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

The Australian government has registered “serious concerns” with Qatar about an incident in which female passengers, including Australians, were taken off a flight bound for Australia and subjected to an invasive search.

The incident happened at Hamad international airport in Doha earlier this month after a fetus was discovered in an airport bathroom.

The story was broken by the Seven Network, which reported that “women at the airport, including thirteen Australians, were removed from flights, detained and forced to undergo an inspection in an ambulance on the tarmac.”

According to the report, Qatari authorities forced the women to remove their underwear.

A foreign affairs spokesperson said on Sunday: “The Australian government is aware of concerning reports regarding the treatment of female passengers, including Australian citizens, at Doha (Hamad) airport in Qatar.

“We have formally registered our serious concerns regarding the incident with Qatari authorities and have been assured that detailed and transparent information on the event will be provided soon.”

The matter is being handled by Foreign Minister Marise Payne.

– ref. Australia expresses ‘serious concerns’ about invasive searches of women at Doha airport – https://theconversation.com/australia-expresses-serious-concerns-about-invasive-searches-of-women-at-doha-airport-148784

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

The Morrison government and business have reacted angrily to Daniel Andrews’ “cautious pause” on announcing the easing of COVID restrictions in Melbourne, suggesting it showed the state government lacked faith in its contact tracing.

The delay of the announcement – which Andrews said would only be for a day or two – follows an outbreak in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. Andrews insisted the pause would not stop things opening on or before November 1, as scheduled.

After talking up expectations of a major announcement, the premier hosed them down on Saturday before declaring on Sunday a hold until at least 1,000 test results from the northern metropolitan outbreak were processed.

The federal government said the pause was “a profound disappointment.”

“At some point, you have to move forward and put your public health systems to work in a bid to reclaim the jobs that have been lost, and rescue the livelihoods and peace of mind of so many Victorians who have been affected by the inability to contain the outbreak that lead to the second Victorian wave,” Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, and Health Minister Greg Hunt said in a statement.

“Victoria’s public health systems are either up to the task of dealing with future outbreaks or they are not. The decision to keep businesses closed suggests that there is still not sufficient confidence within the government that their systems can support reopening.”

Andrews’ delay brought a sharp reaction from his former Health Minister Jenny Mikakos, who tweeted:

“The set reopening is gradual & safe so any delay is unnecessary. It’s paralysis in decision-making.”

The Australian Industry Group said the state government’s failure to set out guidelines for Melbourne’s reopening was “yet another hammer blow to business confidence”.

“The decision reflects a clear lack of confidence by the government in its own testing and tracing systems,” Ai Group chief executive, Innes Willox, said.

The Business Council of Australia also pointed the finger at Victoria’s health system. “There can only be one explanation for the delays – Victorian authorities do not have confidence in their procedures to manage local outbreaks and we urge them to collaborate with NSW and adopt the NSW system,” BCA chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, said.

The Victorian pause is especially frustrating for the federal government because on Friday all jurisdictions except Western Australia agreed in principle to a new “Framework for National Reopening Australia by Christmas”.

Morrison and his ministers said in their statement that while the federal government “welcomes Victoria’s commitment to the national framework agreed at national cabinet to have Australia open by Christmas, for many Victorian businesses and their workers today’s announcement will mean they will simply not be able to make it”.

The Victorian government delay comes as there were seven new cases reported in the state, six of them linked to cases associated with the northern metropolitan outbreak.

Andrews insisted at his daily press conference the delay in making an announcement was “not a setback”.

“This is not anything other than a cautious pause, to wait to get that important information, to get the results of those tests.”

Andrews said that even if an announcement on easing Melbourne restrictions had been made on Sunday businesses would not have opened before Tuesday night or Wednesday.

The premier did announce some further easing of restrictions for regional Victoria.

– ref. Daniel Andrews’ delay prompts new questions about Victoria’s contact tracing – https://theconversation.com/daniel-andrews-delay-prompts-new-questions-about-victorias-contact-tracing-148783

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

Australia’s leading economists have struggled to grade this month’s budget.

Challenged by the Economic Society of Australia and The Conversation to rate it on a scale of A to F when judged by its stated aims of rebuilding the economy and creating jobs, none of the 43 economists who responded gave it the lowest grades of E or F.

But most who gave it a pass were unhappy.

Financial markets expert Kevin Davis praised “the willingness of a conservative government to adopt needed large deficit spending at variance with its ideology”.

Economic modeller and former Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin said he would give it an A for scale.

But Davis said tax cuts “to the better-off employed” weren’t the best way of achieving desired outcomes, and McKibbin said the composition could have been much better designed.

Read more: It’s not the size of the budget deficit that counts; it’s how you use it

“There was an opportunity to invest in green infrastructure as part of a fiscal response and a climate/energy policy response that would have longer-term economic and environmental payoffs,” McKibbin said.

“For spending support, transfers to low income households rather than income tax cuts would have given a bigger bang for the buck. Greater support of childcare would support incomes and labour supply.”

Bob Breunig said the design of the childcare benefit created a well-documented income cliff for second earners making it difficult for them to work more hours. It was a known problem and would have been easy to fix.

Hard hats instead of soft skills

The Grattan Institute’s Danielle Wood said it was “absolutely the right call to change course on fiscal strategy and recognise the need for sizeable stimulus, so marks for that”.

But the budget “very much bet the house on a private sector-led recovery”.

Where it had spent money directly it mostly went to “hard-hat” professions such as infrastructure, construction, manufacturing, defence, utilities and energy.

Read more: High-viz, narrow vision: the budget overlooks the hardest hit in favour of the hardest hats

“Some of these sectors haven’t even seen job losses during COVID,” Wood said, and there is already a healthy pipeline of work for transport infrastructure projects, so why spend your stimulus dollars here?“

Renee Fry McKibbin noted that the burden of COVID-19 falls on front-line workers in health, caring industries, hospitality, tourism, arts and education, yet she said the budget focused on sectors “traditionally dominated by men”.

Climate change overlooked

Wood said the price of those blindspots would be a weaker recovery than otherwise, unemployment higher for longer than it could have been, and women’s economic disadvantage entrenched.

Labour market specialist Sue Richardson said relying on incentives such as instant asset write-offs and hiring subsidies was risky because the private sector might not respond in the way that had been hoped.

What direct spending there was seemed “intended largely to recreate the economy of the past, rather than invest in the economy of the future”.

Read more: Budget 2020: promising tax breaks, but relying on hope

“The economy of the future will, among other things, need to have much lower greenhouse gas emissions and much greater ability to cope with the unavoidable damage arising from climate change.”

How we handle the recovery will either set us on a path towards net-zero emissions or lock us into a fossil fuel system from which it will be hard to escape.

Saul Eslake gave the government “great credit for being willing, explicitly, to recalibrate its budget strategy” and run up what (for Australia) were large amounts of debt.

On average, a bare pass

But he said the measures chosen would be less effective in delivering jobs and recovery than others available including vouchers for spending in sectors hard-hit sectors and spending on social housing and childcare.

All but one of the 43 economists who responded to the survey also responded to the pre-budget survey which nominated spending on social housing, education and training and permanently boosting JobSeeker as the top budget priorities.

Assessing the budget, 16 of the 43 (37%) awarded it either an A or a B. Almost half (49%) awarded it a C, or “bare pass”. Six (14%) gave it a D.

Some of the economists who awarded a B said it was really a “B-minus”

One of them, Lata Gangadharan, said when it came to opportunities for women (those worst affected by the downturn) the budget “failed miserably” and would attract a D.

James Morley said he might have been “too easy of a marker” by awarding a B, but that it was “possible to lose the forest for the trees when only evaluating the budget on its specifics”.

‘B’ reflects the big picture, not the details

The big picture was that deficit-financed stimulus was needed and that the budget provided much more than might have been expected given the previous positions of the treasury and the Morrison government.

He said the forward guidance that put off “budget repair” until after the unemployment rate fell below 6% was welcome, even if one could ask why the threshold of 6% number had been chosen.

The more one looks at the details, the more one wants to significantly mark down the grade for budget. But I will still give it a “B” because the big picture is on the right track and I will just hope the Treasurer somehow becomes an “A” student in the future.

Rana Roy said he would have to grade the budget a C rather than an A or B, “more in sorrow than in anger”.

While he approved of the deficits and the tax cuts and the focus on infrastructure, he strongly suspected the measures would not be enough.

“For example, in an immediate sense it is likely that the negative impact of tapering and terminating JobKeeper will overpower the positive impact of the new wage subsidies for new hires.”

Read more: Top economists back boosts to JobSeeker and social housing over tax cuts in pre-budget poll

Two of those surveyed awarded the budget a B primarily because it had shown restraint. Tony Makin said two much spending would have pushed up the dollar and drawn resources away from the private sector. Geoffrey Kingston said it was important to avoid “maxing out the national credit card”.

Chris Edmond awarded it a C primarily because its assumptions relied on hope.

By simply assuming a widespread effective vaccine will be available next year and not otherwise thinking hard about how to beat the pandemic, the government is being very optimistic.

Others said it had ignored the one thing recommended by most economists, which was to invest in social housing to make housing affordable and create jobs.

A permanent increase JobSeeker would have given a million Australian confidence in the leadup to Christmas. Higher education, a major export earner with a direct impact on productivity, was being left to shrink.

John Quiggin said the budget pursued “cultural/ideological vendettas against perceived enemies like renewable energy and the university sector”.

But he said it was still worth a C. The government was right to budget for a large deficit, and deserved continuing credit for JobSeeker and JobKeeper.

Individual responses

– ref. ‘Could do better’: Top Australian economists award the budget a cautious pass – https://theconversation.com/could-do-better-top-australian-economists-award-the-budget-a-cautious-pass-148624

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

James Shipton, chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Corporation, has stood aside after an adverse Audit Office report about $118,557 paid by ASIC on his behalf when he relocated from the US.

The Audit Office also found payments of $69,621 for deputy chairman Daniel Crennan, to relocate from Melbourne to Sydney, had not been within the guidelines. He has not stood aside.

ASIC is the national corporate regulator.

Both men said they would repay the money. The funds for Shipton related to taxation advice and support when he relocated to take up his position, while Crennan received payments for housing expenses.

The Audit Office indicated the amounts might exceed the limits set by the Remuneration Tribunal, and pointed to Commonwealth procurement rules not being followed.

The revelations about ASIC come a day after the government forced Australia Post CEO Christine Holgate to stand aside when she revealed four employees had been given Cartier watches worth $3000 each as a reward for their work on a major commercial deal.

Scott Morrison, who on Thursday denounced the Post rewards, said on Friday the government was taking legal advice about whether Holgate should be paid while an inquiry – by public servants with outside assistance – is conducted into the matter. Australia Post is a government-owned business.

Asked on Friday whether a broad inquiry was needed into remuneration and other arrangements for all government appointees, Morrison said: “I think there wouldn’t be a board member of a government agency or a CEO of a government agency that did not get my message yesterday. I think they got it with a rocket. And so, my advice to them is to get it.”

The tax services for Shipton were provided by KPMG and the fees escalated. The Auditor-General said: “The fee increases were described by KPMG as being due to the complexity of the tax affairs being managed”.

After its finding about the ASIC payments the Audit Office recommended

… ASIC review the processes supporting the approval of remuneration and benefits paid to executive office holders, including the trigger points for seeking advice should amounts outside the Renumeration Determination be considered, and

… a review be undertaken of the procurement processes around payments for tax advice paid on behalf of the chair to determine the internal controls that need to be either reinforced or redesigned.

Frydenberg has ordered an independent review of the matter.

In his statement Shipton said: “ASIC acknowledges the processes supporting the approval of these relocation expenses were inadequate and, given the high standard ASIC holds itself to, it is disappointed that such situation has occurred.

“ASIC anticipates the independent review will assist it to make appropriate changes to key policies and processes.

“In the interim ASIC has implemented changes to procedures associated with approval of expenses relating to geographic relocation for statutory appointees to ensure that there is Commission oversight of those expenses and that the arrangements for new statutory appointees are clearly documented prior to them being made.”

The accommodation payments for Crennan were ceased following his request, Shipton said. “He offered and agreed to repay the accommodation payments made to him as a debt due to the Commonwealth.”

Shipton said he had advised Frydenberg that it was appropriate to stand aside while the review was done. “I hold myself to the highest possible standard.”

A deputy chair of ASIC, Karen Chester, will act as chair in the interim.

– ref. ASIC chair James Shipton steps aside after adverse finding by Auditor-General – https://theconversation.com/asic-chair-james-shipton-steps-aside-after-adverse-finding-by-auditor-general-148728

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ketaki Sharma, PhD student, University of Sydney

An ideal COVID-19 vaccine would not only protect people from becoming ill, it would also stop the virus spreading through the population. The best way to do this is to vaccinate as many people as possible.

If the best available vaccine is only moderately protective — for example, if it only prevents 50% of infections — we might need to vaccinate children as well as adults to interrupt the spread.

There is no COVID-19 vaccine being developed specifically for children. So if children are to be vaccinated, they will likely receive the same vaccine as adults. They might require a different dosing schedule, but that is not yet clear.

So what are the issues with developing a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine for children? And where are we up to with clinical trials including them?

Why children?

Children don’t appear to be “super-spreaders” of COVID-19, although they can still be infected. And if infected, they have a lower risk of severe illness or death than adults.

However, some children may have a higher risk of severe illness, such as those with existing medical problems. We are also learning more about a rare but serious inflammatory condition reported in some children after COVID-19 infection.

There is also a broader issue at stake. Delaying children’s access to vaccines could delay our recovery from COVID-19. This would prolong the pandemic’s considerable impact on children’s education, health and emotional well-being.

Read more: Rare multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children linked to coronavirus

Would children react differently to a vaccine?

The way a child’s immune system reacts to pathogens or vaccines can be different to adults. Age can determine the number of required doses. For example, infants sometimes require more doses of a vaccine than older children.

Age can also influence the side-effect profile of a vaccine. For example, mild fever following vaccination can be common in babies and young children.

So vaccine developers need to include children in their clinical trials so they can gather age-specific information on the immune response, the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing disease, and any side-effects.

Are COVID-19 vaccines already being tested in children?

Vaccine trials are usually done in stages. They typically start with healthy, young and middle-aged adults.

Once a vaccine is confirmed to be safe in these earlier trials, developers then test the vaccine in older and younger age groups.

Several COVID-19 vaccine developers already have plans to include children in their clinical trials.

University of Oxford researchers will recruit children aged 5-12 into a phase 2/3 trial of its vaccine. This is one of the vaccines for which the Australian government has a supply agreement, should clinical trials prove successful.

Read more: Putting our money on two COVID vaccines is better than one: why Australia’s latest vaccine deal makes sense

Pfizer will enrol children aged 12 and older in a phase 2/3 trial of its vaccine. Multiple developers in China and in India are also including children in COVID-19 vaccine trials, some as young as six.

All of these trials are ongoing and have not released results.

Read more: From adenoviruses to RNA: the pros and cons of different COVID vaccine technologies

How could we get more children included in trials?

We need more children included in clinical trials, an issue recognised globally. For instance, the US Food and Drug Administration announced it will work as quickly as possible with vaccine developers to set up trials for COVID-19 vaccines in children.

The US National Institutes of Health is developing a protocol for researchers to include children in vaccine trials in a safe but timely way.

Having a universal protocol, which we don’t yet have for COVID-19 vaccine trials, would make it easier for researchers to include children in future trials, and to compare different vaccines.

There are no protocols yet including children in COVID-19 vaccine trials run in Australia. Any Australian studies would only likely examine the immune response and safety in children (phase 1 and 2 trials). They would probably not examine effectiveness (phase 3 trials) because of the low rates of COVID-19 here.

