a select list of about 44 product types are regulated by mandatory safety standards. These include things such as aquatic equipment, bicycle gear, cots, prams, toys for children aged three and under, and all toys containing magnets, lead and other hazardous elements.

But for thousands of other products, the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is reactive. Regulators can act only after a problem becomes apparent and enough people are actually or potentially injured or killed.

Sims spelled out the fix by calling on Australian law makers to follow European and other nations by introducing a “general safety provision” obliging firms to be proactive, not reactive, in ensuring they supply safe products.

Read more: Button batteries kill. Here’s how we can prevent needless child deaths from battery ingestion

Moving from reaction to prevention

Currently, for any product not covered by mandatory safety standards, Australian suppliers tend to voluntarily recall items found to be unsafe. They do this mainly to avoid compensation claims and reputational risk.

Those harmed can pursue compensation from sellers for breaching consumer guarantees or from manufacturers for product liability. But even big class-action law firms tend to find it easier to bring claims for investors rather than customers.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can also ban products found to be dangerous, with 19 products currently on its list. These include plastic children’s items containing the chemical diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), combustible candle holders and gas masks containing asbestos.

But all this remains a reactive response. Suppliers are only indirectly incentivised to market safe products.

A general safety provision, backed by financial penalties and other regulatory powers, would require them to supply only safe products, taking into factors such as consumer expectations and industry best practices.

Britain has had such a provision since 1987, and the European Union since 1992. Hong Kong, Macau, Malaysia, Canada and Singapore have followed suit.

Adding a general safety provision to Australian law was canvassed by Productivity Commission inquiries in 2006 and 2008. These found insufficient evidence benefits would outweigh costs, so other legislative reforms should be tried first.

But the 2017 final report of the government’s review of the ACL reached a different conclusion. Noting the Australian market for consumer goods had changed significantly, with many more low-cost imports, it recommended an “overarching general obligation” on traders to ensure the safety of their products.

A general safety provision, the report said, would place “a clear onus” on traders to ensure the safety of the products they sold to Australian consumers:

It would shift responsibility for managing product safety risks from consumers and regulators to traders who are better placed to control those risks at the design and manufacturing stage of a product’s life.

The annual economic cost of deaths and injuries from unsafe consumer is at least A$4.5 billion, estimates the Australian Treasury (which in October 2019 sought submissions on reform options including a general safety provision). This assumes a “value of a statistical life year” of about A$200,000 for premature deaths and disability. There are also A$500 million in direct hospital costs, and further costs associated with minor injuries and property loss.

Read more: Australian consumer law is failing beer drinkers

Australia is lagging behind other nations

My own research (and submission to the Treasury) provide evidence supporting a general safety provision.

First, the OECD Global Recalls portal (which tracks product recalls around the world) shows Australia had higher per capita voluntary recalls than Korea, Britain, Japan and the US between 2017 and 2019. Canada’s recall rate was similar, but it has a more stringent duty on suppliers to report product accidents to regulators compared with Australia.

This suggests relatively more unsafe products are making it to market in Australia. About 40% of those recalls involve child products, of which around 60% come from China.

Second, the number of annual recalls has been rising in Australia, as shown by figures compiled by peak advocacy group Choice from government data. The increase from about 2011 is in line with burgeoning online shopping. Greater e-commerce due to the COVID-19 pandemic may add to the numbers.

Further analysis by Catherine Niven and colleagues shows recalls of children’s products increased 88% from 2011 to 2017 (other recalls decreased by 21%). Just as alarmingly, almost two-thirds of the recalls involved products not complying with specific mandatory standards (also demonstrated by two recent recalls pictured above).

Time to put safety first

Regulators could seek to sanction local suppliers more for such non-compliance with existing law.

But introducing a broader general safety provision would create a paradigm shift in how companies deal with safety.

Manufacturers, distributors and retailers would need to think more carefully about (and document) safety assessments before putting products into circulation.

This is more efficient and safer than releasing products and then trying to recall them after problems start to be reported, hoping not too many consumers get harmed. It would also encourage businesses to “trade up” to the standards expected in many of our trading partners.

Choice has confirmed many Australians wrongly assume we already have a general safety provision.

It’s time to improve the law to avoid confusion and send better signals to suppliers.

