Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Crosby, Professor, Monash University

Over the past 16 months journalists have been scouring through more than 2,000 Suspicious Activity Reports originally sent by banks to the United States Treasury, before being leaked to Buzzfeed and then passed along to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

The reports relate to more than US$2 trillion in transactions over the period from 2000 to 2017. Some of these transactions will already have been investigated, and may be legitimate. In the case of the Australian banks, the regulator AUSTRAC has already asked the US Treasury for some of this information.

There are a number of questions raised by this latest episode of bad behaviour by banks. Firstly, why don’t banks have better controls to stop these kinds of transactions from occurring?

With transactions from tax havens, from shell companies, or to countries under sanction why aren’t banks themselves doing some investigation rather than simply passing information along to the US Treasury?

The short answer is that banks make too much money and it is not in their interest to ask too many questions.

An obvious example are the transactions processed by JP Morgan relating to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal which netted the bank millions of dollars in fees despite the obvious questions the transactions should have raised.

A second question is why do banks consistently seem to behave so badly?

Australia has seen banking scandal after banking scandal over the last 30 years, with the latest detailed in the report of the Hayne Royal Commission in 2019.

Big rewards, less regulation

I believe the reason the banking industry is particularly prone to scandals is because of the amount of cash sloshing through the system, and the fact that in recent years there have been fewer regulations and less policing than is needed.

Deregulation has been the general trend in finance since the mid-1980s, first in the United States and Britain, and then in countries such as Australia.

Australia’s deregulation began with the floating of the exchange rate in 1983 followed by the removal of controls over bank interest rates and bank deposits with the Reserve Bank.

Sure enough, Australia’s first banking scandal was the Swiss loans affair in 1985 in which unsophisticated Australians were encouraged to borrow in a foreign currency oblivious to the risk the Australian dollar might fall forcing them to pay back much more than they borrowed.

Read more: No better than roulette. How foreign exchange trading rips off mum and dad investors

In the United States the Savings and Loan debacle occurred at roughly the same time. A classic example is a large bank in Ohio, Home State, that failed in 1985. Depositors in Home State thought they were safe because their deposits were insured, but deregulation of deposit insurance led to private insurers. The deposit insurance company failed alongside Home State, leaving nothing for insurance payouts.

The next major banking disaster was the Asian financial crisis in 1997. Deregulated banks in countries including Korea and Thailand failed due to large unregulated inflows the systems in these countries couldn’t handle.

No learning from history

A follow-on was the failure of Long Term Capital Management, a highly leveraged (borrowed) hedge fund in 1998. The US Treasury engineered a bailout of Long Term Capital Management that was favourable to its shareholders and lenders instead of letting it fail.

There were a number of obvious regulatory problems that led to the crisis. Hedge funds were not required to report their positions in these markets and the risk they were creating or exposed to. They were highly leveraged. Unsophisticated financial markets suffered unmanageable large capital flows.

During the crisis the Governor of the US Federal Reserve was Alan Greenspan, a man philosophically opposed to regulation.

He was a follower of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, whose view was that the government was incompetent and regulation was unnecessary.

Greenspan noted the contradiction in being a public servant of this mindset, but tried to further deregulate finance wherever and however possible.

Despite the Asian crisis coming close to creating the first global financial meltdown, there was no slowing in deregulation afterwards.

The result was the global financial crisis.

Once again, high leverage and opacity were culprits, along with deregulation in derivatives markets and poor design for some market structures.

Even businesses want better regulation

After the global financial crisis, deregulation continued, at times despite the wishes of industries affected. On Monday this week 381 companies signed a letter arguing against a proposal that would remove the need for hedge funds to disclose their stock market holdings. US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin used to work in a hedge fund. He is unlikely to back down.

And this week the first details of the 16-month investigation were released, exposing major issues with transactions by the largest banks in the United States and United Kingdom in particular, but also all four of Australia’s major banks, and Macquarie Bank which was used for more than US$120 million (A$167 million) of suspicious transactions.

Read more: Why credit rating agencies’ economic advice shouldn’t be trusted

Many won’t be illegal, but the suspicious activity reports suggest that where there is a conflict between profit and ethical decision making, profit usually wins.

I don’t think the reason for this is that all people in finance are unethical, but an industry with such a lot of cash floating around and too little regulation is likely to attract people with questionable ethics.

It needn’t mean a return to the old days

Regulation needn’t mean a reversion to the old “3-6-3” banking days where deposit rates were 3%, lending rates were 6% and the bank manager was on the golf course by 3pm.

But regulation needs to address disclosure issues, leverage, and issues with “sophisticated” products that create a significant risk of blowing up the global financial system.

Reforms should also focus the minds of management and boards on better behaviour. A simple one would be non-payment of bonuses when the organisation is brought into disrepute. It could be structured along the lines of the two strikes rule on remuneration.

Consumers of financial products are at a considerable information disadvantage, and need better protection. Currently consumer protection in the financial services sector lies with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and with state consumer affairs offices.

Read more: Lunch with bankers. Even they’re unimpressed with their new Banking Code of Conduct

In some cases this works, but neither ASIC nor consumer affairs offices are focused exclusively on protecting consumers against abuses in the financial services sector. ASIC is responsible to businesses and finance professionals as well as consumers, and at times these responsibilities conflict.

The codes of conduct we have are voluntary, although industry bodies can seek ASIC approval. The Australian Banking Association code is essentially toothless.

Until there is greater regulation in banking and finance we will continue to endure the kinds of bad behaviour we’ve been lumbered with for decades. And we will continue to pay for it too, when things go bad. It’s not enough to rely on banks to get banks to behave well.

– ref. Why do bankers behave so badly? They make too much money to ask questions – https://theconversation.com/why-do-bankers-behave-so-badly-they-make-too-much-money-to-ask-questions-146685

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

Malcolm Turnbull has launched a swingeing attack on Scott Morrison’s gas-led recovery, labelling his threat to build a gas-fired power station “crazy stuff”, and his idea of gas producing a cheap energy boom “a fantasy”.