Read more: How researchers assess whether medications work

Before any child is enrolled in a trial their parent or guardian will be asked to read an information sheet that explains the risks and benefits of taking part. Safety data from earlier trials in adults would need to be included in child-specific information sheets, so parents are aware of the known risks before they decide to enrol their child.

In Australia, it may be a challenge to enrol children in COVID-19 vaccine trials, as the disease burden is low compared with other countries, so parents may not want their child to take part.

However, it is important we learn as much as we can about how COVID-19 vaccines perform in children, and participating in such research helps us gather this valuable information.

How is vaccine safety assessed?

Vaccine trials are closely supervised by an independent data and safety monitoring board, who follow strict protocols and have the authority to pause a trial if there are safety issues.

Australia also has strict guidelines for the registration of vaccines. A vaccine will only be licensed if its safety has been demonstrated in large studies, usually including many thousands of people. Usually, vaccines are registered according to the age groups in which trials have been done.

Even after a vaccine is licensed in Australia, its safety continues to be monitored. A doctor, patient or parent can report side-effects to the authorities.

Read more: Halting the Oxford vaccine trial doesn’t mean it’s not safe – it shows they’re following the right process

Alternatively, researchers can more actively engage with the public to monitor side-effects, such as with the AusVaxSafety system.

In this system, when a GP gives someone a vaccine, that person receives a text message three days later to ask about side-effects and to complete a survey on their smart phone or computer. This is “real time”, important safety data.

We already use this system to monitor the safety of each year’s flu vaccines and will potentially use it when COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out into the community.

In a nutshell

Although there has been extraordinary progress in COVID-19 vaccine trials, only some vaccine developers have taken steps to recruit children so far. That needs to change if we are to protect children and the wider community. So we need protocols that make it easier for researchers to recruit children into COVID-19 vaccine trials.

As early data in adults accumulates, providing information to parents — and where age-appropriate, their children — to consent to their child participating in trials has a lot of benefits. It will also ultimately help us in the race to end this pandemic.

– ref. Children may need to be vaccinated against COVID-19 too. Here’s what we need to consider – https://theconversation.com/children-may-need-to-be-vaccinated-against-covid-19-too-heres-what-we-need-to-consider-146404

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Georgakis, Senior Lecturer of Pedagogy and Sports Studies, University of Sydney

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruptions to all major sports in Australia, but perhaps the most fascinating — and unlikely — change is the playing of the AFL grand final in Brisbane.

When most Australians think of sports preferences by state, AFL naturally comes out on top in Victoria, while rugby union is thought of as a Queensland and NSW game.

But Australian rules football was actually played first in Queensland — and it was only a quirk of history, as well as an enduring love of the British empire, that caused Queenslanders to eventually switch allegiances.

Sports in the early colonial days

Unlike many countries, Australia supports four major football codes (Australian rules, rugby union, rugby league and soccer). The story of how these four sports developed here goes back to the pre-Federation days.

After the British began colonising Australia, sports were one of the most important ways for early settlers to replicate British culture. It was a demonstration of British nationalism and loyalty to the home country.

The first sports in Australia included horse racing and cricket, but were soon followed by others, such as coursing (hunting with dogs) and bowling.

The other popular British sport at the time was football. But unlike other sports, there were various forms of football played in the home country. This was particularly evident in the British private boys’ schools, where football was played according to the respective schools’ rules.

Read more: Indigenous players didn’t invent Australian rules but did make it their own

Two distinct forms of football ultimately emerged in England — what we now call soccer and rugby union. This history has been very contentious and still provides some very passionate debate.

As Britain began colonising various parts of the world, rugby union emerged as the dominant football sport, not soccer. That is, the elite sanctioned rugby union as the imperial football code.

This legacy can be felt today as New Zealand, South Africa and Australia are the dominant rugby union countries, while in the former colonies of countries like Spain, Portugal and France, soccer is the sport of choice.

A simpler, safer and more attractive game

In the late 1850s, momentum grew in Melbourne to establish football clubs and play matches. The only problem was rugby union and soccer had not yet been codified — that is, there was no accepted set of rules.

So, the early settlers in Melbourne attempted to establish their own rules for “football”, creating what they believed would be an easily understood, safe and attractive game. It took some time to get right.

In the first trial of the new rules in 1859, for example, no goals were kicked due to the wind and the closeness of the goal posts. According to a report from the time,

Some little unpleasantness was occasioned owing to the vague wording of the rule which makes ‘tripping’ an institution, and after the match a meeting of the committee was held, at which most of the existing rules underwent revision, and some new ones were added.

From the very beginning, Australian rules football developed as its own thing. The members of the Melbourne Cricket Club who established the rules were free to experiment as they liked to produce a game they believed would grow in popularity.

The rest is history. Australian rules football soon became the dominant code in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia.

A battle between football codes in Queensland

Queensland became an independent colony late in comparison to the others. And in 1866, the first Brisbane Football Club was formed, adopting the Melbourne rules of the game.

For the next decade, Australian rules was the official football code in Queensland, though the Brisbane Football Club also dabbled in some rugby union games.

When it became clear rugby union was becoming the dominant football code across the British empire, however, there was a concerted push in Queensland to change to rugby union. And in 1876, the various Brisbane football clubs switched allegiances, though this wasn’t without controversy.

Read more: The AFL has moved the grand final from Melbourne for the first time – but it has a far more pressing issue

For several years, supporters and clubs were torn between the two games. It’s clear from media reports that Australian rules had some advantages: the game was more enjoyable to play and watch, easier to understand, and safer.

Rugby union promoters, meanwhile, had difficulty translating their rules into practice, leading to confusion. As one rugby union detractor said in the Brisbane Courier in 1876,

there is too much holding of the ball and disputing about ‘on’ and ‘off’ side. This is not football at all, and for this reason these rules were discarded by Melbournians, and new ones, far better, substituted. The rugby union code contain fifty-seven rules, which the Melbourne rules are only fifteen.

But rugby union was the game preferred by the elites; it was the British game. So, rugby union ultimately prevailed in Queensland (as well as NSW) from around 1880.

AFL push into rugby union country

This divided football landscape changed very little throughout the 20th centuries. But as the codes have become more commercialised in recent years, the AFL in particular has made efforts to expand its reach beyond Victoria and reach new players and spectators in NSW and Queensland.

This process began with the expansion of the VFL/AFL, beginning in the 1980s. But more significantly, there has also been growth at the grassroots level among both adults and children, men and women.

This year, the pandemic provided the AFL with a great opportunity to make even further inroads into the rugby-playing states. Not only did Brisbane host matches when Victoria went into lockdown, but spectators started watching in greater numbers, too.

The opening match of the finals series earlier this month between Port Adelaide and Geelong saw huge increases in Sydney (up 259% over the 2019 week one final) and Brisbane (up 112% over 2019).

Read more: With the debut of GWS, Aussie Rules comes home to Sydney

And the qualifying final between Brisbane and Richmond attracted nearly 150,000 viewers in Brisbane — more than the NRL qualifying final the same night.

AFL chief executive Gil McLachlan even went as far as to say,

I’m not saying we’re the number one sport here in Queensland, but it’s certainly nice to be in the conversation. Right now, it feels like it’s close to being Queensland’s game.

If these spectator numbers are any indication, Australian rules football is coming back to Queensland. And it might not be leaving like it did in the early 1880s.

– ref. The Gabba Grand Final: how Queensland fell in love with Australian Rules football again – https://theconversation.com/the-gabba-grand-final-how-queensland-fell-in-love-with-australian-rules-football-again-148344

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Finch, Adjunct Research Fellow, University of Southern Queensland

Imagine visiting the Europe of 2048. The cities are strangely silent. Desperate communities in Paris, London and Berlin struggle in the shadow of hollowed-out buildings. The once-popular coastal resorts have also been abandoned, as rises in sea level have taken their toll.

Heading out to rural areas, you find where the fortunate few have gone: shining citadels, high-tech gated communities designed to protect residents from the ravages of climate change and ongoing pandemics.

That doesn’t mean life in 2048 is always grim. The world is gearing up for the 39th Summer Olympics, to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The greatest athletes will be attending, but also thinkers, artists and heroes nominated from around the globe for their work fighting the climate crisis.

Europeans, Americans and Australians are hoping for a great medal haul, but this year, as in most others, the country expected to dominate is China, the world’s leader in the fight to survive climate change.

Is this the future we face? Even if it isn’t, what can imagined scenarios like this teach us about the challenges we face in the present?

Read more: There are many good ideas to tackle inequality – it’s time we acted on them

Identifying inequality blindspots

Researchers from 13 countries are currently thinking about such questions as part of the IMAJINE project, funded by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 programme. IMAJINE’s aim is to explore inequality and injustice across the European Union’s member states.

Inequality isn’t just the gaps between the haves and have-nots in the present. As the world changes and societies evolve, different forms of unfairness can arise.

Read more: Inequality in the OECD is at a record high – and society is suffering as a result

COVID-19 has fuelled uncertainty and, as both the pandemic and our response to it have reshaped societies, made these issues more urgent. We need to anticipate new and emerging forms of inequality and injustice — and understand how we can counter them.

To do this, IMAJINE uses scenario planning, a tool for envisioning different future worlds.

Scenarios aren’t predictions; they are valuable even if they never come to pass. The aim of the four visions we’ve created isn’t to forecast what will certainly happen, but to find our blindspots when it comes to planning for the future of inequality.

A future of digital citizenship or five-person marriages

In our first scenario, outlined above, we picture a world in which cities are abandoned and today’s rural backwaters become the most desirable places to live.

The fight against climate change is a global priority and next-generation clean manufacturing technology is expanding rapidly. Inequality here is based on who has the means to protect themselves from the changing climate.

Read more: We live in a world of upheaval. So why aren’t today’s protests leading to revolutions?

Another scenario explores a world in which citizenship is entirely digital. It becomes so removed from your place of residence that you might be a European citizen online, even though you physically live in Australia.

The haves and have-nots in this future aren’t defined by where they call home, but where they’re allowed to work, play and gather in virtual space. Advanced technology lets the privileged explore, enjoy and profit from these digital environments, while the less fortunate are locked out.

Yet another scenario explores a breakdown of trust driven by “fake news”, which leads to a fragmentation of cultures and values.

In that future, some parts of Europe celebrate five-person marriages, while others double down on traditional values. Where you live might hold you back from exploring your identity — or create new opportunities to define and celebrate who you are.

Learning from imagined futures

Each of these scenarios shows how inequality isn’t just a question of how wide the gap is between the haves and have-nots. It’s also about the changing ways we understand injustice.

The IMAJINE team are inviting stakeholders to explore these worlds and consider how they relate to social challenges in the present. We want to inspire fresh solutions, not impose our own.

Policy decisions are still often based solely on the numbers: what policies cost, who and how many people benefit. Yet changing social and cultural values also steer people’s perceptions of what is fair and acceptable, beyond the numbers.

The scenarios we’ve created test our sense of what matters when the world changes. They provide a stage on which to play out new ways of thinking when it comes to policy ideas. They help us devise policies that are broadly accepted and can be adapted to local needs.

These imagined futures may never happen, but they might keep us from sleepwalking into new kinds of inequality and prepare us for whatever shocks our world will inevitably encounter.

– ref. Climate-protected citadels, virtual worlds only for the privileged: is this the future of inequality? – https://theconversation.com/climate-protected-citadels-virtual-worlds-only-for-the-privileged-is-this-the-future-of-inequality-146680

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

This week the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a lawsuit accusing Google of using “anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets” for search and advertising.

It is the most significant antitrust case since the US government took on Microsoft in 1998 for using its dominant position as the provider of the Windows operating system to force PC makers to bundle its Internet Explorer web browser.

That case was fought out in US courts for years before Microsoft agreed to settle in 2001. This case will no doubt be heavily litigated, and likewise take years to conclude. But it’s not too soon to consider the basic economics.

The bottom line is more complicated than one might think. Yes, Google has a huge share of the search-engine market – 92% globally according to statcounter.com, compared with 2.8% for Microsoft’s Bing, 1.6% for Yahoo! and 0.5% for DuckDuckGo.

But does that give Google a lot of “market power” – the ability to charge high price or produce low-quality products? Probably not.

To judge if a company like Google is really a monopolist, it is crucial to understand the difference between ordinary markets (like those for clothes, cars, or breakfast cereal) and technology markets (like those for internet search, social media, or ride sharing).

Read more: The US is taking on Google in a huge antitrust case. It could change the face of online search

Markets with ‘network externalities’

Any introductory economics textbook will tell you a large market share is smoking-gun evidence of market power; and that with market power comes the ability to shut out competitors, charge high prices and even get away with producing low-quality products.

Economists of all stripes agree that regulating monopolies and making markets more competitive benefits consumers, through lower prices and better products.

Indeed, this was the motivation behind the so-called “trust-busting” movement in the US in the early 20th century. The most famous scalp was John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, which the US Supreme Court ordered in 1911 be broken up into 34 separate companies. (The break-up made Rockefeller the world’s richest man).

But internet search isn’t like oil. Neither is social media, ride sharing or platforms like Amazon. These are what economists call “markets with network externalities”. That is, when more consumers use the product, it becomes more valuable for other consumers.

Read more: Lawmakers keen to break up ‘big tech’ like Amazon and Google need to realize the world has changed a lot since Microsoft and Standard Oil

Facebook is useful because it connects one with lots of other users. A thousand little, disconnected social media platforms would be much less useful. Amazon connects lots of sellers with million of consumers. This is hugely valuable for both. Google connects lots of consumers with advertisers and information. Again, this is valuable to both sides of the market.

Because network externalities mean — all else being equal — the bigger the market share the more valuable the company’s product is to consumers, we tend to see one dominant company and a few smaller ones in such markets.

Just because tech companies have a big share of the market now, however, doesn’t mean they are destined to keep it.

Remember Netscape? In the mid-1990s it had a 80% share in the browser market, before losing it to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.

But Internet Explorer’s dominance, peaking at 95% share in the early 2000s, didn’t last either. It now claims barely 1% of the browser market.

This is why companies in markets with network externalities are never asleep. Uber and Facebook are constantly running experiments to innovate their products, as are other companies like Amazon and, you guessed it, Google.

Influencers and defaults

An important part of the Department of Justice’s suit against Google is that it allegedly pays Apple as much as US$11 billion a year to be the default search engine on the Safari browser on every iPhone.

This is a bit like paying for a social media influencer to plug your product — with a twist. Making something the default doesn’t mean the user has to use it, but the small effort to choose an alternative means most don’t bother.

But if it really wasn’t a good product and didn’t deliver good search results, wouldn’t consumers (a) remove it and (b) be less likely to buy iPhones?

There’s a big difference between something being a default and there being no choice. Articulating this difference may end up being an important part of how the Google litigation plays out.

Indeed, Microsoft making Internet Explorer the default browser in Windows has been an ongoing source of back and forth with US and European competition authorities.

Read more: Twitter is banning political ads – but the real battle for democracy is with Facebook and Google

Ultimately misguided

As with the suits against Standard Oil and Microsoft, the case against Google will be decided by the courts, perhaps ending with the US Supreme Court. The outcome will be instructive as to whether other tech companies like Amazon, Facebook or Uber will also wind up in the firing line.

Ironically, at a time of extreme polarisation in US politics, breaking up big tech companies is popular on the left and the right.

But we should remember that consumers are huge beneficiaries from these tech companies. Think about how much it used to cost to take and print photographs. A 2018 International Monetary Fund report cites research suggesting US consumers would need more than US$25,000 a year to compensate for the loss of free services from tech companies.

That’s a lot.