– ref. Rather than recalling unsafe products, why not ensure they’re safe in the first place? – https://theconversation.com/rather-than-recalling-unsafe-products-why-not-ensure-theyre-safe-in-the-first-place-146988

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

It’s now beyond dispute that — for new electricity generation — solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy are cheaper than anything else: cheaper than new coal fired power stations, cheaper than new gas-fired stations and cheaper than new nuclear power plants.

The International Energy Association says so. Its latest World Energy Outlook describes solar as the cheapest electricity in history.

Solar costs 20% to 50% less than it thought it would two years ago.

Attention has turned instead to the ways to best meet demand when renewable resources are not available.

The government is a big supporter of gas, and as importantly, pumped hydro.

It has backed the $6 billion-plus Snowy Hydro 2.0 pumped hydro project (the world’s biggest) and Tasmania’s proposed $7 billion “battery of the nation”.

Pumped hydro is an old technology, as old as the electricity industry itself.

Pumped hydro is old technology

It became fashionable from the 1960s to 1980s as a complement to inflexible coal and nuclear generators.

When their output wasn’t needed (mainly at night) it was used to pump water to higher ground so that it could be released and used to run hydro generators when demand was high.

Australia’s three pumped hydro plants are old, built at least 40 years ago, and they operate infrequently, and sometimes not at all for years.

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

Gas fired electricity generation, whether by turbines (essentially a bigger version of those found on aeroplanes) or by conventional reciprocating engines, has several advantages over pumped hydro including much smaller local environmental impacts and in many cases smaller greenhouse gas impacts.

They can be built quickly and, most importantly, if there is a gas supply they can be built close to electrical loads. There are 17 gas-fired peaking generators in the National Electricity Market, but none have been built over the past decade.

Batteries are cheaper

Batteries have advantages over both.

In 2017, Australia built the world’s biggest battery, but it since been overtaken by a Californian battery more than twice its size and may soon be overtaken by one 150 times the size as part of the Sun Cable project in the Northern Territory which will send solar and stored electricity to Singapore.

In a study commissioned by the Bob Brown Foundation, we have compared the pumped hydro “battery of the nation” project to actual batteries and to gas turbines.

The battery of the nation (BoTN) is a proposal instigated by the Australian and Tasmanian governments to add more pumped hydro to Tasmania’s hydro power system and used enhanced interconnectors to provide electricity on demand to Victoria.

We sought to determine what could most cost-effectively provide Victoria with 1,500 megawatts — the BoTN, gas turbines or batteries.

Partly this depends on how long peak demand for dispatchable power last. BoTN would be able to provide sustained power for 12 hours, but we found that in practice, even when our system becomes much more reliant on renewables, it would be unusual for anything longer than four hours to be needed.

Less than half the cost

We could easily dismiss gas turbines — the Australian Energy Market Operator’s costings have batteries much cheaper than gas turbines to build and operate now and cheaper still by the time the Battery of the Nation would be built.

And batteries are able to respond to instructions in fractions of a second, making them useful in ways gas and pumped hydro aren’t.

They are also able to be placed where they are needed, rather than where there’s a gas connection or an abandoned mine, cliff or hill big enough to be used for pumped hydro.

Read more: NSW has approved Snowy 2.0. Here are six reasons why that’s a bad move

We found batteries could supply 1,500 megawatts of instantly-available power for less than half of the cost of the enhanced Tasmania to Victoria cable alone, meaning that even if the rest of the BoTN cost little, batteries would still be cheaper.

Pumped hydro projects are being pulled

Origin Energy recently gave up on expanding the Shoalhaven pumped hydro scheme in NSW after finding it would cost more than twice as much to build as first thought.

Similarly, investor-owned Genex has repeatedly deferred its final investment decision on one of the cheapest pumped hydro options in Australia — using depleted gold mine pits in Queensland — despite being offered concessional loans from the Australian Government to cover the entire build cost.

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

The final barrier seems to be obtaining subsidies from the Queensland Government to fund the necessary transmission lines.

Snowy 2.0 is proceeding, for now

Snowy 2.0 seems to be proceeding after the Australian Government pumped in $1.4 billion to get it going, and paid a king’s ransom to New South Wales and Victoria for their shares in Snowy Hydro.