The former prime minister also claimed Morrison’s refusal to embrace a 2050 net zero emissions target was “absolutely” at odds with the Paris climate agreement. “That was part of the deal,” Turnbull said.

Morrison at the weekend would not commit to a 2050 target – endorsed by business, farming and other groups in Australia and very many countries – although he said it was achievable.

Turnbull also declared that Energy Minister Angus Taylor – who on Tuesday delivered his technology investment roadmap for low emissions – didn’t believe most of what he was saying on energy.

“Angus has got quite a sophisticated understanding of the energy market, and he is speaking through the political side of his brain rather than the economic side,” Turnbull told the ABC.

The energy/climate war was pivotal in Turnbull’s fall from the prime ministership in 2018, and from the opposition leadership in 2009. While Morrison is totally safe in his job, the battle over energy policy on the conservative side of politics has not been put to rest, although the prime minister is banking on his elevation of gas satisfying his Liberal parliamentarians.

Morrison’s gas policy, which the government spruiks as underpinning a manufacturing revival, is being seen as a walk away from coal.

It includes a threat to build a gas-fired power station in the Hunter region if private enterprise does not fill the gap left by the coming closure of the Liddell coal-fired station.

The debate about gas has produced an unexpected unity ticket between Turnbull and former resources minister, the Nationals Matt Canavan, on one key point – both insist gas prices won’t be as low as the policy assumes.

But Turnbull and Canavan go in opposite directions in their energy prescriptions – Turnbull strongly backs renewables and Canavan is a voice for coal.

While acknowledging gas had a role “as a peaking fuel”, Turnbull dismissed any prospect of a “gas nirvana”.

“There is no cheap gas on the east coast of Australia. It is cheap at the moment because there’s a global recession and pandemic and oil prices are down, but the equilibrium price of gas is too high to make it a cheap form of generating electricity.”

“The cheap electricity opportunities come from wind and solar, backed by storage, batteries and pumped hydro, and then with gas playing a role but it’s essentially a peaking role,” Turnbull said.

Writing in the Australian, Canavan said the Morrison gas plan would “keep the lights on but it is unlikely to lower energy prices to the levels needed to bring manufacturing back to Australia.

“If we were serious about getting [energy] prices down as low as possible, we would focus on the energy sources in which we have a natural advantage, and that is not gas. We face gas shortages in the years ahead.”

Former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce said about the government’s power station threat, that it would be “peculiar” to build a gas-fired plant “in the middle of a coal field”.

Turnbull said of last week’s announcement, “I’m not going to sing the song but it’s a gas, gas, gas”.

The roadmap was “gas one minute, carbon capture and storage the next”.

“What you need is to set out some basic parameters, which deal with reliability, affordability and emissions reduction, and then let the market get to work. That’s what Liberal governments should do. Unfortunately, it’s just one random intervention after another,” Turnbull said.

He lamented that, for whatever reasons, there was a “body of opinion on the right of Australian politics in the Liberal party and the National party, the Murdoch press, which still clings to this fantasy that coal is best and if we can’t have coal we’ll burn gas – I mean, it’s bonkers. The way to cheaper electricity is renewables plus storage, which is why the big storage plan that we got started, Snowy 2, is so important.”

Turnbull said that unlike his own situation when PM, Morrison was “in a position with no internal opposition”. “Now is the time to deliver an integrated, coherent energy and climate policy which is what the whole energy sector has been crying out for.”

Taylor told the National Press Club the government’s determination to get the gap filled, whether by private investment or a government power station, when the Liddell coal fired station closes in 2023 “is partly about reliability, but it’s primarily about affordability.

“If you take that much capacity out of the market, it’s a huge amount in a short period of time. We saw what happened with Hazelwood. We saw very, very sharp increases in prices. We’re not prepared to accept that.”

Asked whether the government’s resistance to committing to the 2050 target was more about appeasing the right wing of the coalition rather than about the target itself, Taylor said: “Our focus is on our 2030 target in the Paris agreement…and in a few years time we will have to extend that out to 2035 …

“What we’re not going to do is impose a target that’s going to impose costs on the economy, destroy jobs, and stop investment. The Paris commitment, globally, is to net zero in the second half of the century and we would like that to happen as soon as possible.”

– ref. Malcolm Turnbull condemns Scott Morrison’s ‘gas, gas, gas’ song as ‘a fantasy’ – https://theconversation.com/malcolm-turnbull-condemns-scott-morrisons-gas-gas-gas-song-as-a-fantasy-146705

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Duncan, Associate Professor for the School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University

Prime Minister and Labour leader Jacinda Ardern and National Party leader Judith Collins have met for the first televised debate of the 2020 election campaign. With the results of the latest 1 News-Colmar Brunton poll released only an hour earlier, there was much at stake.

While down slightly on previous polls, Labour was still in a position to govern alone — comfortably so if the Greens joined them in a coalition agreement. National was still well behind, clearly bleeding votes to ACT on its right.

Nonetheless, the debate was a fair and largely evenly matched contest, covering the COVID-19 response, border control, health, housing, employment, income inequality and climate change.

Our five experts watched the debate closely for what it revealed about policy, performance and the likely tone of the campaign to come.

Genuine differences in substance and style

Grant Duncan, Associate Professor for the School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University

Leaders debates are like reality TV. “Who gets voted off the island? Jacinda or Judith?” Fun to watch, but they misrepresent how elections work.

In their proportional representation system, New Zealanders do not vote for prime ministers; they vote for representatives — one local representative, and one party of representatives.

Read more: Ardern versus Collins: ahead of their first TV debate, how much will charisma and eloquence matter?