What is crucial for competition regulators around the world to note is that the markets in which big technology companies operate are not like other markets. Because of network externalities they tend to have big “in” firms (with a large market share) and smaller “out” firms (with small market shares but providing competitive discipline).

That doesn’t mean these markets aren’t competitive. It means the “in” companies have a lot to lose by being leapfrogged by a small competitor. Which is why they work so hard to innovate and keep prices low.

– ref. Vital Signs: Google’s huge market share doesn’t automatically make it a monopoly – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-googles-huge-market-share-doesnt-automatically-make-it-a-monopoly-148525

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angelique Chan, Executive Director of the Centre for Ageing Research & Education, Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore

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

Unlike in Western countries like Australia, traditional Asian cultures place a heavy emphasis on filial piety — the expectation children will support their parents in old age.

Historically, filial piety played an important role when families were large, pension schemes unavailable and life expectancy was around 50 years old.

Today, however, families in east and southeast Asia are much smaller, divorce rates and rates of non-marriage are increasing, and fewer adult children are living with their parents. These demographic shifts are nowhere more apparent than in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.

Also, people are living much longer. By 2030, the UN estimates 60% of the world’s older population (60+) will reside in Asia.

Families can only do so much

In the midst of these demographic and cultural changes, Asian governments continue to promote the idea families should be primarily responsible for the care of older family members.

But for many adult children, the pressures to fulfil the demands of filial piety are immense. Those who are unable to provide care because of work demands or their own family responsibilities often find it emotionally difficult to put their parents or grandparents in institutional care.

Read more: Aged care failures show how little we value older people – and those who care for them

Research has shown even hiring a live-in domestic worker is associated with negative self-esteem among adult children. Care-giving for older parents can therefore become a harrowing journey requiring time, money and in-depth knowledge of the health and social care systems.

Because of these challenges — as well as the rapidly ageing populations in many Asian countries — we are being forced to think creatively about how to improve community care for older people who don’t have around-the-clock family support.

Asian countries are at the forefront of this research out of necessity. But many of these strategies can easily transfer to other parts of the world — and in some cases already are — despite any cultural differences that may exist.

Why integrated care is the way forward

The average Singaporean born in 2020 can expect to live 84.7 years, the fifth-longest life expectancy in the world. By 2030, approximately one-quarter of the population will be aged 65 and above.

At present, the mandatory retirement age in Singapore is 62. The old-age dependency ratio — the number of working-age people available to support one older person — has decreased from 13 in 1970 to four in 2020.

Read more: At the heart of the broken model for funding aged care is broken trust. Here’s how to fix it

This is why the Singaporean government has made it a priority to come up with new solutions for aged care.

One solution is the provision of integrated care.

Like many developed economies, aged care in Singapore has become increasingly fragmented. Today, an older person typically has specialists for each organ and may visit a general practitioner, a doctor in a polyclinic, a hospital or a traditional healer over the course of a year. None of these health records are integrated.

Thus, older people are seen as a sum of parts — and this not only affects the efficacy of their care, but also their quality of life.

The World Health Organisation has recognised the limitations of this kind of fragmented care and last year launched the Integrated Care for Older People framework for countries dealing with rapidly ageing populations. This framework promotes people-centred and integrated health services for older persons via a seamless network of families, communities and health care institutions.

In its ideal form, integrated care allows older people to “age in place”, that is in their own homes. Older people can have their health and social care needs satisfied without having to be institutionalised, which decreases the need for government spending on institutional aged care.

Previous research has shown older adults who “age in place” are happier and have a higher quality of life than those in institutions.

In order to achieve an integrated care system, there has to be an alignment of goals across players in the health and social care systems.

In Singapore, this ethos has taken hold in the last decade. In 2015, the government established an Agency for Integrated Care (AIC), which acts as a central repository of information for older adults and provides them with referrals and placements with health and social services.

For example, older people can be accompanied by their caregivers to the AIC to obtain referrals for dementia day care or rehabilitation services if they have injured themselves, returning to their homes in the evenings.

The idea is to provide older people with the medical and social support when they need it, but not to take them out of their communities.

Bringing nurses to residents in their communities

At the same time, community health and social care services are being ramped up and new models of care are being tested in order to achieve a truly integrated care system.

One example of a new model of care that is being piloted is a program called Care Close to Home (C2H). In this model, a registered nurse and at least five nursing assistants are situated in communities and provide health and social care to residents living in the area during weekdays.

Residents are encouraged to seek help from the C2H team if, for example, they have an asthma attack or a non-serious fall. In most cases, the nurse can manage the situation.

Again, the goal of this system is to manage people’s health and social care needs at home to reduce frequent hospitalisations and entry into nursing homes.

The importance of these kinds of community health and social care services is recognised at the government level in other countries, too.

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

China, for example, is currently experimenting with different models of community health services to achieve an integrated care system. Japan has invested heavily in the training of geriatricians and the development of community care services.

In the next decade, the models of health and social care for older adults must be re-imagined like this to support ageing populations.

Integrated care is the way forward — this is the best solution for maintaining a high quality of life among older adults. We can no longer rely on the family as the primary support system for older adults.

– ref. Asian countries do aged care differently. Here’s what we can learn from them – https://theconversation.com/asian-countries-do-aged-care-differently-heres-what-we-can-learn-from-them-148089

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

Spring and summer in Australia and the gradual easing of restrictions means we can expect weddings, with more guests, back on the calendar.

However, any wedding you plan or attend will be quite different to one held before COVID-19.

The rules around how many wedding guests are allowed change over time, and differ by state and territory. You can find the most up-to-date advice for your jurisdiction by following the links in this guide.

Besides following restrictions on how many people can attend, if you’re planning a wedding, there’s lots you can do to minimise the risk of coronavirus spread on the big day.

Why can pandemic weddings be risky?

We know COVID-19 is spread by close contact with an infected person, contact with droplets from coughs or sneezes (larger droplets or tiny aerosolised ones), or touching surfaces the droplets have contaminated.

We also know of particular COVID-19 outbreaks associated with weddings. Why? Because weddings tick all the boxes that make certain events especially risky for transmission. Weddings usually involve:

• large numbers of people, close together

• people congregating for a long time

• poor ventilation, if inside

• aerobic activity, if dancing

• lots of singing or loud voices

• alcohol (meaning potentially less COVID-safe behaviour)

• sharing objects, food or drink.

So to reduce the risk during the pandemic, couples and guests need to consider these issues.

Read more: Coronavirus restrictions in your state

What to think about when planning

1. Smaller is better

The number of guests that can attend varies depending on where you live, the size of the venue, and whether the wedding is inside or outside.

But even if you’re allowed 100 guests or more, generally speaking, the fewer the better to reduce your risk of transmission.

2. Outside is better

The best venue will be outdoors — open air, natural ventilation and lots of space. That’s because the risk of transmission indoors is around 18 times higher than outdoors.

If you choose an inside venue, ask about ventilation, because poor ventilation and crowding can increase the risk of transmission.

Read more: 7 questions answered on how to socialise safely as coronavirus restrictions ease

3. Keep it short

Instead of the usual ceremony followed by a reception that goes late into the night, keep it short. For example, a ten-minute service followed by an hour or two of celebration.

We know the risk of COVID-19 spread is related to length of exposure, so the shorter the time spent in close contact — particularly in confined spaces — the lower the risk.

4. Plan for physical distancing

If there’s a sit-down meal, use only every second seat. So a table that normally sits ten will only accommodate five.

Place markings on the floor to indicate an appropriate distance to stand apart. And encourage guests to avoid congregating around entrances, exits, toilets and bars.

5. Tell everyone the rules

With every invitation, include this brief list of rules, so everybody knows what to expect:

• please social distance by 1.5m, including when dancing

• regularly use hand sanitiser available throughout the venue

• use the COVIDSafe app

• stay home if you are unwell (including the bridal party).

That last one is particularly important. If guests feel unwell (even with mild, flu-like symptoms), they must not attend.

And if you are unwell, cancel. We know it’s hard to cancel an event you’ve been looking forward to, but this important message remains the same. If you have any symptoms, stay at home and get tested at the earliest opportunity.

6. Ditch the vigorous dancing

Skip the loud music and vigorous dancing. This only invites close contact combined with aerobic activity and loud vocalisation. You don’t want to turn this into a gym class because they too have been associated with outbreaks.

Read more: We’re more likely to let our COVID-19 guard down around those we love most

7. Watch the alcohol

Consider limiting the amount of alcohol served. Rather than the traditional endless supply of beer and wine, consider one or two classy cocktails per guest.

The shorter duration of the celebration should also reduce the likelihood of poor decision-making that comes with drinking too much.

8. Tag everyone’s glass

Place an easily identifiable tag on each glass so there’s no confusion about which one belongs to whom. That way you minimise the chance of people drinking from someone else’s and transferring the virus via contaminated glasses.

And on the day, raise your glasses rather than clinking them.

9. No buffet

Don’t share food or utensils. That means no buffets or serveries. Engage some wait staff to serve the food instead.

It’s a good idea to ensure your venue has a COVID-safe plan. This will guide the processes waiters and other staff serving your guests will follow.

10. Provide hand sanitiser

Put hand-sanitiser dispensers on every table, and at entrances and exits, at a minimum, and encourage your guests to use it.

How to be a COVID-safe wedding guest

If you’re lucky enough to be one of the select folks invited to the wedding, you have a responsibility to keep yourself and others safe.

Frequently use the hand sanitiser provided, or stay away altogether if you’re sick.

Follow the guidelines for your jurisdiction regarding mask use.

Read more: Nice to meet you, now back off! How to socially distance without seeming rude

Don’t rush up to others expecting warm hugs and kisses. Respectfully keep your distance, and encourage others to do the same.

And don’t kiss the bride — unless you’re the one who has just married her.

A wedding during this pandemic will be different, but still fun. Remember, at the end of the day, the happy couple will still end up being married, which is what it’s all about, right?

– ref. Set ground rules and keep it intimate: 10 tips for hosting a COVID-safe wedding – https://theconversation.com/set-ground-rules-and-keep-it-intimate-10-tips-for-hosting-a-covid-safe-wedding-140940

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Derrett, Professor, University of Otago

New Zealand’s public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic may be the envy of the world, but as the new government looks ahead, potentially with a more progressive lens, it will have to face several challenges in the health sector.

New Zealand is recognised internationally for having a good health system. Unlike citizens of some other high-income countries, all New Zealanders have, in principle at least, access to free secondary health care.

But inequality is a major issue, leading to shortened average life expectancy and more health problems for Māori, Pasifika communities and New Zealanders living with disabilities.

People also cite cost as a barrier to accessing health services and there are stark regional differences in service (in access, provision and outcome) and in support for those experiencing major illness, such as cancer, compared to those with major injury.

Improving health outcomes for all

Among the first non-COVID-19 health challenges for the government will be to decide whether to implement any recommendations from the recent Health and Disability System review, commissioned by the previous Labour-NZ First coalition government.

The first requirement for the review panel was to “recommend how the system could be designed to achieve better health and well-being outcomes for all” — and it highlighted addressing equity. The panel recommended adequate funding and an increased focus on public health as important steps towards achieving equity.

Achieving more equitable outcomes for Pasifika communities, people living in poverty or with disabilities and other marginalised groups is crucial. But the first priority should be to honour the Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) by embedding genuine partnerships with Māori at all levels of our health system.

Read more: Two inquiries find unfair treatment and healthcare for Māori. This is how we fix it

Some health organisations have deliberately appointed Māori health leaders to executive levels to advance equity for Māori. But genuine partnership must ensure many Māori voices are at the table, and heard — from local health committees to boards and executive leadership teams throughout the health system.

Consultation can not be the end point of equity partnerships. They must move to financial and decision-making empowerment. Most of the review panel, as well as the Māori advisory group, recommended a proposed Māori Health Authority, which should:

commission health services … for Māori using an indigenous-driven model within the proposed system to achieve equity.

The government must look closely at this as well as the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Health Services and Outcomes Inquiry to support Māori aspirations for tino rangatiratanga (self-governance) and mana motuhake (autonomy, independence).

The government also needs to explicitly address racism in the health system, which underlies health inequities.

Read more: Māori and Pasifika leaders report racism in government health advisory groups

Cost barriers and regional differences

Another challenge will be to get the balance right between regional and central decision-making.

New Zealand has a small and geographically dispersed population, and currently, more than three-quarters of public health funds go to 20 regional district health boards. These regional authorities plan, buy and provide health services within their respective areas.

The Health and Disability System review proposed a new agency, Health NZ, which would be separate from the Ministry of Health and responsible for leading health service delivery, with fewer district health boards. If Health NZ is established, its mandate could include reducing regional differences in access to, and quality of, care.

The current health funding also creates barriers to accessing primary care services. For many people, the cost of seeing a GP or after-hours service is too high, and these barriers fall unfairly.

Past governments have taken steps to increase the eligible age for free youth primary care services. GP visits are currently free for children under 14 — an improvement on the earlier age limit of six. These are positive steps and could be expanded to include all youth and marginalised groups.

Public versus private healthcare

New Zealand’s health care is a dual system of public and private provision.

People who can’t afford health insurance or private health care sometimes face long waiting times for surgery and other hospital services. The new government could improve access by learning from initiatives in other countries, including a recent high-profile judgement in British Columbia, Canada, which argued health care should be guided by medically necessary care, not the ability to pay.

New Zealand also has a strong and unique system of universal no-fault accident compensation. It looks after injured New Zealanders, from injury to rehabilitation, including salary support.

But people affected by illness have fewer services and only very limited means-tested financial support options available to them. The inequities arising from this include the obvious differences in financial and rehabilitation support, but also fewer people of working age with an illness returning to paid employment.

Read more: New Zealand’s ‘catch up, patch up’ health budget misses the chance for a national overhaul

Building on Labour Party history

In 1935, in a landslide, Michael Joseph Savage led the Labour Party to its first electoral victory. His government had a clear mandate and went on to establish New Zealand’s universal health-care system in 1938.

Jacinda Ardern’s leadership has shown we can act decisively in the face of a pandemic with, so far, relatively equitable health outcomes (although a Pasifika leader and two Māori men died in the August outbreak in Auckland).

The new Labour government could use its mandate to implement changes to health services with the explicit goal of realising health equity. Opportunities for this exist in genuine partnership with Māori at all levels of the health system and mandatory anti-racist systems and processes.

Further goals should include reducing regional variation, continuing to remove cost barriers and, finally, realising Justice Sir Owen Woodhouse’s 1967 vision of a united no-fault system of support for all New Zealanders in need, regardless of whether they have experienced major illness or injury.

– ref. Why equal health access and outcomes should be a priority for Ardern’s new government – https://theconversation.com/why-equal-health-access-and-outcomes-should-be-a-priority-for-arderns-new-government-148421

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tilman Ruff, Associate Professor, Education and Learning Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne

The Japanese government recently announced plans to release into the sea more than 1 million tonnes of radioactive water from the severely damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

The move has sparked global outrage, including from UN Special Rapporteur Baskut Tuncak who recently wrote,

I urge the Japanese government to think twice about its legacy: as a true champion of human rights and the environment, or not.

Alongside our Nobel Peace Prize-winning work promoting nuclear disarmament, we have worked for decades to minimise the health harms of nuclear technology, including site visits to Fukushima since 2011. We’ve concluded Japan’s plan is unsafe, and not based on evidence.

Japan isn’t the only country with a nuclear waste problem. The Australian government wants to send nuclear waste to a site in regional South Australia — a risky plan that has been widely criticised.

Contaminated water in leaking tanks

In 2011, a massive earthquake and tsunami resulted in the meltdown of four large nuclear reactors, and extensive damage to the reactor containment structures and the buildings which house them.