Yet even before the main works are to start, credit rating agency S&P has down-graded Snowy Hydro’s stand-alone debt to “junk” and suggested the government will need to pump more money into Snowy Hydro to protect its debt.

Prime Minister Morrison has said recently that batteries can’t compete with gas generators , yet a couple of days later, his government announced support for a 100 megawatt battery in Western Australia, where gas is less than half the price it is on the east coast.

Read more: Enough ambition (and hydrogen) could get Australia to 200% renewable energy

Our analysis suggests neither gas nor pumped hydro can compete with batteries, and if the prime minister wants more of either, he will have to dip his hands deeply into tax payer’s pockets to get it.

– ref. Pumped hydro isn’t our energy future, it’s our past – https://theconversation.com/pumped-hydro-isnt-our-energy-future-its-our-past-146989

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kcasey McLoughlin, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Newcastle

The Morrison government has made its first appointments to the High Court. In doing so it has gone for continuity, both in terms of geography and gender.

The news Justices Jacqueline Gleeson and Simon Steward will be Australia’s next High Court judges follows months of speculation.

With the upcoming retirements of Justices Virginia Bell and Geoffrey Nettle — as they reach the constitutionally prescribed retirement age of 70 — two vacancies had opened up on the High Court bench.

Read more: Two High Court of Australia judges will be named soon – unlike Amy Coney Barrett, we know nothing about them

Although it might be true that many Australians outside of the legal profession do not know who their judges are, as Bell observed in 2017, this lack of celebrity status certainly does not diminish the significance of these appointments.

As the highest court in Australia’s judicial hierarchy, the High Court makes decisions with the potential to shape the nation, including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws.

Who are the new judges?

Steward, 51, is from Melbourne and will join the court in December to replace Nettle (who is also a Victorian). He was appointed to the Federal Court in 2018, with speciality areas in tax and administrative law.

Gleeson, 54, is from Sydney, and will join the court in March 2021 to replace Bell (who is also from NSW). She was appointed to the Federal Court in 2014, with Attorney-General Christian Porter noting her “diverse legal career at the bar and as a solicitor”.

As Porter also pointed out, Gleeson’s appointment represents a first in the common law world, as she is the daughter of former High Court Chief Justice, Murray Gleeson.

Announcing the news in Canberra on Wednesday, Porter said cabinet was “incredibly confident” Gleeson and Steward would,

make very useful additions to the High Court bench, they are outstanding judges, they have been outstanding barristers, they are outstanding members of the legal and broader Australian community.

Both names floated beforehand

These appointees were not entirely unexpected.

Both new judges names’ were floated as possible contenders. However, it is fair to say Steward’s name appeared more frequently, perhaps bolstered by his conservative credentials as a so called “black-letter” lawyer, who has a more literal interpretation of the law.

Gleeson is not a huge surprise either, given her wide-ranging background, with expertise in administrative law, competition and consumer law, professional liability and tax law.

The government has, as predicted gone for a like-for-like appointment both in terms of gender and state of origin. This means three out of the seven justices are women.

The assumption the new judges would be from NSW and Victoria gives us some insight into the significance of the state balance (and the taken-for-granted dominance of Sydney and Melbourne). This dominance has not been without debate. For example, the fact that no South Australian has ever been appointed to the court has been the subject of increasing criticism.

Until now, the gender dynamics on the High Court have been carefully crafted. No woman had ever replaced another woman — lest anyone get the idea there are seats reserved for women. Moreover, decision-makers have usually been insistent gender is not taken into account (while “merit” is).

Perhaps one surprise is that both new justices have been appointed from the Federal Court. It was assumed with Bell’s retirement at least one of the new judges would be an expert in criminal law (and be appointed from a state Supreme Court).

It means the High Court will be dominated by former Federal Court judges, with all justices other than Stephen Gageler elevated from the Federal Court.

What does this mean for the High Court?

None of this means appointment decisions are devoid of political dimensions — either about the specific composition of the court, or about a particular appointee’s views about the Commonwealth’s legislative power.

As constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey remarked in 2007:

A government may appoint a judge for a range of reasons, including adding some form of balance to the Court (state, sex or expertise in a particular area of law in which the Court is lacking) or because a judge is the leading jurist of their generation, or simply because a person is an uncontroversial compromise when views are polarised in relation to other candidates.