Despite misleading impressions, however, the first debate between the leaders of the two largest parties revealed genuine differences of style and substance. The debate delivered on substantial issues, from climate change to housing the poor.

Collins was quick to call out “nonsense” and often looked fed-up. She criticised the Ardern government for failing to reduce material hardship for the poor, even though her own plan to “stimulate the economy” with tax cuts would most benefit middle- to higher-income earners. She would raise housing supply through reforming laws that affect developers.

Ardern was reserved but sincere. She acknowledged that it’s been a tough time for New Zealanders, but backed public investment in people and their well-being. She saw climate change innovation as an opportunity for farmers and agriculture, not a cost.

Both leaders showed substance, but different styles. National will go for stimulus through tax cuts; Labour will stimulate through raising incomes for the lowest earners. I’d call it a draw.

Big questions on climate and inequality go unanswered

Bronwyn Hayward, Professor of Politics, University of Canterbury

In the 2017 TVNZ election debates, no one was asked about climate change once. Thankfully it was raised early this time by Ardern and hammered home in questions — but the answers left a lot to be desired.

Collins played to her base, repeating the claim that New Zealand is so small, whatever it does won’t make a difference (it will), and that farmers feel bagged by the Greens and Labour (they do). It was left to Ardern to offer more substance and collaborative pathways forward: incentives for reducing emissions, cleaning up rivers (including urban rivers).

But beyond a bit of banter about electric vehicles, neither leader had a policy to fundamentally reduce our transport emissions. Pumped hydro schemes may help create jobs and provide stable energy supply over dry years, but neither tackled how we will afford the costs that are coming for homes and infrastructure exposed to sea level rise.

COVID-19 consumes us right now but climate change hasn’t gone away and neither has inequality. Again no one really answered the question posed by head girl of Aorere College, Aigagalefili Fepulea’i Tapua’i, about the stress on low-income school communities where students have to choose between study or taking a job to help their family.

There were gestures towards answers. Collins made the most direct connection, saying, “My husband is Samoan and had to leave school”, but had no solution. Ardern gestured towards raising the lowest incomes but didn’t make a firm commitment beyond saying, “I am not done with child poverty.”

The futures of young New Zealanders hang on what happens next.

Read more: With the election campaign underway, can the law protect voters from fake news and conspiracy theories?

Ardern as hard to pin down as ever

Morgan Godfery, Māori Research Partnerships Manager, University of Otago

“Optimism, and that’s what Labour will bring,” the prime minister said in her opening statement, which is strangely and typically, well, contentless. It’s part of the paradox that is Jacinda Ardern — she’s the global left’s standard bearer, the most popular New Zealand prime minister in living memory, a policy leader against the coronavirus, and yet it’s almost impossible to pin down her politics beyond that optimism.

Ardern promised 8,000 new homes are coming down the line, and that’s ostensibly leftist policy and politic. Yet the waiting list for public housing is 20,000 people long. Is 8,000 left enough? It’s certainly left — or centre! — enough to win.

Especially against a strangely flat and staggered National Party leader. People expect Judith Collins to go hard, because of course it’s a brand she cultivates, but it was a jarring juxtaposition: the hard woman (Collins) against the kind and optimistic prime minister. The advocate for a “border protection agency” (Collins) against the person who’s protected the borders (Ardern). It was hard to pin down, then, precisely what Collins was angry at. Other, of course, than the fact she’s leading the losing side.

Questions remain around National’s border policy

Siouxsie Wiles, Associate Professor in Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Auckland

It’s no secret that I am supportive of the current government’s elimination strategy when it comes to dealing with COVID-19. The main thing I was looking to hear in the leader’s debate was a commitment from both Jacinda Ardern and Judith Collins that whatever government they lead would stick with that strategy.

Read more: Stardust and substance: New Zealand’s election becomes a ‘third referendum’ on Jacinda Ardern’s leadership

The prime minister did that and reiterated the importance of a tightly managed and controlled border. In response, Collins brought up the need for “someone to be in charge”. With a National-led government that would be the job of a new border protection agency. I’m all in favour of an agency dedicated to defending us from pandemic threats, but focusing solely on our border won’t achieve that. Any agency should have a much broader remit that also addresses what makes us vulnerable to pandemics.

Collins also raised not letting anyone board a plane to New Zealand unless they test negative. This policy will certainly stop some infectious people from being able to travel but it won’t catch all of them. I really worry it’ll discriminate against those who can’t afford to, or aren’t able to, access testing. To me this policy runs the very real risk of stranding New Zealanders overseas while not really increasing the security of our border.

Both leaders will want to lift their game

Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University

These are as much performances as debates. Ardern edged Collins on leadership performance, looking and sounding like someone with a 32% lead over her opponent in the preferred prime minister ratings and whose party has a 17% buffer over its major opposition: measured, polite and committed to staying clear of the tit-for-tat.

Given the polls, Collins needed to force the issue: it showed in her regular interjections (some of which were to good effect) and willingness to take the contest to Ardern (occasionally not so successfully).

On the issue of policy fluency (your own but also the other side’s), a close call went — perhaps, maybe — narrowly to Collins. As to eloquence — verbal dexterity and rhetorical flow — Ardern had the edge on her opponent (especially in her closing statement), although Collins in pugnacious mode had an energy that Ardern lacked.

These presentational dimensions of politics matter, especially at a time when voters are looking for an emotional compact with leaders. Given the context, Collins may sleep the easier of the two tonight, but both will be looking to lift things a notch or several when they next meet.

– ref. Contrasting styles, some substance: 5 experts on the first TV leaders’ debate of NZ’s election – https://theconversation.com/contrasting-styles-some-substance-5-experts-on-the-first-tv-leaders-debate-of-nzs-election-146670

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Harry Al-Wassiti, Bioengineer and Research Fellow, Monash University

On Sunday, the Australian government announced it would put A$6 million towards the research and development of three local COVID-19 vaccine candidates, via the Medical Research Future Fund.