Water must be poured on top of the damaged reactors to keep them cool, but in the process, it becomes highly contaminated. Every day, 170 tonnes of highly contaminated water are added to storage on site.

As of last month, this totalled 1.23 million tonnes. Currently, this water is stored in more than 1,000 tanks, many hastily and poorly constructed, with a history of leaks.

How does radiation harm marine life?

If radioactive material leaks into the sea, ocean currents can disperse it widely. The radioactivity from Fukushima has already caused widespread contamination of fish caught off the coast, and was even detected in tuna caught off California.

Read more: Four things you didn’t know about nuclear waste

Ionising radiation harms all organisms, causing genetic damage, developmental abnormalities, tumours and reduced fertility and fitness. For tens of kilometres along the coast from the damaged nuclear plant, the diversity and number of organisms have been depleted.

Of particular concern are long-lived radioisotopes (unstable chemical elements) and those which concentrate up the food chain, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90. This can lead to fish being thousands of times more radioactive than the water they swim in.

Failing attempts to de-contaminate the water

In recent years, a water purification system — known as advanced liquid processing — has been used to treat the contaminated water accumulating in Fukushima to try to reduce the 62 most important contaminating radioisotopes.

But it hasn’t been very effective. To date, 72% of the treated water exceeds the regulatory standards. Some treated water has been shown to be almost 20,000 times higher than what’s allowed.

Read more: The cherry trees of Fukushima

One important radioisotope not removed in this process is tritium — a radioactive form of hydrogen with a half-life of 12.3 years. This means it takes 12.3 years for half of the radioisotope to decay.

Tritium is a carcinogenic byproduct of nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants, and is routinely released both into the water and air.

The Japanese government and the reactor operator plan to meet regulatory limits for tritium by diluting contaminated water. But this does not reduce the overall amount of radioactivity released into the environment.

How should the water be stored?

The Japanese Citizens Commission for Nuclear Energy is an independent organisation of engineers and researchers. It says once water is treated to reduce all significant isotopes other than tritium, it should be stored in 10,000-tonne tanks on land.

If the water was stored for 120 years, tritium levels would decay to less than 1,000th of the starting amount, and levels of other radioisotopes would also reduce. This is a relatively short and manageable period of time, in terms of nuclear waste.

Then, the water could be safely released into the ocean.

Nuclear waste storage in Australia

Australians currently face our own nuclear waste problems, stemming from our nuclear reactors and rapidly expanding nuclear medicine export business, which produces radioisotopes for medical diagnosis, some treatments, scientific and industrial purposes.

Read more: Australia should explore nuclear waste before we try domestic nuclear power

This is what happens at our national nuclear facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The vast majority of Australia’s nuclear waste is stored on-site in a dedicated facility, managed by those with the best expertise, and monitored 24/7 by the Australian Federal Police.

But the Australian government plans to change this. It wants to transport and temporarily store nuclear waste at a facility at Kimba, in regional South Australia, for an indeterminate period. We believe the Kimba plan involves unnecessary multiple handling, and shifts the nuclear waste problem onto future generations.

The proposed storage facilities in Kimba are less safe than disposal, and this plan is well below world’s best practice.

The infrastructure, staff and expertise to manage and monitor radioactive materials in Lucas Heights were developed over decades, with all the resources and emergency services of Australia’s largest city. These capacities cannot be quickly or easily replicated in the remote rural location of Kimba. What’s more, transporting the waste raises the risk of theft and accident.

And in recent months, the CEO of regulator ARPANSA told a senate inquiry there is capacity to store nuclear waste at Lucas Heights for several more decades. This means there’s ample time to properly plan final disposal of the waste.

The legislation before the Senate will deny interested parties the right to judicial review. The plan also disregards unanimous opposition by Barngarla Traditional Owners.

Read more: Uranium mines harm Indigenous people – so why have we approved a new one?

The Conversation contacted Minister for Resources Keith Pitt who insisted the Kimba site will consolidate waste from more than 100 places into a “safe, purpose-built, state-of-the-art facility”. He said a separate, permanent disposal facility will be established for intermediate level waste in a few decades’ time.

Pitt said the government continues to seek involvement of Traditional Owners. He also said the Kimba community voted in favour of the plan. However, the voting process was criticised on a number of grounds, including that it excluded landowners living relatively close to the site, and entirely excluded Barngarla people.

Kicking the can down the road

Both Australia and Japan should look to nations such as Finland, which deals with nuclear waste more responsibly and has studied potential sites for decades. It plans to spend 3.5 billion euros (A$5.8 billion) on a deep geological disposal site.

Read more: Risks, ethics and consent: Australia shouldn’t become the world’s nuclear wasteland

Intermediate level nuclear waste like that planned to be moved to Kimba contains extremely hazardous materials that must be strictly isolated from people and the environment for at least 10,000 years.

We should take the time needed for an open, inclusive and evidence-based planning process, rather than a quick fix that avoidably contaminates our shared environment and creates more problems than it solves.

It only kicks the can down the road for future generations, and does not constitute responsible radioactive waste management.

– ref. Japan plans to dump a million tonnes of radioactive water into the Pacific. But Australia has nuclear waste problems, too – https://theconversation.com/japan-plans-to-dump-a-million-tonnes-of-radioactive-water-into-the-pacific-but-australia-has-nuclear-waste-problems-too-148337

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

This week the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) filed a lawsuit accusing Google of using “anticompetitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in the markets” for search and advertising.

It is the most significant antitrust case since the US government took on Microsoft in 1998 for using its dominant position as the provider of the Windows operating system to force PC makers to bundle its Internet Explorer web browser.

That case was fought out in US courts for years before Microsoft agreed to settle in 2001. This case will no doubt be heavily litigated, and likewise take years to conclude. But it’s not too soon to consider the basic economics.

The bottom line is more complicated than one might think. Yes, Google has a huge share of the search-engine market – 92% globally according to statcounter.com, compared with 2.8% for Microsoft’s Bing, 1.6% for Yahoo! and 0.5% for DuckDuckGo.

But does that give Google a lot of “market power” – the ability to charge high price or produce low-quality products? Probably not.

To judge if a company like Google is really a monopolist, it is crucial to understand the difference between ordinary markets (like those for clothes, cars, or breakfast cereal) and technology markets (like those for internet search, social media, or ride sharing).

Read more: The US is taking on Google in a huge antitrust case. It could change the face of online search

Markets with ‘network externalities’

Any introductory economics textbook will tell you a large market share is smoking-gun evidence of market power; and that with market power comes the ability to shut out competitors, charge high prices and even get away with producing low-quality products.

Economists of all stripes agree that regulating monopolies and making markets more competitive benefits consumers, through lower prices and better products.

Indeed, this was the motivation behind the so-called “trust-busting” movement in the US in the early 20th century. The most famous scalp was John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, which the US Supreme Court ordered in 1911 be broken up into 34 separate companies. (The break-up made Rockefeller the world’s richest man).

But internet search isn’t like oil. Neither is social media, ride sharing or platforms like Amazon. These are what economists call “markets with network externalities”. That is, when more consumers use the product, it becomes more valuable for other consumers.

Read more: Lawmakers keen to break up ‘big tech’ like Amazon and Google need to realize the world has changed a lot since Microsoft and Standard Oil

Facebook is useful because it connects one with lots of other users. A thousand little, disconnected social media platforms would be much less useful. Amazon connects lots of sellers with million of consumers. This is hugely valuable for both. Google connects lots of consumers with advertisers and information. Again, this is valuable to both sides of the market.

Because network externalities mean — all else being equal — the bigger the market share the more valuable the company’s product is to consumers, we tend to see one dominant company and a few smaller ones in such markets.

Just because tech companies have a big share of the market now, however, doesn’t mean they are destined to keep it.

Remember Netscape? In the mid-1990s it had a 80% share in the browser market, before losing it to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.

But Internet Explorer’s dominance, peaking at 95% share in the early 2000s, didn’t last either. It now claims barely 1% of the browser market.

This is why companies in markets with network externalities are never asleep. Uber and Facebook are constantly running experiments to innovate their products, as are other companies like Amazon and, you guessed it, Google.

Influencers and defaults

An important part of the Department of Justice’s suit against Google is that it allegedly pays Apple as much as US$11 billion a year to be the default search engine on the Safari browser on every iPhone.

This is a bit like paying for a social media influencer to plug your product — with a twist. Making something the default doesn’t mean the user has to use it, but the small effort to choose an alternative means most don’t bother.

But if it really wasn’t a good product and didn’t deliver good search results, wouldn’t consumers (a) remove it and (b) be less likely to buy iPhones?

There’s a big difference between something being a default and there being no choice. Articulating this difference may end up being an important part of how the Google litigation plays out.

Indeed, Microsoft making Internet Explorer the default browser in Windows has been an ongoing source of back and forth with US and European competition authorities.

Read more: Twitter is banning political ads – but the real battle for democracy is with Facebook and Google

Ultimately misguided

As with the suits against Standard Oil and Microsoft, the case against Google will be decided by the courts, perhaps ending with the US Supreme Court. The outcome will be instructive as to whether other tech companies like Amazon, Facebook or Uber will also wind up in the firing line.

Ironically, at a time of extreme polarisation in US politics, breaking up big tech companies is popular on the left and the right.

But we should remember that consumers are huge beneficiaries from these tech companies. Think about how much it used to cost to take and print photographs. A 2018 International Monetary Fund report cites research suggesting US consumers would need more than US$25,000 a year to compensate for the loss of free services from tech companies.

That’s a lot.

What is crucial for competition regulators around the world to note is that the markets in which big technology companies operate are not like other markets. Because of network externalities they tend to have big “in” firms (with a large market share) and smaller “out” firms (with small market shares but providing competitive discipline).

That doesn’t mean these markets aren’t competitive. It means the “in” companies have a lot to lose by being leapfrogged by a small competitor. Which is why they work so hard to innovate and keep prices low.

– ref. Google’s huge market share doesn’t automatically make it a monopoly – https://theconversation.com/googles-huge-market-share-doesnt-automatically-make-it-a-monopoly-148525

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Professor of Architecture, University of Adelaide

Let’s talk about “city deals”. The Australian government is.

Its department of infrastructure website describes them as “a genuine partnership between the three levels of government and the community to work towards a shared vision for productive and liveable cities”.

The idea comes from the UK. There they award extra funding and special decision-making powers to local authorities who can demonstrate they will use them to boost economic growth.

So far Australia has had eight city deals, in Townsville, Launceston, western Sydney, Darwin, Hobart, Geelong, Adelaide, Perth and southeast Queensland.

This announcement about the western Sydney deal from federal urban infrastructure minister Alan Tudge and NSW minister Stuart Ayres is typical:

The Western Sydney Aerotropolis and Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport will attract infrastructure, investment and skilled jobs, and the benefits will flow into health and education, retail, hospitality and industrial activities that will power the region.

It’s one of 22 such announcements about the Western Sydney deal in the past two years.

The deal no vice-chancellor can refuse

Whatever their merits as a tool for planning, city deals are useful for making announcements about jobs, and also for spending money in electorates in which the government takes a special interest.

In western Sydney, four universities – one of them the University of Newcastle, which is hundreds of kilometres away – are being funded to develop a “Aerotropolis Multiversity”.

Read more: City Deals: nine reasons this imported model of urban development demands due diligence

City deal funding is funding no university can resist, in part because it is now about the only way they can get money from the federal government for buildings.

The new Perth city deal requires Edith Cowan University to relocate to the central business district to “kickstart major projects in the city centre”.

It comes at an eye-watering cost of A$695 million. The university has to find $300 million. The federal government will provide $245 million.

The Western Australian government might come out ahead. It will contribute a $50 million CBD site it has had problems selling and take possession of the university’s Mt Lawley campus, just 5 kilometres north of the CDB, which it can use to expand the adjacent high school and sell what’s left for medium-density housing.

It has promised to use the proceeds to “underwrite” $100 million of the university’s costs, although whether this will be a loan or a grant is not clear.

Instead of being in a spacious campus that needs some renovation, 10,000 students will be in a vertical city building of the kind the University of Technology Sydney no longer uses for teaching, because of the difficulty of moving students between floors.

City buildings from Perth to Launceston

The first city deal was in Launceston. This involves moving part of the University of Tasmania’s campus from the suburb of Newnham to Inveresk, a site 5 km closer to the centre of Launceston.

It has many similarities to the Perth city deal, not the least being the university will have to do most of the heavy lifting, including bearing the risk of cost overruns.

There are rosy projections that the new site will attract more students, including internationals, but they run counter to the experience of the university’s School of Architecture and Design, which has experienced a catastrophic decline in enrolments despite being at Inveresk for many years.

In another part of the “Northern Transformation” project, the University of Tasmania is moving its Burnie operation from a 25-year-old campus at Mooreville Road 2 km to a new $85 million campus at West Park.

All up, the Northern Transformation project will cost the University of Tasmania more than $300 million, which at the moment it does not have.

Darwin is getting yet another CBD campus

A similar story is playing out in Darwin, where a new CBD campus for Charles Darwin University is being delivered 14 km from its main campus at Casuarina.

There the aim is to create an iconic building “that links city-based elements of CDU to each other and to various parts of the city, and offers the potential to reimagine the CBD with the university at its heart”.

What’s odd is that Charles Darwin University already has a CBD campus, organised in a deal with a local developer. It hasn’t met its student growth targets, mainly because it lacks the things needed to attract students, including a decent library, cheap places to eat and affordable accommodation.

The new CBD campus will be better than that, but the vastly more efficient option of simply redeveloping the main Casuarina campus and dumping the failed existing city campus wasn’t on the table.

While the Darwin CBD campus will generate jobs during construction, and the territory government will be overjoyed to be getting some cranes back on the Darwin skyline, the benefit for the university is harder to identify.

Funding ought to be needs-based

I am not against funding university redevelopments, far from it. Many of Australia’s university buildings are old and in need of updating.

The University of Tasmania, Charles Darwin University, Edith Cowan University and Western Sydney University, among others, enrol less of the international students that have allowed other universities to fund the maintenance and redevelopment of their buildings. Charles Darwin University and the University of Tasmania are the only universities in their states.

But the City Deal process is forcing universities to move into CBDs to get funds, whether it makes sense or not.

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

Evidence suggests that CBD campuses are a fad, not a solution. Campuses in tall buildings cost about twice as much per delivered square metre as low to medium rise sites and CBD buildings lack the long-term development flexibility of a campus.

Most importantly, undergraduate students don’t much like them. They lack parking spaces, they often lack child-care facilities, students are forced to cram into lifts to move between classes, and they are not near cheap accommodation.

Students prefer space to height

The campuses popular with students around the world tend to be about 5-10 km from a CBD and have 5,000 to 20,000 students, with a high proportion living on campus.

Bond, the University of New England and Griffith University are good Australian examples. Leiden, Bath, Lancaster and Stanford are overseas examples.

It is sometimes said CBDs attract students, particularly international students, but most of Australia’s biggest and most successful universities are located in the city fringe or the suburbs.

Read more: 3 ways the coronavirus outbreak will affect international students and how unis can help

Few successful research universities are located in the centre of cities. Of the top 100 research universities in the world, as measured by the Academic Ranking of World Universities, only a handful are in CBDs, and usually only because the CBD engulfed them.

The best research comes out of large campuses, rather than single buildings.

The best-value university projects ought to be the ones that get funded rather than those that have the side benefit of allowing politicians to (repeatedly) claim they are “revitalising” cities.

But that would require paying attention to universities for their own sake, something the government appears reluctant to do.