Inevitably, questions will be raised about what kind of judges the new appointees will be.

They join a court, where Chief Justice Susan Kiefel has promoted a collegial approach to judgment writing. Will Steward and Gleeson embrace this culture?

The appointment of the sixth woman (and the 49th man) suggests some inroads have been made to ensuring the court reflects the society from which it is drawn. But more can be done.

Yet, with no formal recognition of the importance of diversity in appointments, or any transparency in terms of the process of appointment, any progress remains at the whim of the government of the day.

Read more: No selection criteria, no transparency. Australia must reform the way it appoints judges

For Gleeson and Steward, their appointments represent a significant personal achievement. What impact they will have on the High Court remains to be seen, but there is no doubt they have the capacity to shape the court’s decisions into the future.

Given their respective ages, they will certainly have time to make their mark.

– ref. Meet Australia’s new High Court judges: a legal scholar’s take on the Morrison government’s appointees – https://theconversation.com/meet-australias-new-high-court-judges-a-legal-scholars-take-on-the-morrison-governments-appointees-148982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Cothren, PhD Candidate, Flinders University

It’s January 20th, 2021. Inauguration day. A triumphant Joe Biden salutes the National Mall crowd (way bigger than the last guy’s) and dedicates his victory to Sacha Baron Cohen, aka Borat, the satirical mastermind who delivered the knock-out blow to Trumpism.

Not.

Released on Amazon Prime Video in the shadow of the looming U.S. election, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm is a wet firecracker of an October Surprise.

Cohen reprises his role of the smiley, Jew-hating journalist from Kazakhstan, a real country no American ever seems to have heard of. His latest mission: bribe someone close to Trump with the gift of his 15-year-old daughter (played by brilliant newcomer Maria Bakalova).

Given the rampant corruption of Trump’s inner circle, as well as Cohen’s well-honed prankster chops, many anticipated this could hammer another nail in the orange one’s coffin. Even Cohen himself seemed hopeful that satire could save the Republic.

Most hopes are pinned on a compromising scene involving Rudy Giuliani and Bakalova, with the former posing as a giggly reporter whose interview transitions into a bedside fondle.

It is undeniably disturbing to watch Giuliani get handsy with both Bakalova’s backside and his own crum. However it’s hard to believe that those mythical undecided voters will give a hoot. Like his boss, Giulani has simply denied everything and moved on.

Otherwise, the closest the movie gets to laying a glove on anyone currently in power comes during a scene shot at the Conservative Political Action Conference last February.

Dressed in a “McDonald Trump” fat suit, Cohen/Borat huffs towards the stage where Mike Pence is giving a speech, only to be quickly and efficiently ejected. Frankly, the fly did more damage.

There’s plenty of satire of the kicking down variety, and the film is successful at getting everyday Americans to either voice or condone horrific prejudice on camera. These cringy interactions lit up the first (and still pretty funny!) Borat made in 2006.

Read more: Sacha Baron Cohen: is he wrong to make fools of the unwitting?

But conservatism was more civil back then. Its face was the daftly likable George W. Bush, whose let’s-grab-a-beer appeal masked the atrocities of his administration.

It was therefore genuinely chilling to watch Cohen lift the log on that era’s patriotic rah-rah and reveal the squirming xenophobia underneath. The movie mostly lives on through its catchphrases — MAH WIFE, VERY NICE, WAWAWEEWA – but it was pointed and prophetic satire.

We’ve got reality TV

That was then, however, and this is now. It’s 2020 and we’ve had reality TV for decades: are we really shocked by scenes of a baker happily piping an antisemitic message onto a birthday cake, or by a hardware salesman high-fiving about Mexicans in cages?

If you wanted to hear strangers go on and on about how Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of tortured children, you could, until recently, just log in to Facebook.

Cohen is clearly a deadpan master at getting people to expose themselves, but that tactic is ineffective when people are already being rewarded for shouting their worst impulses into a bullhorn. Those disgusting frat boys from the first film? They’re probably Congressmen by now.

There are plenty of reasons to want Trump out, and one is it might just make satire great again. Conservative internet warriors like to joke about TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome), an ailment that leaves opponents of the president convulsing at the sight of a Cheeto. It’s mostly internet banter, but when it comes to satire, there’s a kernel of truth to it.