The three candidates to share this funding are:

• a targeted subunit protein vaccine, developed by the Doherty Institute

• an mRNA vaccine, developed by the Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (MIPS)

• a needle-free DNA vaccine, developed by the University of Sydney.

Let’s take a look at these different approaches.

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

Targeting the tip

I’m part of the Monash team working with scientists at the Doherty Institute on both the protein vaccine and the mRNA vaccine. Although we initially developed these vaccine candidates separately, they target a similar part of the virus — so we’ve now joined forces to further develop the two together.

Until now, vaccine candidates, such as those developed by the University of Queensland and the University of Oxford, have generally used the entire spike protein as a target. The spike is a large protein found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

A region at the tip of the spike called the “receptor-binding domain” enables the virus to establish itself by binding to our cells and causing infection.

Instead of vaccinating against the “whole” spike protein, our approach is unique in that it uses the receptor-binding domain tip.

The subunit protein vaccine contains the receptor-binding domain from SARS-CoV-2 as the antigen, or target. Exposing our immune system to this protein is intended to create antibodies that generate immunity against this part of the virus, protecting us if we encounter SARS-CoV-2 in the future.

For the mRNA vaccine, rather than injecting the protein itself, a short piece of the genetic material from the virus (mRNA) provides a blueprint to make the receptor-binding domain. So this vaccine also targets the receptor-binding domain to induce an immune response, although the process is different.

We’re exploring the two vaccine options simultaneously. One may prevail as the most promising candidate. It’s also possible we’ll combine both vaccines into a one-shot product. Or one candidate might be the primary vaccine and the other could serve as a booster — it’s still early to tell.

The funding we’ve received will support the development and manufacturing of the two candidates with the intention to enter phase 1 human trials next year if the vaccines prove promising in mice and monkeys. Early results are encouraging.

Notably, both of these vaccines can be produced and manufactured rapidly. For example, within three weeks of receiving the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, we were able to produce three mRNA vaccine candidates.

This flexibility of the Doherty/MIPS approach will be particularly important if COVID-19 mutates into a new strain, and could also be useful for vaccine development in future pandemics.

Read more: The Oxford deal is welcome, but remember the vaccine hasn’t been proven to work yet

A needle-free DNA vaccine

The third COVID-19 vaccine candidate uses DNA technology. A DNA-based vaccine works in a similar way to an mRNA vaccine. By producing the viral antigen inside us, mRNA and DNA vaccines teach our immune system to recognise the antigen should the virus invade in the future.

DNA vaccines have been under development for roughly the past 20 years. While they’re safe, their effectiveness remains in question. So the University of Sydney scientists are rethinking the way they’re delivered.

The previous DNA vaccines relied on a standard needle and syringe delivery, but the University of Sydney’s innovative approach uses a needle-free device. This method will deliver the vaccine using a “liquid jet” to penetrate our skin.

Needle-free delivery improves the distribution of the DNA vaccine deeper into the injected site, which can improve the vaccine’s effectiveness.

The University of Sydney group will aim to recruit 150 volunteers for a phase 1 clinical trial using the needle-free jet system.

The technology is already used to deliver some influenza vaccines. The technology may later be taken up for other COVID-19 vaccine candidates — including mRNA and proteins — if the needle-free system proves safe and effective.

Naturally, another key advantage of this approach is the absence of needles. This may improve vaccine acceptance in some groups, including children.

Further, DNA vaccines can be produced relatively easily in large quantities.

The importance of local vaccine development

Investing in vaccine technologies will be essential for Australian public health, biosecurity and economic independence.

First, it’s unclear whether the current COVID-19 vaccines in phase 3 clinical trials will provide adequate protection. If they do, it’s similarly unclear how long that protection will last. Continued investments in a variety of vaccines at different stages of the development pipeline will ensure we have the best collection of vaccine technologies at our disposal.

Second, some of the development efforts could later yield a significant return on investment if they prove successful. Australia has an evolving biomanufacturing and biotechnology sector, and investment into these areas will benefit the next chapter of our country’s economic recovery.

Read more: Vaccine progress report: the projects bidding to win the race for a COVID-19 vaccine

– ref. Eyeing local development: a look at the 3 Australian COVID vaccine candidates to receive a government boost – https://theconversation.com/eyeing-local-development-a-look-at-the-3-australian-covid-vaccine-candidates-to-receive-a-government-boost-146567

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Larkins, Professor Emeritus and Former Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne

Australian university research funding is made up of discretionary income that comes from various sources, including international student fees. This is additional to the funding, including government grants, specifically received for research activities.

Universities spent A$12.2 billion on research in 2018. Discretionary income used to fund Australian university research that year amounted to $6 billion, of which $3.1 billion of this came from international student fees.

This means international student fees made up 51% of all the externally sourced research income.

We have estimated the loss of international student revenue due to COVID-19 will mean the discretionary income available to support research will decline to less than 30% of external funding for 2020 and beyond. This is equivalent to a decrease of between $6.4 billion and $7.6 billion from 2020–24.

The associated reduction in the Australian university research workforce will be in the range 5,100 to 6,100 researchers. This includes graduate research students, research assistants and academic research leaders.

This amounts to around 11% of the current research force.

We relied on cost of teaching data used by the Australian government to determine funding rates for domestic student places to make our estimates.

The universities most affected

All Australian universities will be affected. But our modelling identifies 13 universities likely to be most at risk because of the size of their research effort and their international student programs.

These are the research-intensive Group of Eight universities: The University of Sydney, The University of Melbourne, UNSW, Monash University, The University of Queensland, ANU, The University of Western Australia and Adelaide University.

These universities account for 70% of the total research funding shortfall.

Five other universities account for 18% of the research funding shortfall: UTS, Deakin University, Macquarie University, QUT and Griffith University.