– ref. A fad, not a solution: ‘city deals’ are pushing universities into high-rise buildings – https://theconversation.com/a-fad-not-a-solution-city-deals-are-pushing-universities-into-high-rise-buildings-147560

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Douglas, Professor, Flinders University

When a young celebrity writes a memoir or has a biography written about them, a common response is: they are too young. This child or adolescent cannot possibly have lived enough of a life, or have a useful perspective. Their story cannot be instructive enough to be valuable to others.

This point of view reveals the weight of expectation around public life storytelling. We too often dismiss the valuable contribution children make to politics and culture.

This week sees the release of the biographical film I Am Greta, directed by Nathan Grossman. The film follows Thunberg across 2018 and 2019, as she became known to the world. It reflects a close collaboration between Grossman and Thunberg, and the access he had to her life during this time.

I Am Greta has inevitably raised some eyebrows. Thunberg always does. Critics have suggested that we do not get to know the real Greta; Grossman keeps too much distance; he does not adequately delve into Thunberg’s childhood or family to explain the origins of her activism.

Such critiques reflect a rather narrow perspective on how biographical storytelling works. I Am Greta, like many contemporary life stories, does not conform to the “great man” model for biography, where history was thought to be understood through the life of men with political or colonial achievements. As new biographical subjects are chosen, so are new ways of telling their stories.

In choosing not to centre on Thunberg’s family and early life, I Am Greta defies genre expectations. The film centres on Thunberg’s voice, illuminating her words and her image at a particular moment in history. The focus is not on who inspired Thunberg to acquire knowledge, but how she — a young activist — developed these interests independently.

A rich history

Children and young people have been engaging in life storytelling for centuries. We just haven’t been paying enough attention. As Anna Poletti and I found in our research, there are many examples through history of young women writing politically-engaged autobiography.

Young English housemaid Elizabeth Parker embroidered her life story of cruelty and abuse in a cross-stitch sampler in 1830. This was the only way she could tell it.

Ukrainian-French diarist Marie Bashkirtseff wrote in her diary every day from age 14 until her death from tuberculosis at 25 in 1884. Hers was an ambitious social commentary on middle-class life.

Anne Frank’s Holocaust diary was the precursor for Riverbend who blogged the Iraq war. Both Malala Yousafzai in Pakistan and Bana Alabed in Syria have been compared to Anne Frank with their diaristic recounts of war.

When we give attention to young people’s stories, it shows respect for their lives. Children are not just adults-in-waiting: their experiences and voices are significant in themselves and worthy of our attention.

Reading young people’s stories recognises their citizenship and the vital role children play in the political world.

‘A spokeschild’

In I Am Greta, we meet Greta on the steps of Swedish parliament, complete with the now famous homemade sign, protesting global warming. She is a lone figure, but not for long.

In this opening scene, Thunberg’s words are juxtaposed with those of adults. We hear the voices of politicians; of adults passing by who ask her what she is doing and why she isn’t in school. These moments signal the film’s focus: the contrast between Thunberg’s voice and those of the adults who condescend or criticise her.

Read more: Misogyny, male rage and the words men use to describe Greta Thunberg

I Am Greta asks us to think differently — not just about Thunberg, but about children’s voices more generally. Thunberg’s father, Svante, speculates that due to her photographic memory, Greta likely knows more about climate change than 97% of politicians. Such knowledge is possible.

Those who doubt Thunberg’s authority to speak on these issues most commonly argue because of her age, she cannot possibly be educated enough on these issues. Other critics suggest she is her parents’ puppet. She is often criticised for being an instrument of left-wing media.

Similar accusations have been made about other young female activists like Yousafzai, Emma González, Isadora Faber, and Bana Alabed.

When Yousafzai rose to prominence, critics referred to her as “the darling of Western media”, and “a tool for political propaganda”. Like Thunberg, her activism was assumed to be advancing her father’s politics and career.

Activists like Yousafzai and Thunberg are symbolic of rebellion, reconciliation and the complex spaces in between. Neither Yousafzai nor Thunberg ever intended their stories to become “master narratives”. Their activism is not an attempt to dilute the experiences or stories of other children, quite the opposite. Both have centred their careers on making connections with other young activists across the globe.

Read more: Why Malala matters: the Taliban’s war on women continues

Young activists find themselves at the coalface of difficult histories and debates. They are writers and public speakers. But they are also children who become a consistent focus for the media. This media is not always kind.

The criticisms levelled at young activists reveal the mixed feelings society has around children’s voices and their capacity to act meaningfully when it comes to social change. Why does it come as such a surprise that children can hold knowledge and perspectives that are culturally and politically valuable?

As Thunberg speculates, international leaders talk a good talk when it comes to being inspired by her. They invite her to their castles and palaces, sites representing the kind of opulence and over-consumption Thunberg denounces.

They profess a commitment to change, but the change never comes. Thunberg understands her position as symbolic of the future, as a “spokeschild” who helps leaders improve their own appearance.

Condescending adults

I Am Greta shows multiple incidents where powerful adults are condescending, awkward or dismissive of Thunberg. Donald Trump and Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro are amongst the more vehement critics of Thunberg, but there are many others.

And there are others again who damn Thunberg with faint praise. The French President Emmanuel Macron, in patronising tone, asks, “You read a lot on climate?”

She meets Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose presence pales in light of Thunberg’s. She speaks intelligently at length, but Schwarzenegger simply repeats her final statement — “we need to join the dots” — as if lost for words.

Delegates at the 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference where Thunberg offered a powerful oration, seem adolescent in their desire to take selfies with Thunberg. There is nothing subtle in the film’s approach to this role reversal.

Read more: ‘We will never forgive you’: youth is not wasted on the young who fight for climate justice

Thunberg convincingly argues she has little choice but to speak publicly. She equips herself with sophisticated knowledge and trusts science.

She speaks readily about climate change because leaders do not.

An early telling

In I Am Greta, handheld camera shots bring us intimately into Thunberg’s life. We see her alone, reflecting; starting small, thinking big.

Being in the public eye triggers her anxiety, but so did her knowledge of climate change — when she first learnt of the enormous problems the world was facing, she could not eat, sleep, and would not even talk.

We see her sensitivity and quirky vulnerability. Thunberg argues that being on the autism spectrum allows her to “see through the static” and acquire deep knowledge quickly and astutely.

Perhaps it is confronting for some to imagine it is a young, neurodiverse woman who can show us the way to a better future.

I Am Greta represents an early version of Thunberg’s life story. Thunberg herself has readily circulated parts of her story through social media. There have been a plethora of literary and media representations of her. There is a biographical picture book. There will be more to come. This is not unusual now.

I am Greta reveals how young people’s stories and perspectives might be received generously and potently to promote change.

I Am Greta is in cinemas now and will stream on DocPlay from November 14.

– ref. Friday essay: why we need children’s life stories like I Am Greta – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-why-we-need-childrens-life-stories-like-i-am-greta-148178

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

The government can act super-fast on integrity issues when it wants.

On Thursday a Senate estimates committee was told the government-owned Australia Post bought Cartier watches worth $3,000 each for four senior employees as rewards.

Scott Morrison said he was “appalled” – immediately the government ordered Post’s CEO Christine Holgate to stand aside (or quit entirely if she preferred) and launched an inquiry, which will report to cabinet.

But when it comes to structural reform to improve integrity, the pace has been snail’s, the slowness justified by COVID.

On any reasonable timetable parliament would be voting about now to set up a national integrity commission.

Instead, draft legislation sits in the files of Attorney-General Christian Porter. In Senate estimates this week it was confirmed he’s had it since December last year.

The government was not inclined to conduct the necessary detailed consultations during the pandemic, Porter told parliament. Morrison said he wasn’t having a single public servant diverted from COVID.

Now COVID is more or less under control, and Morrison this week indicated to the Coalition parties he intends to run full term – that is, into early 2022.

So he has all next year to get this commission legislated and ready to start, assuming he really wants to.

He’d prefer not to be going down this path. The Coalition has been cornered by the politics into committing to a commission. Even Labor, which has become a passionate advocate, didn’t see the need for a federal body until recent years.

The New South Wales’s ICAC hearings about disgraced former state Liberal MP Daryl Maguire and premier Gladys Berejiklian have reignited the debate about integrity and a federal body.

More directly, a recent report from the federal Auditor-General exposed that the Commonwealth paid $30 million for a parcel of land, later valued at only $3 million, near Badgerys Creek, site for Sydney’s second airport.

The sale, now being investigated by the police, didn’t reach ministerial level.

But the other major scandal uncovered by the Audit Office this year had a minister at its core. “Sports rorts” claimed the scalp of Nationals’ Bridget McKenzie, though Morrison forced her out on a technicality and never admitted the political rorting.

Issues of accountability and transparency tend to be “nerdy” except when they break into spectacular headlines. But they’re at the heart of achieving good government.

Ministerial standards in practice vary from time to time but federally they’re lower than they used to be (for example in periods of the Fraser and Hawke governments and the first days of the Howard government). The inclination of governments is to hang onto ministers, however compromised. McKenzie was only chopped when it was politically impossible to sustain her.

The top of the public service has also become increasingly politicised, reducing the checks in the system. On the other hand, Senate estimates hearings have proved themselves invaluable forums to mine information that’s embarrassing or worse, as we saw again this week.

Though the government says it is committed to an integrity commission, it has blunted its proposed teeth, so far as they would apply to politicians, their staff and public servants.

The commission would have a law enforcement division and a public sector division – the latter (which we are concerned with here) covering federal parliamentarians, staffers and bureaucrats.

While Porter says its powers would be “greater than a royal commission” the hearings in this division would be in secret. Those who favour secrecy argue it is necessary to avoid the “kangaroo court” aspect of ICAC; others believe open hearings are in the public interest and the threat of them can be a deterrent.

Crossbenchers have been strong proponents of integrity measures.

On Monday Helen Haines, independent member for Indi, will introduce her private member’s bill for an integrity body; she describes it as “a consensus bill with strong safeguards”.

Senate independent Rex Patrick (formerly of Centre Alliance) says the pandemic is no excuse for the government failing to table its draft legislation immediately.

“They haven’t progressed it fast enough”, he says. “Their heart isn’t in it. They are trying to hide behind COVID.”

Patrick believes the commission should be able to hold open hearings at the discretion of the commissioner. But, he says, a threshold should be met before people’s names become public.

If anyone needed evidence of the Morrison’s government’s lack of enthusiasm for scrutiny bodies, they’ve only to consider the treatment of the Audit Office in this month’s budget.

The office unsuccessfully sought $6.3 million extra funding for 2020-21. Its finances are complicated – the best measure of what is happening to it is actually how much work it can do.

Its target is 48 performance audits a year. Auditor General Grant Hehir told Senate estimates: “We are forecasting that in 2020-21 we will produce 42 audits, falling to 40 in the following year, and then, by 2022-23, down to 38”.

In what might be less-than-welcome news for the government, Hehir noted in the Office’s annual report that its program in the longer term “will need to address the delivery of the intended outcomes of the COVID-19 response, including at a macro level, and we will plan for audits of recovery programs”.

Given the Coalition’s attacks on Labor’s programs responding to the global financial crisis, it will be interesting to see how its programs fare under forensic scrutiny.

Labor’s Julian Hill, deputy chair of the parliamentary joint standing committee of public accounts and audit, accuses both that committee (which receives the Office’s draft budget estimates) and Morrison of failing to stand up for the Office.

He claims the government has cut the Office’s funds in “revenge” for it exposing sports rorts, the Badgerys Creek land deal and defence spending blowouts.

Hill proposes changes to strengthen the independence of the Auditor-General – who is already an “officer of the parliament” but sits within the Prime Minister’s department administratively and has to look to the PM to support budget pitches.

The Audit Office deserves a big shout-out this year. But it can’t fill the gap that exists because of the absence of an integrity commission.

Surely the government can only dally on that for so long, shielded by COVID.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Morrison’s promised integrity commission can’t hide behind COVID much longer – can it? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-morrisons-promised-integrity-commission-cant-hide-behind-covid-much-longer-can-it-148636

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Elms, Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology

What’s the difference between an independent and non-independent director?

This question lies at the heart of the scandal embroiling Crown Resorts, Australia’s largest gaming company, which owns casinos in Melbourne and Perth, and is seeking a licence to run a third in Sydney.

The inquiry into the company’s suitability to hold that licence by New South Wales’ Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority’s has revealed abject board failures, including failing to prevent its casinos being used for money laundering.

As the Australian Financial Review has editorialised, the inquiry has revealed “a litany of extraordinary events, remarkable management failures, a bullying culture and an appalling lack of corporate governance.”

At Crown Resort’s annual general meeting today, shareholders expressed their displeasure with 34% of votes cast rejecting Crown’s remuneration report. Any vote of more than 25% represents a “first strike”. A second strike could require a spill of the entire 11-member board.

There were also significant votes against the reappointment of individual board members. Two directors were saved only by the votes of major shareholder James Packer, who holds a 36% share of the company.

Read more: Experienced shareholders better than independent directors for business

But that’s a big part of the problem – how much the board has been in the pocket of Packer, who quit as the board’s executive chairman in 2018.

In particular the inquiry has raised questions about four of Crown Resorts’ six “independent directors”, meant to ensure the company is run in the interests of all shareholders, not just major shareholders.

Committed to Packer’s interests

At the top of the list of cosy personal relationships is that between Packer and Andrew Demetriou, the former boss of the Australian Football League who Packer invited to join the board as an independent director in 2014.

Independent directors, as the name suggests, are expected to have no personal or economic ties with the company, its management or major shareholders.

But the inquiry heard how Demetriou pushed for less focus on complying with gambling regulations and more on increasing profits. In December 2018 he emailed Packer about compliance and regulatory issues taking up “time, resources, costs and focus of management”.

He went on: “We exist to win; I asked management and the board to come back in the new year and turn our minds to strategies to grow revenue.”

In a 2019 email he assured Packer of his commitment “to serving the best interests of Crown, and most importantly you”.

Read more: Independent isn’t necessarily better. Why appointing independent directors can achieve little

Not that independent

Demetriou’s relationship with Packer appears indicative of the relationship between the entire board of Crown Resorts and its major shareholder.

Since 2016, for example, Crown has provided Packer and his private company CPH Holdings confidential information not available to other investors. This arrangement was terminated the day before the annual general meeting.

Technically six of the 11 directors on the Crown Resorts board are independent, in line with the Australian Stock Exchange’s corporate governance principles.

This includes Helen Coonan, a former federal minister in the Howard goverment, appointed board chair in January; former Australian chief medical officer John Horvath; former senior federal public servant Jane Halton; former Aristocrat Leisure executive Antonia Korsanos; and advertising guru Harold Mitchell.

Yet the NSW inquiry also heard evidence of Packer’s personal ties to Horvath, once the doctor of Packer’s father Kerry, and Mitchell, given a “no-strings-attached” $1.9 million loan by Kerry Packer in the 1990s. It also heard Korsanos should not have been categorised as an independent director, given poker machine maker Aristocrat’s business contracts with Crown.

The rule, not the exception

My research into boardroom dynamics suggests cosy boardroom relationships are the rule, rather than the exception.

As part of my research I’ve interviewed more than 30 directors from for-profit, not-for-profit and government organisations. Those interviews confirm how important personal connections are in getting appointed to a board. Close friendships between senior executive and board members were not infrequent.

For example, one experienced director on the board of a public company described the intertwined relationship between the chair and chief executive. This included the chief executive renting his home from the chair and employing the chair’s former personal assistant. The problem, as the director told me, was “people didn’t know it”.

Misleading shareholders

This research – and the Crown Resorts saga – highlights a significant problem with corporate governance disclosures.

Independence on paper does not always translate to independence in decision-making. Boards are meant to assess and review the independence of directors. But while formal relationships are considered, friendship ties and social connections are typically ignored, despite the obvious conflict. And social connections among the corporate elite abound.