A enormous black (orange?) hole

These past four years, the Donald has been an enormous black (orange?) hole sucking up all the satiric energy with his shamelessness. Has this endless barrage produced any effect at all? Maybe. But it’s certainly been responsible for some forgettable art.

Read more: Friday essay: has Donald Trump broken satire?

From Alec Baldwin’s excruciating just-sucked-a-lemon pucker to whatever the hell that Stephen Colbert cartoon was, satire is just as worn out (and strung out) as the rest of us right now.

You can’t blame the satirists for trying. Trump is a plump blimp of a target, and it always feels like he’s one clever joke away from going full Hindenburg. The fact that he’s still afloat has led to many declaring satire’s death.

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm won’t be the Jeff Bezos-backed David that slays Goliath. The film does manage to skewer some targets beyond the White House, though. Case in point: the creepy misogyny Bakalova’s naïve waif elicits everywhere she goes.

Whereas most of the “gotcha” comedy and rehashed #TheResistence jokes fall flat, we almost vomited during a scene in which an elderly plastic surgeon tells Bakalova he would love to “sex attack” her. Elsewhere, a Georgian gentleman coolly appraises her at a debutante ball before deciding she’s worth $500.

These scenes rekindle the laugh-then-wince energy that fuelled the first Borat film. If the new movie lasts beyond the current electoral vortex, it may be the feminist satire that carries it. It’s also a reminder that the country won’t suddenly become paradise in a Biden/Harris world. Removing one pussy-grabber does not a summer make.

When satirists as talented as Cohen feel they can move on from Trump, some fresh wind will hopefully blow through the genre. The gotcha trope has been a stale for four years, but satire isn’t dead yet. It might even win Texas.

Not.

– ref. Borat’s wet firecracker of an October surprise won’t hurt Trump but succeeds as feminist satire – https://theconversation.com/borats-wet-firecracker-of-an-october-surprise-wont-hurt-trump-but-succeeds-as-feminist-satire-148811

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

In some Australian states, kids have been back on slides, swings and monkey bars for months. But in Victoria, many families are only now getting back to playgrounds, after they were closed for much of the second lockdown.

With lots of kids running around, and parents looking on, how can you ensure your trip to the playground is COVID-safe for you, your children and others?

A good place to start is to understand how COVID-19 spreads, and what you can do to interrupt it.

Droplets big and small

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the main way SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) spreads is by droplet transmission.

Droplets containing virus particles are released from the mouth or nose when someone who is infectious coughs, sneezes, laughs, talks or even breathes. The more vigorous the activity, the greater the volume of droplets and spread (so, for example, laughing releases more droplets than breathing).

Larger droplets fall to the ground relatively quickly and within a short distance of where they were released. But you can inhale them if you’re standing close to an infected person.

Smaller droplets, or aerosols, can travel further and hang around for longer in the air. Scientists are still working to understand the importance of this form of transmission — commonly termed airborne transmission — in the spread of COVID-19.

Another possible route of transmission is contact with contaminated surfaces. This happens when infectious droplets fall onto surfaces, or contaminated hands touch surfaces. If an uninfected person touches the contaminated surface and then touches their face or food, they may ingest virus particles and become infected.

A recent laboratory study found SARS-CoV-2 particles can remain both detectable and viable (able to cause infection) on surfaces for many days, particularly if the surfaces are smooth, such as metal or plastic. As with airborne transmission, scientists are still figuring out how common this mode of transmission is for COVID-19.

Read more: That public playground is good for your kids and your wallet

Playgrounds are outdoors, so that’s a plus

The good news about playgrounds is they’re generally outdoors in parks. The risk of inhaling infectious droplets is reduced because the large volume of air has a dilution effect, compared with being in a confined space indoors with other people. Outdoor breezes can also disperse particles.

The temperature also appears to influence the risk. Warmer temperatures have been shown to reduce the viability of SARS-CoV-2 more quickly than cooler temperatures, while sunlight may also help inactivate the virus. In Australia, of course, we’re now heading into the warmer and sunnier summer period.

On the other side of the coin, public playground equipment may not be cleaned regularly. So there could be some risk of transmission via contaminated surfaces.