The impact of the fee losses on the other 25 universities is just 12% of the total.

Some of the 13 universities are facing significantly greater risk to their research programs because they are committing a proportionately greater amount of discretionary fee income than the sector average of 51% to fund research.

We have rated UTS, Deakin and Macquarie at extremely high risk. For Sydney, Melbourne, UNSW, QUT, Griffith and Queensland the risk will be very high, while for Monash, Adelaide, ANU and UWA, risks will be moderately high.

Research rankings and global university reputations are at risk if effective mitigation actions are not achieved.

What needs to be done

Given their reliance on international student revenue to sustain research, universities must place a high priority on restoring, as quickly as possible, existing international student markets or building new markets in other countries. The government can help by promoting stronger international engagement and fast-tracking student visas when borders reopen.

Universities will need also to identify savings in other spending areas such as infrastructure investment, and identify alternative revenue sources such as increased donations, royalties and investment income.

Broader collaborations between industries, universities and government research agencies such as CSIRO, DST (Defence, Science and Technology) and AIMS (The Australian Institute of Marine Science) are in the national interest, as it pools expertise across sectors.

Unfortunately, enhanced collaborations between industry and universities will be limited because Australia’s current level of business research and experimental development is low, compared to the OECD benchmark. In 2018, Australia’s research and development investment was 1.97% of GDP compared with the OECD average of 2.4%.

Establishing an independent “research and innovation council” representing private research institutes, universities, publicly funded government research agencies and industries with a strong research and development focus has considerable merit.

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

Such a body could provide governments with independent strategic research advice to underpin internationally competitive programs. This includes proposing national research priorities important for economic development and social well-being. This council could also play a valuable advocacy role in promoting the national benefits of investment in research.

Individual universities should rigorously reappraise their own research strengths and potential capabilities. This could sharpen their focus on priority areas and increase research performance.

These actions can be combined with an analysis of other university spending — including on administrative services and corporate overheads — to reduce the need for further savings in high-performing research areas.

The federal government needs to acknowledge there is a crisis in university research funding. To date, a coordinated policy response has been muted. While the government has established a research sustainability working group — made up of vice chancellors and others who are to provide advice to the education minister — no other initiatives have not announced.

Read more: COVID-19: what Australian universities can do to recover from the loss of international student fees

Undoubtedly, the most vexed issue is the under-funding of the indirect costs of research linked to competitive grants and contracts. This is a critical unresolved policy issue sought by universities for at least two decades.

The pandemic highlights the research contribution universities are making to state and regional economies. State governments should also be identifying initiatives they can take to mitigate the research disruptions universities are confronting.

Fundamentally, increased collaborative investment across industry, governments, universities and private research institutions are essential to alleviate the research funding shortfall and protect Australia’s international research and innovation standing in a post COVID-19 world.

– ref. $7.6 billion and 11% of researchers: our estimate of how much Australian university research stands to lose by 2024 – https://theconversation.com/7-6-billion-and-11-of-researchers-our-estimate-of-how-much-australian-university-research-stands-to-lose-by-2024-146672

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Larkins, Professor Emeritus and Former Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Melbourne

Australian university research funding is made up of discretionary income that comes from various sources, including international student fees. This is additional to the funding, including government grants, specifically received for research activities.

Universities spent A$12.2 billion on research in 2018. Discretionary income used to fund Australian university research that year amounted to $6 billion, of which $3.1 billion of this came from international student fees.

This means international student fees made up 51% of all the externally sourced research income.

We have estimated the loss of international student revenue due to COVID-19 will mean the discretionary income available to support research will decline to less than 30% of external funding for 2020 and beyond. This is equivalent to a decrease of between $6.4 billion and $7.6 billion from 2020–24.

The associated reduction in the Australian university research workforce will be in the range 5,100 to 6,100 researchers. This includes graduate research students, research assistants and academic research leaders.

This amounts to around 11% of the current research force.

We relied on cost of teaching data used by the Australian government to determine funding rates for domestic student places to make our estimates.

The universities most affected

All Australian universities will be affected. But our modelling identifies 13 universities likely to be most at risk because of the size of their research effort and their international student programs.

These are the research-intensive Group of Eight universities: The University of Sydney, The University of Melbourne, UNSW, Monash University, The University of Queensland, ANU, The University of Western Australia and Adelaide University.

These universities account for 70% of the total research funding shortfall.

Five other universities account for 18% of the research funding shortfall: UTS, Deakin University, Macquarie University, QUT and Griffith University.

The impact of the fee losses on the other 25 universities is just 12% of the total.

Some of the 13 universities are facing significantly greater risk to their research programs because they are committing a proportionately greater amount of discretionary fee income than the sector average of 51% to fund research.

We have rated UTS, Deakin and Macquarie at extremely high risk. For Sydney, Melbourne, UNSW, QUT, Griffith and Queensland the risk will be very high, while for Monash, Adelaide, ANU and UWA, risks will be moderately high.

Research rankings and global university reputations are at risk if effective mitigation actions are not achieved.

What needs to be done

Given their reliance on international student revenue to sustain research, universities must place a high priority on restoring, as quickly as possible, existing international student markets or building new markets in other countries. The government can help by promoting stronger international engagement and fast-tracking student visas when borders reopen.

Universities will need also to identify savings in other spending areas such as infrastructure investment, and identify alternative revenue sources such as increased donations, royalties and investment income.

Broader collaborations between industries, universities and government research agencies such as CSIRO, DST (Defence, Science and Technology) and AIMS (The Australian Institute of Marine Science) are in the national interest, as it pools expertise across sectors.

Unfortunately, enhanced collaborations between industry and universities will be limited because Australia’s current level of business research and experimental development is low, compared to the OECD benchmark. In 2018, Australia’s research and development investment was 1.97% of GDP compared with the OECD average of 2.4%.