Read more: Company boards are stacked with friends of friends so how can we expect change?

This potentially misleads shareholders looking for independence as an indicator of good governance.

Minority shareholders without inside knowledge of a company’s decision-making rely on independent directors in particular to ask the hard questions and keep management accountable. In the absence of any clarity around a director’s true independence, shareholders are left guessing who is looking out for them and who has other loyalties.

Coonan has promised more “independence of thought” in the boardroom.

But as long as it remains at the board’s discretion to review and determine director independence, shareholders need to be aware that what they see may not be what they get.

– ref. Gaming the board: Crown Resorts shows you just can’t bet on ‘independent’ directors – https://theconversation.com/gaming-the-board-crown-resorts-shows-you-just-cant-bet-on-independent-directors-148522

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Bartlett, Associate Lecturer Pharmacy Practice, University of Sydney

Electronic prescriptions (or e-prescriptions) are being rolled out in stages across Australia after being used in Victoria during the pandemic.

E-prescriptions have been common in countries such as the United States and Sweden for more than ten years. In Australia, a fully electronic paperless system has been planned for some time.

Since the arrival of COVID-19, and a surge in the uptake of telehealth, the advantages of e-prescriptions have become compelling.

So what are they? How does it all work? And is this the end of paper prescriptions?

How do e-prescriptions work?

Now, most doctors use a function in a patient’s electronic medical records to print out their prescription in the surgery. Patients then take it to the pharmacy for dispensing. The pharmacy needs to store this paper prescription for two years.

However, with e-prescribing, doctors can use their medical software package to write and transmit that prescription as a “token” to the patient’s phone. This can be as an SMS or email, containing a QR code.

Patients are then free to choose which pharmacy to take the token to for dispensing. They can present their phone to be scanned, or forward the SMS or email to the pharmacy.

The pharmacy imports the code into its dispensing program, unlocks the prescription, checks it, and dispenses the medication.

If patients accidentally delete the email or SMS, they will have to contact their doctor to have their token cancelled and reissued. This is not that different to someone losing a paper prescription.

Although e-prescribing has been used during telehealth consultations in Victoria, for instance, it can also be used during a normal face-to-face consultation, once it rolls out in your area.

What are the benefits of going paperless?

Telehealth initially involved a lot of extra paperwork. Doctors would fax or email a prescription to a particular pharmacy for the script to be dispensed, then medication was delivered to patients at home.

The pharmacy needed to wait for the doctor’s surgery to mail the paper prescription, or had to collect it from the doctor’s surgery. It also had to store the prescription for two years after dispensing.

Read more: Video and phone consultations only scratch the surface of what telehealth has to offer

However, regulations have now changed to legalise e-prescriptions with no need for paper.

This allows an efficient, contactless system for distributing medication, improving pharmacy workflows, and removing storage requirements.

For patients, it means not having to worry about paper copies, and offers the convenience of being able to send a code to the pharmacy of their choice.

Is it accurate? Does it save time?

When researchers evaluated other benefits of e-prescriptions, they had mixed results.

A review of 19 studies showed e-prescriptions may be clearer or more complete than paper handwritten prescriptions, reducing the need for pharmacists to contact doctors to clarify their instructions.

Another advantage is that e-prescriptions for addictive drugs, such as opioids, do not need doctors to write any details by hand (as is currently required for paper scripts for drugs of addiction).

However, e-prescriptions may not reduce the time it takes to process the prescription, as new errors may be introduced.

For instance, a Swedish study compared the number of times pharmacists had to contact the doctor to clarify information from new e-prescriptions, compared with computer-generated or faxed prescriptions.

The study found e-prescriptions were nearly eight times more likely to have issues about the dosage or how to take the medication. The authors believed this may be due to some electronic systems misinterpreting common shorthand doctors use (for example, lt3d for “one tablet three times daily”).

Is this the end of paper scripts?

About 10% of Australians do not have a smart phone. So paper prescriptions are still available and you can choose a paper one if you prefer or you don’t feel comfortable using the technology.

Some patients might find it a bit fiddly handling multiple e-prescriptions for multiple medications. At present, individual prescriptions are sent as separate emails or SMS messages and patients need some familiarity with searching their device to retrieve the right one.

However, in the near future, you will be able to store all of your current prescriptions electronically in an “Active Script list”. This will allow a patient to have all their medications in one file and choose to give a doctor or pharmacist access to either add more prescriptions or dispense medication. Once this is in place, using an app to aggregate all this information may make this more usable.

Until then, some patients with multiple medications might prefer to stick with keeping their paper prescriptions together in a folder as it helps them keep their current medication list up to date.

How about privacy and security?

When it comes to their health data, people are often understandably concerned about privacy and security.

The Australian Digital Health Agency, the federal agency that oversees e-prescriptions, requires providers to conform to rigorous standards when managing sensitive data.

E-prescriptions must meet the legal privacy requirements in Australia’s Privacy Act 1988 and eAuthentication framework.

Read more: Instant prescriptions might be the way of our digital future, but we need to manage the risks first

Countries that have had e-prescriptions for some time, such as Greece, have explored the issues around privacy. Australia, being much later to adopt e-prescriptions, has had the opportunity to address these concerns as part of the implementation process.

And a review comparing digital security of e-prescription systems in eight countries showed Australia (with the US) had the highest level of digital security.

– ref. E-prescriptions are coming. But what are they? And is this the end of paper ones? – https://theconversation.com/e-prescriptions-are-coming-but-what-are-they-and-is-this-the-end-of-paper-ones-148526

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Vilkins, PhD candidate, Australian National University

In April, as the coronavirus pandemic was gathering force around the world, reporters asked Brendan Murphy, then Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, about international case numbers. In his answer, he made an interesting comment:

The only numbers I have total faith in are the Australian numbers.

“Faith” might seem an odd word to use about about official statistics. But in our research, which involves talking to statisticians, public servants and journalists who produce and communicate the statistics that govern our lives, people say overwhelmingly that faith and trust are essential parts of what makes statistics useful.

Despite the objective and impartial appearance of statistics, it is a web of people and human processes that makes them trustworthy.

When trust falters

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us the importance of numbers we can rely on. In many cases, early problems in data management have been indicators of bigger problems to come.

In the United Kingdom, a lack of local case data was hindering public efforts as early as June. By October, it emerged that some 16,000 cases had been lost from national reporting due to sloppy data management.

In Australia, the quality of COVID-19 responses in different states has broadly reflected existing perceptions of the quality of each state’s published data.

New South Wales was celebrated early on by data scientists for its responsiveness and transparency in data management, long before Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s September comment that the state’s contact tracing was the “gold standard”.

Meanwhile, inconsistencies in Victoria’s data management — such as irregular definitions of “local” and “community” transmission, and confusion over the definition of “routine testing” — were rankling data scientists back in June, before the state’s mystery cases blew up into a second wave.

Governing by numbers

Public statistics play a huge role in our lives. Political staffers we have interviewed in our research explained how the “mere presence of any kind of numbers” seems to make people more trusting of any claim.

Enthusiasm for decisions made “on data” often relies on the image of statistics having what philosophers call “mechanical objectivity”. By this logic, statistical results are essentially produced by machines or mechanical processes, so decisions based on data can be routine, apolitical, unbiased and incontestable.

But talking to the people behind our national numbers reveals how official statistics are in fact the product of expertise, immense resources, personal judgement calls, and trust.

Analysts we spoke to described official statistics as “icebergs” concealing vast tangles of sources and stories. Statisticians often used words like “instinct” and “vibe” in explaining how they check data sources and rely on long-term relationships to gather figures. One public servant summed up the situation neatly:

A lot of personal relationships are stringing together government statistical work.

The process of transforming real life into tables of data takes expert human intervention at every stage. These interventions can result in vastly different answers to the same initial questions. As the answers often form the bedrock of public decision-making, it becomes crucial we can trust the people who make the decisions behind the scenes.

“Total faith” in Australian numbers

When the Statistical Society of London was founded in 1834, discussion of interpretation or “opinion” was banned at its meetings. Modern statisticians have a much greater understanding of the importance of how people feel about data: the theme of this year’s World Statistics Day was “Connecting the world with data we can trust”.

But trusting “data” buries the work of the people who create statistics. In practice, they are the ones we are trusting.

Read more: Statistics is more than a numbers game – it underpins all sciences

In Australia, at least, we trust them a lot. Murphy’s “total faith” in “Australian numbers” is reflected in a 2020 survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which found 85% of the general community trust ABS statistics. The figure is even higher among “informed users”: a near-unanimous 99%.

Our communal faith in the numbers produced by the ABS reflects a web of trust and relationships built over decades.

Why trust matters

For many policy issues, such as unemployment, ABS statistics are taken as our absolute measure of reality. In these cases, the fact that 99% of informed users trust the numbers is what lets government and society keep functioning.

ABS data forms a shared basis for discussion. One analyst told us it’s not just trust in the bureau’s expertise that creates trust in the data — it’s also “because everybody else is using it as well”.

Read more: Why you should never use Microsoft Excel to count coronavirus cases

Those who work with public statistics agree these networks of trust — both between institutions like the ABS and the Australian public, and between individual academics, public servants, statisticians and journalists — rely on day-to-day honesty and responsiveness.

Transparency and consistency are essential. Statisticians and journalists alike emphasised that even data formatting plays a role in building trust. One journalist we interviewed talked about a health agency releasing coronavirus statistics as PDF files emailed to a private list early in the pandemic, describing it as “a ridiculous situation” that created extra work for the journalist to make the numbers clear and accountable in public. (State governments have since improved on this, generally making daily case numbers publicly available online.)

Long-term trust

Our response to future crises, whether the next pandemic or the impacts of climate change, will rely on the strong communal web of trust in our statistics.

Statistical failures, like the UK losing 16,000 cases or the United States massively undercounting coronavirus deaths, damage public trust in government. When institutions can prove their statistics are trustworthy, the public are more willing to follow directives based on those statistics. How do we know we can trust statistics? We talked to the humans behind the numbers to find out

Read more: The promise and problems of including ‘big data’ in official government statistics

– ref. How do we know statistics can be trusted? We talked to the humans behind the numbers to find out – https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-know-statistics-can-be-trusted-we-talked-to-the-humans-behind-the-numbers-to-find-out-148339

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin D. Butler, Honorary Professor, Australian National University

In all the talk of tackling environmental problems such as climate change, the problem of population growth often escapes attention. Politicians don’t like talking about it. By and large, neither do environmentalists – but former Greens leader Bob Brown has bucked that trend.

Brown recently declared the world’s population must start to decline before 2100, telling The Australian newspaper:

We are already using more than what the planet can supply and we use more than the living fabric of the planet in supply. That’s why we wake up every day to fewer fisheries, less forests, more extinctions and so on. The human herd at eight billion is the greatest herd of mammals ever on this planet and it is unsustainable to have that growing.

Research suggests our species has far exceeded its fair share of the planetary bounty, and Brown is right to call for the global population to peak. It is high time others joined the chorus – not only other environmentalists, but those concerned with international development and human rights.

Population growth, by the numbers

COVID-19 has killed more than one million people. While undeniably tragic, the figure is minor compared to world’s annual growth in population, estimated by the United Nations at about 83 million.

In 1900, the world’s population was about 1.6 billion people. By 2023 it’s expected to hit 8 billion. According to the UN, it will reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100.

(The US-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation recently forecast a lower peak of about 9.7 billion by 2064, falling to about 8.8 billion by 2100.)

Read more: Is global fertility really plummeting? How population forecasts are made

Why is the population growing so fast? Much of it is due to advanced fertilisers and intensive farming practices, leading to higher crop yields that can sustain more people. Health care has improved, and people are living much longer. And many parts of the world have historically had high fertility rates.

There is no expert consensus on how many people the planet can support. The answer will largely depend on how much humans produce and consume, now and in the future. Some experts believe we’ve already hit the limit.

The “planetary boundaries framework” is one way to measure Earth’s carrying capacity. Introduced about a decade ago, it involves nine planetary boundaries such as biodiversity loss, climate change and ozone depletion. If the boundaries are crossed, Earth’s capacity to support civilisation is at risk. Research suggests in some parts of the world, multiple boundaries have already been breached.

It’s time to talk

In recent decades, many conservationists, politicians and scientists have been reluctant to talk about population growth.

When The Australian approached Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society regarding Brown’s remarks, the groups said they did not comment on population growth. Brown told the newspaper environmentalists avoided the issue because they were “frightened” of being targeted by News Corp.

In an address to the National Press Club this month, Greens leader Adam Bandt reportedly wouldn’t say whether he is concerned about population growth, saying “my priority is getting energy at running on 100% renewable. That makes much more of a difference than […] population size.”

Read more: How breastfeeding sparked population growth in ancient cities

Bandt wouldn’t be the first environmental advocate to avoid the topic. But why? I believe there are three main reasons.

Most obvious is the fear of being accused of racism. Some past advocates of population “control” supported eugenics and coercion, including forced sterilisation and abortion. In fact, eugenics and forced sterilisation has been reported in both rich and poor countries.

Second, the Catholic Church has played a big role in suppressing the topic. In the 1960s a papal commission suggested the church’s decades-long ban on birth control be dropped. But in 1968, Pope Paul VI rejected the advice, and declared artificial birth control to be morally wrong.

Third is the ascendancy of free-market economics. High population growth in low-income countries is convenient for capitalism, because these populations depress wages worldwide.

In 1984, the Reagan administration became the first in a long line to deny the importance of population problems. Its views were influenced by economic theorist Julian Simon, who believed adding to the world’s population was good for human well-being.

Starting the conversation

As Brown said, we should be “having a mature debate” about population growth. But where to start?

An obvious beginning is the unmet demand for contraception. For example, a UN report in 2015 reported fewer than half of African women who are married or in a union, and who need contraception, have their family planning needs satisfied.

Slowing global population growth will be helped by promoting the UN Sustainable Development Goals. One goal seeks to ensure “universal access to reproductive health and family planning” by 2030. Improving female literacy – especially when combined with internet access – is also an important way to empower women.

Apart from reproductive health care, general improvements to health, including well-funded health systems, would give couples greater confidence their children will thrive. This would reduce their perceived need for additional children in case one or more dies.

These measures all require increased investment and public attention. The environmental movement, in particular, must awaken to the link between population growth and environmental degradation. “Business as usual” will hinder human development, further oppress women and magnify many forms of environmental damage.

Read more: Climate explained: why we need to focus on increased consumption as much as population growth

– ref. Bob Brown is right – it’s time environmentalists talked about the population problem – https://theconversation.com/bob-brown-is-right-its-time-environmentalists-talked-about-the-population-problem-148347

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Ngo, Honorary Fellow, Deakin University

Footscray Primary School in Victoria decided earlier this year to abolish its long-running Vietnamese bilingual program — where classes are taught in both English and Vietnamese. It will replace it with an Italian bilingual program. Vietnamese will be downgraded to two hours per week.

Footscray has been, and continues to be, an important Vietnamese community in Melbourne’s west. Unsurprisingly, there has been substantial community backlash about this decision. At the time of writing, an online petition initiated by one of the parents at the school has garnered around 17,000 signatures.

According to the latest census (2016) Vietnamese remains the most commonly spoken language in Footscray other than English — 11.4% of the population speak it (compared to 1.2% nationally). Vietnam is also listed the most common country of birth for residents who were born outside Australia (9.6%, compared to 0.9% nationally), or whose parents were (12.9% mothers, 12.4% fathers; compared to 1.4% nationally).

Italian does not figure in the top five responses in any of these categories.

The school says:

The bilingual program at Footscray Primary School is not a mother tongue maintenance program. It is a program that should deliver academic and content-based outcomes as well as language and culture to all students, regardless of which language they speak at home.