And while warmer weather and particularly being outdoors may protect us to a degree, as with anything during the pandemic, a small level of risk remains.

Read more: ‘Stupid coronavirus!’ In uncertain times, we can help children through mindfulness and play

10 tips to stay COVID-safe at the playground

1. Check the restrictions and requirements in your state around mask wearing, how far you can travel, and the number of people permitted in a space before heading to a playground.

2. Don’t go to the playground if you or your child is sick or has any COVID-19 symptoms (fever, cough, sniffles, upset tummy).

3. Keep your distance (at least 1.5 metres) from anyone not in your household. While it’s tempting to socialise with other parents, avoid congregating closely with others.

4. Take disinfectant wipes or wet wipes with you and wipe down areas little hands frequently touch (such as swing chains) before your kids use the equipment, particularly if they’re too young to understand instructions.

5. Take hand sanitiser with you (minimum 60% alcohol). Ensure your children sanitise their hands before getting on the equipment, after playing, before eating and before leaving the playground. Supervise young children when they use alcohol-based hand sanitiser. Parents should regularly sanitise too.

6. Avoid using shared taps or water fountains; instead, bring bottled drinks. Frequently touched surfaces such as taps are more likely to be contaminated.

7. Remind children to avoid touching their face while using the play equipment.

8. Avoid physical contact between your kids and other kids in the area.

9. Avoid sharing toys with other children. If you bring toys, make sure they’re washable.

10. Use the playground outside of peak use periods to reduce the amount of contact with others.

While younger children may not understand or follow instructions well about keeping away from other children or touching their face, fortunately, they appear to have a lower risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19, and of developing severe disease if they are infected.

The focus with young children should be on frequent hand hygiene and preventing physical contact with non-family members as much as possible.

With little COVID-19 transmission in Australia now, and most playgrounds being outdoors, a trip to the playground is fairly low-risk, and we know physical activity carries many benefits for children and adults alike. But we can all do our part to minimise any risk of transmission.

– ref. Heading back to the playground? 10 tips to keep your family and others COVID-safe – https://theconversation.com/heading-back-to-the-playground-10-tips-to-keep-your-family-and-others-covid-safe-148620

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thalia Anthony, Professor of Law, University of Technology Sydney

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names and images of deceased people.

The Northern Territory court decision this week to commit Police Constable Zachary Rolfe to stand trial for the shooting death of 19-year-old Warlpiri man Kumanjayi Walker marks a historic moment in accountability for First Nations deaths in custody.

It is the first time a police officer will face a murder trial in a First Nations death in custody case in the Northern Territory in modern history.

The decision was handed down months after another policeman was charged with murder in the shooting death of an Indigenous woman in Western Australia. He has pleaded not guilty and is expected to face trial next year.

The cases are moving ahead amid a global reckoning on police and prison violence as part of the Black Lives Matter movement, which has focused new attention on First Nations families fighting for justice for the deaths of their loved ones.

Read more: Why the Black Lives Matter protests must continue: an urgent appeal by Marcia Langton

Circumstances of Walker’s death

Late on the evening of November 9 2019, five police officers entered Walker’s family home in Yuendumu, central Australia, to try to arrest him. This set in motion the events that led to Rolfe firing the three shots that killed the teenager.

Murder charges were laid against Rolfe days later, and bail was granted the same day.

The NT Criminal Lawyers Association described the granting of bail over the phone for a serious homicide as “very unusual in the extreme”. It also raised concerns among Yuendumu elders that justice was being compromised in Walker’s death.

The freedom that Rolfe enjoys on bail contrasts with the high remand rates for First Nations people (85%) in the NT.

Rolfe has also been stood down from the police force while on bail, but is still receiving pay.

Sufficient evidence to stand trial

Before a trial for a serious crime can proceed to the NT Supreme Court, the local court must determine whether the prosecution’s evidence is “sufficient to put the defendant on trial”. This occurs through a committal hearing.

Rolfe’s three-day committal occurred in early September in Alice Springs. His lawyer made a “no-case submission” that the charges be dropped on the grounds of self-defence.

This week, the presiding local court judge, John Birch, determined there was sufficient evidence for Rolfe to stand trial.

Birch indicated the case will proceed in Alice Springs next year unless an application is accepted by the court to move the trial to Darwin.