Establishing an independent “research and innovation council” representing private research institutes, universities, publicly funded government research agencies and industries with a strong research and development focus has considerable merit.

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

Such a body could provide governments with independent strategic research advice to underpin internationally competitive programs. This includes proposing national research priorities important for economic development and social well-being. This council could also play a valuable advocacy role in promoting the national benefits of investment in research.

Individual universities should rigorously reappraise their own research strengths and potential capabilities. This could sharpen their focus on priority areas and increase research performance.

These actions can be combined with an analysis of other university spending — including on administrative services and corporate overheads — to reduce the need for further savings in high-performing research areas.

The federal government needs to acknowledge there is a crisis in university research funding. To date, a coordinated policy response has been muted. While the government has established a research sustainability working group — made up of vice chancellors and others who are to provide advice to the education minister — no other initiatives have not announced.

Read more: COVID-19: what Australian universities can do to recover from the loss of international student fees

Undoubtedly, the most vexed issue is the under-funding of the indirect costs of research linked to competitive grants and contracts. This is a critical unresolved policy issue sought by universities for at least two decades.

The pandemic highlights the research contribution universities are making to state and regional economies. State governments should also be identifying initiatives they can take to mitigate the research disruptions universities are confronting.

Fundamentally, increased collaborative investment across industry, governments, universities and private research institutions are essential to alleviate the research funding shortfall and protect Australia’s international research and innovation standing in a post COVID-19 world.

– ref. $7.6 billion and 11% of researchers: our estimate how much Australian university research stands to lose by 2024 – https://theconversation.com/7-6-billion-and-11-of-researchers-our-estimate-how-much-australian-university-research-stands-to-lose-by-2024-146672

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Haskell-Dowland, Associate Dean (Computing and Security), Edith Cowan University

Plot twists in the TikTok saga continue to emerge daily, with a proposed deal to secure the future of the video sharing platform in the United States now in doubt.

Under the deal — which US President Donald Trump initially approved but now may not — US computer tech firm Oracle and retailer Walmart proposed a joint venture called TikTok Global, which would see customer data move to US-controlled infrastructure.

This venture would have allowed TikTok to continue operating in the US. Trump had earlier ordered TikTok to be removed from mobile app stores but enforcement of the order could be delayed if the Oracle-Walmart deal goes ahead.

Questions remain: what difference will this deal (if approved) make to the TikTok service; how will it affect the security concerns for governments (and users) in the US and Australia; and is this just political posturing with the US elections looming?

Read more: The US has lots to lose and little to gain by banning TikTok and WeChat

The Oracle-Walmart deal

This deal would see Oracle and Walmart take around 20% of TikTok Global, with ByteDance (the Beijing-based owner of TikTok) retaining 80%.

News reports suggest Walmart and Oracle may pay a combined US$12 billion for their stake in TikTok Global.

Trump has said he wants US$5 billion from companies creating TikTok Global to go into an education fund to teach American children “the real history of our country”.

ByteDance had earlier this month rejected a plan by Microsoft to buy the US arm of TikTok, which cleared the way for the Oracle deal. Oracle’s involvement was likely influenced by a recent decision by video meeting software firm Zoom to use Oracle cloud infrastructure. Oracle’s surprise win in that deal over more familiar names such as Amazon Web Services was a public relations boon for Oracle.

Walmart was an unexpected contender for the TikTok Global partnership, but it makes sense; access to the TikTok user base opens significant marketing opportunities for Walmart to benefit from a large, younger audience.

What does this mean for TikTok users?

If the deal goes ahead — and that is far from certain — most users will not notice any difference. TikTok users will still be able to make viral videos and confuse non-TikTok users.

As TikTok already stores data in the US or Singapore, the move to Oracle-provided infrastructure is unlikely to have any tangible impact on users.

The (claimed) national security concerns will likely remain – if ByteDance retains a significant share in TikTok Global, there will still be US concerns over Chinese government influence.

Read more: Trump’s attempts to ban TikTok and other Chinese tech undermine global democracy

The potential for the Chinese Communist Party to demand access to user data through its National Intelligence Law will still be of concern, as the law applies to any Chinese-owned company (and being the majority stakeholder may be enough to enable such powers to be applied).

This hasn’t been put to the test yet, but in a similar discussion relating to Huawei 5G technology, China law expert and New York University professor Jerome Cohen said there was “no way Huawei can resist any order from the [People’s Republic of China] government or the Chinese Communist Party to do its bidding in any context, commercial or otherwise.”

Of course the same is true for any US-owned organisation, thanks to the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act, which gives the US government very similar powers.

So even if ByteDance sold the entire TikTok platform to a US company, Australian users’ data would still be subject to access requests; they’d just be from the US government rather than the Chinese Communist Party.

Nevertheless, Oracle was quick to provide reassurances over data security, with chief executive Safra Cruz saying he was “100% confident in our ability to deliver a highly secure environment to TikTok and ensure data privacy to TikTok’s American users, and users throughout the world.”

Setting aside concerns over location and access to user data, the proposed deal would still seem to leave the TikTok algorithms in the hands of ByteDance. This may yet cause the deal to fail, and seems to be at odds with Trump’s comment that the deal:

… will have nothing to do with China. It’ll be totally secure.

How much of this is influenced by politics?

In the lead-up to the November US elections, Trump has promoted a narrative that he is the “protector” of Americans against external, particularly Chinese, threats — from coronavirus to Tik Tok.

A Californian federal judge has halted Trump’s attempt to limit Chinese social media apps. The fact this happened in a state led by a Democrat, Tik-Tok-using governor allows Trump to accuse his rivals of blocking his efforts.

The deal is still up in the air. Trump might have been happy with a win, but whether or not he gets one doesn’t matter. He’s already cast China as a threat, he’s deflected attention from COVID-19 and focused the discussion on a foreign government.