But placing Vietnamese on equal footing with any other bilingual program ignores its special significance to the local Vietnamese community, and beyond.

It also ignores the relentless battles people from minority immigrant and First Nations communities have had to fight to keep our cultures and languages alive in ways that are meaningful to us.

We live in, and through, language

German philosopher Martin Heidegger once described language as “the house of being”. What he meant is that language is more than a means of communication or transaction. Rather, we dwell in language. And since he conceives “being” as a kind of dwelling, it is in language that we are (or be).

That’s language — but what of languages?

French philosopher and philologist (who studies the history of languages) Barbara Cassin writes the maternal language is:

the one in which we are steeped … we are master of this language and yet it is the one that has a hold on us. It’s an extraordinary relationship. We are master because we can say what we want in it, but it has a hold on us because it determines our manner of thinking, our manner of living, our manner of being.

Cassin’s words might ring true for some, but not all in diasporic communities, as language retention among second and subsequent generations can be difficult to sustain.

Yet if one lives in a society where one’s maternal language is not the dominant one, the linguistic intimacy Cassin describes still only presents a partial picture. This is because our “manner of being” is also shaped by how we are received, supported and validated (or not) in our broader communities.

Read more: How to make Australia more bilingual

In a context where non-white migrant communities are perennially held in suspicion and at the margins — that is, until our cultures and cuisines become trendy enough to consume — to “be” or “dwell” in our language becomes a lot more fraught.

Latinx feminist and queer theorist Gloria Anzaldúa calls this relentless switching, negotiating, and self-contorting between language-worlds, living in “the borderlands”, a state of psychic unrest. There is much to affirm and celebrate about living this enriching state of in-betweeness. But it does not erase the labour non-white communities are endlessly performing, to translate our languages, cultures and selves to a decidedly committed monolingual society.

Nor does it erase the pain often felt. Celebrated Chinese Australian artist Lindy Lee has said of her experience growing up under the White Australia Policy:

It was telling me that my difference was not acceptable. And that is an excruciating place to live in.

The ‘superiority’ of some languages

Bilingual language programs are not the only way to maintain local community languages, and in fact few bilingual programs across the country explicitly serve this purpose. But they present a powerful, and rare, opportunity to support such languages, while still offering benefits to the rest of the school community.

As language and literacy experts have recognised, bi- or multilingual children in Australia are chronically underestimated and undervalued in our education system; the system “kills off” languages already existing in their community during early school years, only to encourage new languages in the final years of schooling, when it is least effective.

The decision by Footscray Primary does not do exactly this, since the proposal is to replace one bilingual program with another — Vietnamese with Italian. But it does point to how we value languages differently. Researchers have long recognised the perceived “prestige” of European languages in Australian society, compared with Asian languages, which are often only seen as instrumentally useful — for example, as “trade languages”.

Read more: Want to get ahead this century? Learn an Asian language

But for migrant communities, language is more than instrumentally useful, and programs such as these are more than an educational “value add”.

A revived Twitter thread recently asked: “What’s considered trashy if you’re poor, but classy if you’re rich?” To which many replied: “speaking two languages”. Substitute “rich and poor” for “white and non-white” and the quip starts to ring a little truer.

– ref. Housing a sense of self: for migrant communities, bilingual school programs are about more than learning – https://theconversation.com/housing-a-sense-of-self-for-migrant-communities-bilingual-school-programs-are-about-more-than-learning-148099

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Macquarie University

The year has been a strange one for sports lovers.

We’ve seen athlete protests here and around the world. Where big gatherings have been permitted in the US, discordant NFL crowds have highlighted America’s divisions.

Australian stadium rules have varied from state to state and the AFL Grand Final will be played before a smaller than normal crowd at the Gabba rather than the MCG. Sunday’s NRL Grand Final, meanwhile, will bring 40,000 fans together.

Sport can unite people with a common sense of purpose and identity. The sporting crowd can also vent community concerns and express social dissatisfaction.

This power of cheering — or jeering — goes back to ancient times.

Read more: Thucydides and the plague of Athens – what it can teach us now

Blues versus Greens

By the late Roman Republic, prominent statesmen were expected to provide public entertainments, which also served to keep the masses content and under control.

Like his predecessors, emperor Augustus organised gladiatorial games but also a number of athletic events, taking his inspiration from the Greek Olympic Games.

To commemorate his victory against Antony and Cleopatra in 31 BC at the naval battle of Actium, Augustus established the Actian Games, which took place every four years in emulation of the Olympic Games.

Read more: Hidden women of history: Kyniska, the first female Olympian

Notably, in his Res Gestae, the public summation of his reign, Augustus rejoiced in his games alongside his conquests. In each of the events he attended, the leader and his public barracked in chorus and their harmony represented the harmony of the state.

The same could not be said of the chariot races between rival teams — the Blues and the Greens — in Constantinople in 532 AD. Emperor Justinian, an unpopular ruler, was watching at the hippodrome with up to 100,000 spectators at one of the 70-odd races held there annually. Then the crowd turned on him.

The amphitheatre had already been the scene of chaos in 501 AD, when the Greens ambushed the Blues and massacred 3,000 people.

Yet in 532 AD, the fans, upset by Justinian’s high taxes and poor response to their political demands, along with widespread corruption among his officials, put sporting rivalries aside to chant “Nika!” in unison, meaning “Conquer!” A slogan typically used to cheer on charioteers, was now directed against the emperor. Massive civic unrest erupted for a week; the city was torched, its major church (Agia Sophia burnt, and thousands murdered.

Justinian’s reign went on to be marred by disaster: from 541 to 549 AD, Constantinople suffered the first old world pandemic. In 542 AD alone, 5,000—10,000 deaths occurred daily, until one third of the population was wiped out. Justinian was infected and although he survived the plague, he remained unpopular.

Read more: Dying old, dying young – death and ageism in the times of Greek myth and coronavirus

Chanting to power

At sporting events and other large crowd spectacles in the ancient world, people could pitch requests and voice socioeconomic grievances.

It was customary for high officials — the emperor, his ministers, or local authorities — to be present, and they were expected to respond to such petitions.

In 362 AD, the people of Antioch, in Roman Syria, greeted the emperor Julian in the hippodrome with the chant, “Everything is plentiful, everything is dear,” protesting the high prices of grain in the city.

In first century Alexandria, meanwhile, which was home to a large Jewish population, racial tension, combined with racially-based tax exemptions and civic rights, found expression at sports grounds and public events. Violence consumed the city in 38 and again in 66. It began at the gymnasium and the theatre.

The importance of sport for cementing authority was also reflected in 540 AD when the Sasanian king Khosrau I tried to oversee chariot racing in a captured Roman city in Asia Minor. According to the historian Procopius , Khosrau demanded that the Blues lose the race because he knew they were Justinian’s favourite team!

Read more: Leaders as healers: Ancient Greek ideas on the health of the body politic

Sport and civics today

Although we now interpret political legitimacy differently to the ancients, aspects of our sporting events are the same.

There is the conspicuous presence of politicians, singing of anthems, the over-the-top displays of military might and performances.

And, as in ancient times, symbolic or vocal protests in venues and at events laden with national significance are hard to ignore. When these actions are witnessed by thousands and speak to raw existential conflict, such as famine (in the past) or racism (today), they become even more powerful.

This year’s grand final has already been mired in political point-scoring. How the crowd behaves remains to be seen.

– ref. The power of the grand final crowd recalls ancient times – https://theconversation.com/the-power-of-the-grand-final-crowd-recalls-ancient-times-145619

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rick Sarre, Emeritus Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia

One can always sense an election is looming when law and order becomes headline news.

As Queenslanders head towards election day on October 31, the state’s opposition leader Deb Frecklington has announced that, if elected, the Liberal National Party will trial a curfew for children.

Read more: As the Queensland campaign passes the halfway mark, the election is still Labor’s to lose

In Townsville and Cairns, the LNP would introduce an 8pm curfew for unaccompanied children aged 14 and under, and a 10pm curfew for those aged 15 to 17.

Frecklington said under the planned six-month trial, teenagers would have to prove to police they had a reasonable excuse to be out at night, or be put in a “refuge”. Parents would be fined $250.

This is similar to a policy the party took to the 2017 state election.

‘Dog pound for kids’

The Labor Party and One Nation have both announced populist “tough on crime” policies in the run up to the election, but neither has endorsed a curfew. Labor’s Police Minister Mark Ryan labelled the LNP’s plan a “simplistic answer to a complex problem”.

Katter’s Australian Party has warned a curfew will result in a “dog pound for kids.”

With a significant proportion of young people in the far north of the state identifying as Indigenous, the Greens slammed the policy announcement as a “racist dog whistle.”

There is little doubt the LNP announcement is pitched primarily at voters in and around Townsville, where three marginal seats are up for grabs — and which some commentators suggest could decide the election.

Youth crime in Townsville is perceived to be a problem, although some experts say this is overblown. Whatever the reality, tackling the perceptions is clever politics.

Are curfews legal?

This year, COVID-19 has reminded us governments do have the power to enact legislation that places a brake on where and when people can be out in public.

This is so long as there are overriding reasons in the interests of public safety, and a lockdown is not a disproportionate limitation on freedom of movement.

Read more: FactCheck: did the Northbridge WA curfew see a ‘dramatic drop’ in crime?

So, the imposition of curfews in cities and towns around Australia has never been illegal, and indeed they have been implemented in the past. In relation to Aboriginal Australians, they were in place well into the 20th century.

While Amnesty International says the proposed Queensland curfew may breach Australia’s commitment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this is unlikely to dislodge the zeal of politicians keen to display their “tough on crime” credentials.

Do curfews work?

Various studies have looked at specific curfews in the past, both here in Australia and in the United States.

Evidence of their effectiveness is weak.

To my mind, the best evidence comes from meta-analyses, studies that amalgamate the findings of only the most trustworthy scholarship into one place. One of the most reputable meta-analysis research conglomerates in the world is the Campbell Collaboration.

Their researchers undertook a systematic review, up to 2014, of all the quantitative studies that had assessed the effect of a curfew on criminal behaviour and victimisation. Twelve studies met their rigorous standards.

According to their summary, the evidence suggests juvenile curfews do not reduce crime or victimisation.

[…]all the studies in the review suffer from some limitations that make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Nonetheless, the lack of any credible evidence in their favor suggests that any effect is likely to be small at best and that curfews are unlikely to be a meaningful solution to juvenile crime and disorder.

Are there counterproductive consequences?

There is another problem for advocates of a curfew. Imposing a curfew may make matters worse.

For one thing, proponents are likely to exaggerate the problem, while pretending crime issues will be solved simply by taking unaccompanied children off the streets at night.

But the most puzzling incongruity is there is also plenty of evidence to suggest what should be done to alleviate the disorder and dysfunction curfews are designed to address.

The evidence is clear: whatever we do must stem the flow of young offenders into the justice system in the first place. By targeting and detaining the inevitable number who will flout the new law, curfews will bring about exactly the opposite.

Read more: Ten-year-olds do not belong in detention. Why Australia must raise the age of criminal responsibility

Currently Indigenous over representation in the justice system is a national disgrace. Schemes designed to mentor and guide all young people, and Aboriginal young people especially, to enhance their life-skills and their prospects of education and employment must be prioritised.

There is no lack of potential guidance in this respect.

The recently launched Justice Reform Initiative — of which I am a patron — boasts dozens of experts, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who are available to guide and direct political parties to develop policies that build safe and supportive communities.

This is done by strengthening community connections, not isolating and stigmatising their most disengaged members.

– ref. Queensland’s LNP wants a curfew for kids, but evidence suggests this won’t reduce crime – https://theconversation.com/queenslands-lnp-wants-a-curfew-for-kids-but-evidence-suggests-this-wont-reduce-crime-148529

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane McAdam, Scientia Professor and Director of the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW

The effects of a warming planet are no longer far away in time or distance. We are witnessing transformed landscapes, mass extinctions and people on the move, whether by force or choice.

Across the globe, the adverse effects of disasters and climate change are already prompting millions of people to move. More people are now displaced within their countries each year by disasters than by conflict.

The Asia-Pacific region has been the hardest hit by these disasters.

In the Pacific islands, king tides, cyclones, droughts and flooding displace people on a regular basis. Countries like Kiribati and Tuvalu are now facing existential questions about their capacity to sustain their populations into the future.

‘Burying our heads in the sand’

There are potential consequences for Australia, too, which may disrupt many of our foreign and domestic policy agendas – including energy, environment, foreign aid, national security, labour and migration.

This is why Pacific governments, including Australia, are currently engaged in talks about how migration could alleviate pressure on threatened Pacific island nations and become a climate change adaptation strategy.

Most Pacific Islanders want to remain in their homes. Policies designed to reduce their exposure to disaster risks, improve their adaptation to climate change and bolster their development can all help.

But at the same time, Pacific communities acknowledge

that the movement of people needs to be discussed … [and] failing to do so will be like burying our heads in the sand.

Most displacement in the Pacific is temporary and internal, but it is occurring with increasing regularity.

Some Pacific governments have already developed guidelines on internal displacement and planned relocations in the context of climate change and disasters. Fiji has established a trust fund to support relocations. (New Zealand has contributed A$3 million to the fund).

Read more: COVID-19 provides a rare chance for Australia to set itself apart from other regional powers. It can create a Pacific ‘bubble’

How Australia can expand visas for Pacific islanders

Australia could play a much bigger role in this effort, too.

A new Kaldor Centre policy brief argues that smarter Australian migration policies could give Pacific peoples more choice to take control of their own lives.

By creating more temporary and long-term visa opportunities, Australia could provide a release valve for Pacific islanders at risk of displacement.

Read more: China wants to be a friend to the Pacific, but so far, it has failed to match Australia’s COVID-19 response

If only 1% of the Pacific’s population was permitted to work permanently in Australia, this would bring more benefits to the region than Australia’s annual aid contribution. Migration can enhance the resilience of those who move, as well as those who stay behind.

Australia already has targeted Pacific work schemes: the short-term Seasonal Worker Programme and the longer-term Pacific Labour Scheme.

These could be expanded and complemented by additional initiatives, such as

• special educational or training visas

• preferential access to existing labour, education or family visas

• humanitarian visas to assist those displaced by disasters, or those already in Australia when a disaster strikes and who cannot safely return home.

Australia should also create a visa category similar to New Zealand’s longstanding “Pacific Access Category”.

This enables 650 Pacific Islanders from specific countries (plus their families) to become permanent residents of New Zealand annually. The Samoan quota resident visa allows 1,100 Samoans to come, as well.

The New Zealand schemes are based on a ballot that prevents “cherry picking” based on people’s skills, going some way to alleviate concerns about a brain drain resulting in Pacific nations.

Migration can be a win-win

The lockdown of borders in response to COVID-19 has wrought unprecedented damage to the already vulnerable economies of the Pacific.

Dame Meg Taylor, secretary general of the Pacific Islands Forum, powerfully observes that the pandemic’s

humanitarian and economic fallout offers us a glimpse of what the global climate change emergency can become – if it is left unchecked and if we do not act now.

As Australia reshapes its Pacific policies in response to COVID-19, dignified migration should be front and centre.

The pandemic itself has revealed just how reliant Australian horticulture is on Pacific seasonal workers; likewise, seasonal employment is a lifeline for many Pacific families.

Increased migration could thus be a win–win strategy in the face of climate change, as well.

Read more: Pacific nations aren’t cash-hungry, minister, they just want action on climate change

– ref. We can no longer ignore the threats facing the Pacific — we need to support more migration to Australia – https://theconversation.com/we-can-no-longer-ignore-the-threats-facing-the-pacific-we-need-to-support-more-migration-to-australia-148530

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ananish Chaudhuri, Professor of Behavioural and Experimental Economics, University of Auckland

With the government borrowing heavily to fund its pandemic response and recovery, it has been suggested it could simply cancel its debt by printing more money. That sounds like an attractive idea, but it is one that would have seriously adverse consequences.