434 deaths in custody since 1991

There have been at least 434 First Nations deaths in custody since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody handed down its final report in 1991.

The commission followed years of community outrage and protests over mounting Aboriginal deaths in custody. It put forward 339 recommendations that called for the use of arrest and imprisonment as a last resort, safer police and prison practices, independent investigations into deaths in custody and Aboriginal self-determination.

Yet, First Nations deaths in custody have continued in violent, reckless and negligent circumstances, reflecting the failure of governments to implement and enforce the recommendations.

Gomeroi scholar Alison Whittaker has argued colonial violence in custody has been institutionalised through the lack of accountability in First Nations death in custody cases.

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

This lack of accountability is pronounced in the NT, where deaths in custody and police violence rarely proceed to charges or prosecutions.

The 2002 killing of 18-year-old Robert Jongmin by Senior Constable Robert Whittington resulted in murder, then manslaughter, charges being brought against the officer, which were eventually dropped.

The constable was then charged with the downgraded offence of “dangerous act causing death”, which was quashed by the NT Supreme Court on statutory grounds in 2006.

Trials against police in other states

Outside the NT, two well-publicised manslaughter trials in First Nations deaths in custody cases have resulted in not guilty verdicts.

The first was in the trial of four police officers and a police aide for the the death of 16-year-old Yindjibarndi man John Pat in Rosebourne police lock-up (Western Australia) in 1983. The second was Senior Constable Chris Hurley for the death of Mulrunji Doomadgee in Palm Island watch house (Queensland) in 2004.

The empanelment of all-white juries to try the officers in both cases has been questioned by justice advocates. The Royal Commission asked in 1991 in relation to Pat’s death,

How does it come about in the Pilbara that a very important trial was conducted before a jury without Aboriginal representation, given the number of Aboriginal people in that region?

Another perceived factor behind the not guilty outcome in the Doomadgee case was the campaign run by the Queensland Police Union in support of Hurley. The defence of Hurley and his characterisation as a victim — demonstrated at police rallies and on wrist bands — received widespread media attention.

The Police Federation of Australia and NT Police Association have similarly defended the legitimacy of Rolfe’s actions in Walker’s death.

Accountability and justice

From the outset, Warlpiri people in Yuendumu have been strident in their demands for justice for Walker and protections from ongoing police violence. They have also called for police there to be disarmed.

Yuendumu Elder Harry Jakamarra Nelson deplored the recent $7 million spent on the local police station. He also implicated the lasting effects of the Northern Territory Intervention in the oppression of First Nations people by taking power out of the hands of locals.

This policy has contributed to the mass imprisonment of Indigenous people in the NT — described by many as a “gulag” — and the allegations of systemic racism in NT police practices.

Read more: Instead of demonising Black Lives Matter protesters, leaders must act on their calls for racial justice

Yuendumu community members, nonetheless, recognise they have made history as a result of the murder trial.

Ned Jampijinpa Hargraves, a senior Warlpiri man and chairperson of the Warlpiri Parumpurru [Justice] Committee, said the case provides the community with “relief”.

Meanwhile, other families continue their fight for justice. This week, the NSW coroner is hearing arguments about whether a corrective services officer who shot and killed Wiradjuri man Dwayne Johnstone as he tried to escape should be referred for prosecution. Like Walker, Johnstone was killed by an officer who fired three shots at him.

A coronial inquiry is also investigating the death of Anaiwan man Nathan Reynolds from an untreated asthma attack at a Sydney prison in 2018.

And the NSW Parliament has commenced hearings in an inquiry into the high rate of Aboriginal incarceration.

Walker’s cousin, Samara Fernandez, raised concerns earlier this year about the unequal application of the law and the lack of procedural fairness for First Nations people. She said,

You’d think it’s common sense to have a system that works equally for all populations … we want the system to be reinvented in a way that doesn’t have those stereotypes towards our people.

The dignity of procedural fairness and impartiality is the minimum First Nations families should expect when their loved one is taken by the law enforcement system.

– ref. Kumanjayi Walker murder trial will be a first in NT for an Indigenous death in custody. Why has it taken so long? – https://theconversation.com/kumanjayi-walker-murder-trial-will-be-a-first-in-nt-for-an-indigenous-death-in-custody-why-has-it-taken-so-long-148922