But what does all this mean for Australians? Ultimately, not much.

Australia doesn’t use China as a scapegoat in the way Trump’s America has. And although relations with China are strained, Australians are more acutely aware of our financial and cultural ties with China. In the US, China’s public influence is niche and diluted.

At the end of the day, though, Trump railing against China is like the father of a teenage girl hating his daughter’s boyfriend. He can make a lot of noise about it, but, in the end, his influence is limited. She’s going to grow up and do whatever she wants.

– ref. Trump’s TikTok deal explained: who is Oracle? Why Walmart? And what does it mean for our data? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-tiktok-deal-explained-who-is-oracle-why-walmart-and-what-does-it-mean-for-our-data-146566

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Raymond, Lecturer, Australian National University

Thousands of Thai students turned out over the weekend to protest in Bangkok — the latest gathering in a long-simmering movement against the power structures that hold sway in Thailand.

The three core demands of students are to dissolve parliament, amend the constitution and for the government to stop harassing dissidents and others.

The protests began in January, took a break during the COVID-19 outbreak and then resumed in July.

One of the triggers was the disappearance and apparent abduction of political activist Wanchalearm Satsaksit in Cambodia on July 4.

More broadly, protesters are angry at the perceived illegitimacy of the government (headed by the leader of the 2014 coup Prayuth Chan-ocha), the dissolution of leading reform party Future Forward and the government’s performance in handling the economic impacts of the coronavirus.

In the past month, protesters have also begun demanding reform of the monarchy — a topic long deemed unmentionable in a country with strict laws against criticising the royal family.

Where the protests go from here remains to be seen, but so far, the government has exercised relative restraint toward the gatherings, preferring to arrest leaders one by one away from the demonstrations and avoid street clashes.

But the protesters have made one thing clear: they will no longer be ruled by fear. And some believe the public airing of grievances about the monarchy marked a turning point.

Why symbolism matters in Thailand

The weekend protests were heavy on symbolism. They were held at the Royal Plaza, commonly known as Sanam Luang, which has been used for decades for both royal ceremonies and activities such as kite flying. It has also been an important site for exercises of power and protest.

Public access to Sanam Luang has been restricted in recent years, so to reclaim the square was itself a highly meaningful gesture.

The protesters also staged a ritual: the laying of a new People’s Plaque in the square. The new plaque read

at this place the people have expressed their will: that this country belongs to the people and is not the property of the monarch, as they have deceived us.

To appreciate the significance, some historical context is important. The original People’s Party Plaque was laid in 1936 to commemorate Thailand’s the abolition of the absolute monarchy and the establishment of its first constitution four years earlier. It read:

Here, at dawn on 24 June 1932, the People’s Party has brought forth a constitution for the progress of the nation.

This plaque disappeared mysteriously in 2017, shortly after the death of Thailand’s long-serving and much-revered king, Bhumipol Adulyadej, and the instalment of his successor, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn.

The disappearance of the plaque was part of a pattern of vanishing monuments related to the 1932 revolution. No public statement was made about the disappearance of the plaque and no individual or agency took responsibility.

In laying the new plaque over the weekend, the protesters invoked the spirit of all Thais who had fought for democracy in the past, including the revolutionaries Pridi Banomyong and Phibun Songkram.

They also included representations from minorities, such as the LGBTI community, and those from Thailand’s northeast and far-southern provinces. These groups are widely believed to have been disenfranchised under Thailand’s military government and its creeping authoritarianism.

The plaque itself displayed the three-fingered “Hunger Games salute”, widely used by protesters since the 2014 coup and representing the values of freedom, equality and brotherhood/sisterhood.

The new plaque was not long for Royal Plaza, though. Within a day, it had been quickly removed and replaced with cement.

Worries about erosion of democratic freedoms

There has been increasing unease among younger Thais at these clandestine efforts by the military-backed government to erase the memory of Thailand’s democratic birth.

The younger generation voiced their frustrations with the government and the eroding democratic freedoms in the country in the lead-up to the 2019 election — the first vote in Thailand since the coup.

They voted in droves for Future Forward, a party whose key message was no more coups. But Prayuth, the leader of the junta that seized power in 2014, was nonetheless chosen as the new prime minister by the parliament last June.

Read more: Seeking more power, Thailand’s new king is moving the country away from being a constitutional monarchy

Future Forward was then dissolved on a legal technicality in February, suggesting Thailand is adopting the sophisticated authoritarianism of its neighbour Cambodia.

There have also been fears Thailand’s rulers are only superficially abiding by the constitution.

One example was Prayuth’s refusal to promise to uphold the constitution during his swearing-in ceremony.

This followed King Rama X’s decision to amend the constitution unilaterally after it had been approved by the people by referendum.

Where do the protests go from here?

The plaque-laying students will likely face repercussions, although they probably will not be charged with lèse majesté. Since taking the throne, Rama X has indicated a strong preference against using these laws. The government has many other legal instruments at its disposal, such as charging protesters with sedition.

While momentum for constitutional reform is starting to gather pace in the parliament, concrete action on reforming the monarchy will be slower and more difficult. The students say their wish is not for a republic, but for a monarchy above politics and below the constitution.

Read more: Thailand’s controversial king-to-be faces a challenge to gain the people’s respect

As the country’s next generation of leaders in waiting, it seems inevitable that change in this direction will occur.

The students are next calling for a nationwide strike on October 14, another day redolent with symbolism. It was on this day in 1973 the Thai people overthrew a military dictatorship.

– ref. ‘This country belongs to the people’: why young Thais are no longer afraid to take on the monarchy – https://theconversation.com/this-country-belongs-to-the-people-why-young-thais-are-no-longer-afraid-to-take-on-the-monarchy-146562

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Axel Bruns, Professor, Creative Industries, Queensland University of Technology

Google’s role in delivering audiences to news outlets has been under scrutiny of late. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s initiative to redirect advertising revenue from Google and Facebook to news publishers has led to threats of a news boycott by both companies.