Derived from “modern monetary theory” (MMT), the suggestion is that expansionary monetary policy (i.e. money creation by the central bank) be used to finance government spending.

According to proponents of MMT, a country that issues its own currency can never run out and can never become insolvent in its own currency. It can make all payments as they come due. Therefore, there is no risk of defaulting on its debt.

This is a flawed idea based on economic misconceptions. It has been opposed by economists, liberal and conservative, including Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Harvard University’s Greg Mankiw.

So, what does happen when the government wants to spend more than it raises in tax revenue? It needs to borrow money (known as deficit financing), and so instructs the Treasury to issue debt.

There are three major types of debt: treasury bills, treasury notes and treasury bonds.. Treasury bills have the shortest maturity (less than a year) while treasury bonds have maturities of ten years or more. They all must be paid back in the future.

The debt is typically held by banks, institutional investors and managed funds (such as Kiwisaver accounts). Because the government is not expected to default on the loans, the debt is considered to be secure. So, these bonds can typically be issued at lower interest rates than bonds from other financial entities.

Where government debt goes

When the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) engages in “quantitative easing” it essentially buys up these government issued bonds. To do this, it prints currency to pay for the bonds and this currency goes into circulation, increasing the money supply.

Quantitative easing floods the system with liquidity — the amount of money readily available for investment and spending. In turn, this should put downward pressure on interest rates because money is cheaper to borrow when there is more of it.

The RBNZ can also lower the official cash rate (OCR) to push retail interest rates (on mortgages and savings deposits) down. The aim in both cases is to make borrowing cheaper in the hope that businesses will borrow money to invest, in turn creating more jobs.

If the RBNZ is buying government bonds from the banks and investors who had bought them earlier, it follows that the creditors have been paid off. So why can’t the government simply write off this debt?

Read more: With a mandate to govern New Zealand alone, Labour must now decide what it really stands for

Firstly, this takes away the RBNZ’s ability to act as an independent entity, which in itself is problematic. But even so, the debt does not disappear, it just takes the form of that additional amount of money floating around the economy.

At some point this extra money will end up being deposited in commercial banks and be held as reserves which earn interest from the RBNZ.

The currency in circulation is also legal tender backed by the authority of the government. If no one else wants to accept it, holders of this money should be able to sell it back to the RBNZ for something of value in return (US dollars, say).

One way or another, sooner or later the debt will have to be honoured.

The risk of inflation

In the meantime, if lower interest rates do not lead to business expansion and higher production (and there are good reasons to suppose they may not) then the net result is a larger amount of money circulating in the economy with no new production happening.

This will eventually set off inflationary pressures, which make savers worse off and provide a disincentive for saving. But saving by households is fundamental to making funds available for businesses to borrow.

In the absence of increased production this extra money may also make its way to non-productive financial assets such as equity and houses, setting off speculative bubbles in those markets.

Read more: COVID-19 is predicted to make child poverty worse. Should NZ’s next government make temporary safety nets permanent?

Why might businesses not expand, even with lower interest rates? In deep recessions it is not the lack of credit that holds them back, it is that they cannot sell their goods at prevailing prices. This reduces demand for labour, further reducing demand for goods because more customers are unemployed.

It becomes a vicious cycle of insufficient demand, where the key issue is not credit or liquidity but rather a crisis of confidence. Monetary policy loses its teeth at this point, leaving fiscal policy (via deficit financing or tax cuts) as the only option.

It’s all about trust

However, government borrowing is a long-term game. The entire system, whether deficit financing or printing money, is based on trust — that the government will honour its debt.

Simply put, no government could satisfy all its creditors if they wanted their money back at the same time. But as long as the government keeps making the interest payments on the loans, or at least has the capacity to pay back some of those creditors (sometimes by borrowing even more), the economy remains stable. The juggler’s balls stay in the air.

Read more: NZ election 2020: survey shows voters are divided on climate policy and urgency of action

If for some reason trust in a government goes, watch the balls come crashing down. Any hint of default or not honouring debt obligations will lead to long-term damage to a government’s reputation and its future ability to borrow. No one will want to hold the government’s debt in the form of government bonds.

When that happens, we see capital flight — money flows out of the country as people seek a return elsewhere. The value of the currency goes through the floor, with catastrophic effects on the economy, such as occurred during the Asian financial crisis in 1997.

The economic crisis New Zealand is facing is real and deep. Attempting to cancel debt would only reduce trust in the government and risk making the crisis worse.

– ref. Explainer: why the government can’t simply cancel its pandemic debt by printing more money – https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-the-government-cant-simply-cancel-its-pandemic-debt-by-printing-more-money-148514

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah John, College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University

In the US election next month, record-breaking numbers of voters will cast their ballots by mail for the first time. Millions of these ballots will be processed by local election administrations inexperienced with large numbers of mail-in votes.

In this environment, many ballots are likely to be rejected for technical reasons, such as non-matching signatures (the signature on the ballot doesn’t match the signature on voter registration forms), raising the risk of protracted court battles in key battleground states.

Already, lawsuits are being filed in many of these states to try to prevent or reduce ballot rejections, which, perversely, may only make the problem worse if voters can’t keep track of constantly changing rules.

Large numbers of ballot rejections could prove pivotal if the race is close in key states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, which Donald Trump won by less than 80,000 votes in total in 2016 to claim victory over Hillary Clinton.

But there is also a longer-term risk to voters’ belief in the fundamentals of democracy itself if they cast a ballot that literally does not count.

How many ballots could be rejected?

According to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a federal agency created to help states modernise their voting systems after the “hanging chads” problem in the 2000 presidential election, less than 5% of voters in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin voted by mail in 2016.

But 2020 will be different. In Pennsylvania, 2.5 million voters requested mail-in ballots — about eight times as many as 2016. And more than ten times as many North Carolinians requested mail-in ballots in 2020 than 2016.

A dramatic increase like this could very easily overwhelm county election administrators who are unfamiliar with the system and under-resourced to process masses of mail-in ballots.

In every election with mail-in voting, some ballots are not counted for reasons unrelated to the eligibility of the voter. Most commonly, these “rejected” ballots arrived too late, lacked the requisite signature or “secrecy” envelope or had some other technical problem.

Read more: Mail-in voting’s potential problems only begin at the post office – an underfunded, underprepared decentralized system could be trouble

In the 2016 presidential election, the EAC found about 1% of the 33.4 million total absentee ballots were rejected — or about 319,000 overall.

However, in some counties, rates were much higher. Nassau County, an affluent county just outside New York City, reported rejecting 82% of its mail-in ballots (mostly because they missed the deadline). Greene County, Arkansas, reported rejecting 48% of its mail-in ballots (mostly because the voter did not write their address on the envelope, which is a requirement in Arkansas).

It is likely more ballots could be rejected in this year’s election — USA Today estimates more than 1 million, if half the nation votes by mail.

We got our first taste of the problem during the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries earlier this year. More than 550,000 ballots were rejected in these contests — nearly twice as many as the 2016 general election.

Mishmash of laws and court rulings

Even in normal times, voting by mail is complex. Technical requirements and formats vary greatly from state to state.

Some states, like Pennsylvania, require the ballot to be ensconced in a second “secrecy” envelope. Without this, the ballot will be rejected.

And six states, including the key battleground states of North Carolina and Wisconsin, require a witness to verify the voter’s signature. Without this, the ballot will be rejected.

Unsurprisingly, research reveals inexperienced voters, including younger voters, are more likely to have their mail-in ballots rejected.

And while there is no evidence mail-in voting leads to widespread voter fraud — as Trump has repeatedly claimed — rejected ballots do have the potential to determine election outcomes.

For this reason, rules about accepting and rejecting mail-in ballots are currently the subject of hundreds of court actions.

In the absence of a concerted national effort to reduce ballot rejection rates, citizen and activist groups and Democratic state party organisations have filed lawsuits seeking to remove technical requirements for mail-in ballots in numerous states.

Republican state party organisations, meanwhile, are appealing those decisions and challenging policy changes that loosen technical requirements.

Read more: No mail-in votes, proof of citizenship: the long history of preventing minorities from voting in the US

Using the courts in this way creates uncertainty, and may even serve to increase the number of ballots that are rejected.

In some states, court rulings that have loosened requirements have been overturned only weeks later by higher courts. In early October, for example, the US Supreme Court reinstated the witness requirement for South Carolinian mail-in voters after a lower court had ordered it removed.

Consequently, South Carolina voters have received mail-in ballots with outdated instructions, increasing the risk their votes will be rejected.

Every day, there are new court rulings. For example, last week, a Michigan appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that prevented ballots from being rejected if they arrived late, so long as they were postmarked November 2 or earlier.

This week, the US Supreme Court ruled mail-in ballots could be counted for up to three days after election day in Pennsylvania, so long as they were postmarked by November 3.

This decision could prove critical in a tight race. Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016 by just 44,000 votes out of some 6 million cast.

And in Texas, which has the most restrictive voting rules of anywhere in the country, an appeals court overturned a lower court decision this week to allow election officials to reject ballots without matching signatures without giving voters a chance to challenge.

Will ballot rejections erode trust in democracy?

There are long-term risks to these battles over mail-in voting, as well.

Voters would understandably be disheartened to learn their ballots were rejected in the election — and their votes didn’t count — after they went to the effort of voting by mail. This risks a genuine disengagement with the electoral system.

Researchers in Scotland have found high rates of ballot rejections in the 2007 Scottish parliament elections caused many to question the fairness of the electoral system, possibly resulting in lower voter turnout rates in future elections.

Read more: Mail-in voting is safe and reliable – 5 essential reads

Not much research has emerged in the US on the effects of ballot rejection on future political participation. But this will likely change after this election, particularly if ballot rejections are widespread.

We should expect to hear many angry partisan allegations about “naked” ballots (those missing special secrecy envelopes), postmarks and signatures in the weeks after the election.

But we should also spare a thought for the citizens who find out the ballots they diligently returned were rejected on a technicality. They may not be so inclined to vote again in the future.

– ref. Over 1 million mail-in ballots could be rejected in the US election — and the rules are changing by the day – https://theconversation.com/over-1-million-mail-in-ballots-could-be-rejected-in-the-us-election-and-the-rules-are-changing-by-the-day-148188

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yuting Zhang, Professor of Health Economics, University of Melbourne

Almost all private health insurers increased their premiums in October, and have scheduled another price rise for April 2021. As many people struggle financially amid the pandemic, you may be wondering whether you should drop your private health insurance altogether.

Before you do, bear in mind some government policies affect the cost of your insurance, and sometimes dropping it may even cost you more.

Here’s the bottom line

For singles with an income above A$105,000, and for families with an income above $180,000, it’s worth buying private hospital cover even if you don’t think you’ll use it. I’ll explain why in a moment.

People with incomes below these levels need to compare value and costs. The decision varies a lot depending on your age.

Three key polices affect your premium costs: the Medicare levy surcharge, government rebates, and discounts for younger people.

Throughout this article, we’re talking about hospital cover, not “extras” like dental, optical or physio, which aren’t affected by these policies. You can buy extras cover separately without hospital cover. Extras cover is much cheaper than hospital cover, and an easier decision overall — you can readily compare how much you stand to gain from extras cover (based on how often you’re expecting to visit a physiotherapist, for instance) and then weigh that against how much it will cost you.

Here are the main things you should factor in when deciding on hospital cover.

There’s the Medicare levy, and then there’s the surcharge

Almost all Australians pay 2% of their taxable income as the Medicare levy. This money goes towards funding parts of the public health-care system. It pays for Australians to get free (or much cheaper) GP visits and care in public hospitals.

If you earn above a certain income and don’t have private hospital cover (extras cover does not apply), you have to pay an extra 1-1.5% of your taxable income, called the Medicare levy surcharge.

For example, if John Citizen has a total taxable income of $150,000, he must pay $2,250 in additional tax (the Medicare levy surcharge), on top of the $3,000 he already pays as the Medicare levy. If he buys an appropriate level of private hospital cover, he can waive this extra tax and just pay the $3,000.

Keep an eye on government rebates

Singles with an income below $140,000, and families with an income below $280,000, can get government rebates on their private health insurance — that is, a partial refund. The level of this rebate varies by income and age.

Discounts for the young

Since April 2019, people aged 18–29 have been able to get discounts of up to 10% of their private hospital premiums. The allowable discounts are 2% for people aged 29, 4% for 28, 6% for 27, 8% for 26, and 10% for 18-25. People will retain that discount until they turn 41, then the discount gradually decreases by 2% per year.

Factoring the above policies in, for singles with an income above $105,000 and families with an income above $180,000, it makes sense to buy private hospital insurance even if you won’t use it. That’s because you can find hospital cover cheaper than the Medicare levy surcharge.

For those with an income below these levels, you need to compare whether the value is more than the cost. Value consists of two components: protection from unexpected catastrophic risk, and your expected use of private hospital care.

First, value from risk protection is highly subjective, depending on your level of tolerance for potentially catastrophic uncertainties. Some people might naturally be more anxious about risks, but others less so. For example, people buy home and contents insurance to cover unexpected natural or accidental catastrophes, or burglary. But arguably, this component of value is small in the health insurance market because all Australians are insured by Medicare to cover their health needs in public hospitals, and are therefore protected from the financial risk of catastrophic health problems.

Second, there is value in buying private health insurance if you anticipate using private care, which can reduce your waiting time for certain elective surgeries, or give you a choice of doctors. This goes to the second part of value: expected use.

Take a look at the table below for the national averages for your age regarding your expected use of private hospital care. Basically, the older you are, the more you’re likely to use it, and the greater the expected benefit.

Here’s an example. If you are single, 24 years old, are comfortable taking risks, have an income below $90,000, and your expected use of private hospital care is in line with the national average, your value from buying private hospital insurance is about $550 a year. As per the above graph, for people 20-24 years old, $550 was the national average of benefits actually paid by private insurance companies between July 2019 and June 2020.

Meanwhile, your median premium cost is $1,457 after rebates and discounts, and you are exempt from the Medicare levy surcharge. So it may not be worth buying private hospital insurance in this set of circumstances.

When comparing value and costs, you are most likely better off buying private hospital insurance given the current government policies for the following scenarios:

• family cover: family income above $180,000; family income below $180,000 if older than 44 or with special needs for private hospital care (such as childbirth in private hospitals).

• single cover: income above $105,001; income below $90,000 and older than 54; income between $90,000 and $105,001 and older than 24.

And don’t forget

There are a few final things you should keep in mind. When you use your insurance for a stay in hospital, there will be out-of-pocket, or “gap”, costs. So you’ll still have to pay extra even with private hospital insurance.

Then there is the Lifetime Health Cover loading, which adds 2% to your insurance premiums for every year you are over 30 if you don’t have hospital cover by 1 July following your 31st birthday.

For example, if you wait until you’re 40 to buy private hospital insurance for the first time, you could pay an extra 20% on hospital premiums. The loading is removed once you’ve held appropriate private hospital cover for ten consecutive years.

More generous coverage requires higher premiums. What’s more, even for the same coverage, premiums may vary substantially across insurers. So, shop around and use free resources to compare health insurance policies.

Finally, it’s a good idea to re-evaluate your options every year or every other year as your situation or government policy changes.

– ref. Thinking of ditching private health insurance in the pandemic? Here’s how to calculate if it’s worth it for you – https://theconversation.com/thinking-of-ditching-private-health-insurance-in-the-pandemic-heres-how-to-calculate-if-its-worth-it-for-you-148191