Australia’s news media businesses have faced revenue loss and job cuts for some time now, blaming Google and Facebook for poaching advertising revenue.

But rather than share revenue with the publishers whose content they feature, it seems the tech behemoths would rather remove Australian news content from their platforms altogether.

Read more: In a world first, Australia plans to force Facebook and Google to pay for news (but ABC and SBS miss out)

Into this heated debate arrives a new study of Google News search recommendations in the US. The research, published today in Nature Human Behaviour, examines Google News search results across more than 3,000 US counties – evaluating the balance between local and national news outlets in search results on a wide range of topics.

The findings show Google News generally privileges national news outlets over local ones, especially for topics of national interest. This makes it even more difficult for local outlets to compete with their larger national counterparts – but shifting the balance between the two isn’t easy.

A handful of winners

In one sense, the research findings merely show Google News is working as advertised: it points readers interested in major issues to leading national outlets. Larger, better-funded media businesses are likely to have more in-depth coverage than local publishers.

Meanwhile, Google News will feature more local content when users search for issues with a local angle. And while the study didn’t cover Australia, it probably works similarly here, too.

Nevertheless, the research found the three most prominent national US outlets account for about one-sixth of all search results. This echoes research published last year, which also documented Google News featuring a very narrow range of leading news outlets.

The authors of that study worried this “highly concentrated” set of results was “empowering a handful of prominent outlets and marginalising others”, rather than offering a comprehensive range of perspectives on the news.

The ‘filter bubble’ argument

The two studies mentioned above offer a powerful argument against the persistent (but unsubstantiated) idea that search engines and social media place us in “filter bubbles”.

This is the idea that the information we encounter online depends on our personal identities, ideologies and geographical location. If the filter bubbles hypothesis were true, it would indeed threaten to deepen social divides.

But an increasing number of timely studies suggest something different: if there is a filter bubble, we’re all in it together.

In other words, when different users search for news on Google, they likely see the same results from the same handful of media outlets – regardless of who and where they are.

Tweaking the results

From this perspective, the uniformity and predominantly national focus of Google News results may even be welcome, as it ensures searchers of all backgrounds have access to a shared stock of information.

At the same time, however, Google’s channelling of users towards major national news outlets affects their local competitors’ ability to generate advertising revenue. The rich (in readership) get richer (from advertising), while outlets featured less in search results struggle.

In a market already suffering from substantial pandemic-induced downturns, this undermines smaller outlets’ ability to survive in the long term. “News deserts” (areas without local news outlets) are growing rapidly in the US and in Australia.

Read more: Local news sources are closing across Australia. We are tracking the devastation (and some reasons for hope)

Policy makers might be tempted to arrest this decline by forcing Google News to provide more links to local rather than national news outlets. But even if Google agreed to this, it would come at a cost.

Major national outlets are prominent because local outlets simply can’t provide the same comprehensive coverage of non-local issues. Instead, they draw on wire services and syndicated content.

Making Google feature more content from local outlets would direct more revenue towards those news organisations, but could also reduce the quality and diversity of news provided to users. They might end up only seeing local adaptations of content from a small number of wire services.

While this approach might save some local news outlets, it would undermine citizens’ understanding of the world around them.

The lion and the mouse

The Australian initiative to make Google (and Facebook) pay for the news they show on their sites could be seen as a more sensible alternative.

Revenue generated from the news media bargaining code could be used to increase the strength and diversity of the domestic news industry, enabling smaller outlets to provide a better range of content for Google News to feature.

But even if Google was willing to share advertising revenue, the devil lies in the detail. If that money was distributed based on current Google News recommendation patterns, major news outlets would receive the lion’s share. Local news organisations would still miss out – along with the ABC and SBS, which are not included in the ACCC’s proposal.

So it would be good news for News Corp and Nine Entertainment, but not so much for everyone else.

To rebuild Australia’s local news industry, the industry heavyweights would have to give up some of their own hard-fought share of the money. But you don’t need to consult Google to work out how likely that is.

Read more: Platform regulation in Australia is just the start. Facebook and Google are fighting a global battle

– ref. Google News favours mainstream media. Even if it pays for Australian content, will local outlets fall further behind? – https://theconversation.com/google-news-favours-mainstream-media-even-if-it-pays-for-australian-content-will-local-outlets-fall-further-behind-146565

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vivienne Skinner, Industry/Professional Fellow, School of the Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney

Australia’s six-month moratorium on evictions is due to end soon. Some states have extended the moratorium, but when it ends that’s likely to force even more Australians into housing insecurity and outright homelessness. The moral and health arguments for housing people are clear, but many people are unaware of the financial cost we all bear for not fixing homelessness.

Social commentator Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece, Million-Dollar Murray, for The New Yorker in 2006. It’s the story of two Nevada police officers who spent much of their day dealing with homeless people such as six-foot-tall ex-marine and chronic alcoholic Murray. They regularly picked up Murray and drove him to hospital, drying-out clinics, the police lock-up and mental health facilities.

His bills were so legendary the policemen worked out, based on his health care alone, it would have been cheaper to house him in a hotel with his own private nurse. When not drunk, Murray was a charming, smart, talented chef. By the time he died of intestinal bleeding, they calculated the cost of Murray’s homelessness over a decade was US$1 million.

Read more: The need to house everyone has never been clearer. Here’s a 2-step strategy to get it done

Those two Nevada policemen did something that is rarely done anywhere – they calculated (OK, roughly) the cost to the taxpayer of one man’s homelessness. And, in doing so, they showed, as Gladwell pointed out:

The kind of money it would take to solve the homeless problem could well be less than the kind of money it took to ignore it.

No one keeps track of the costs

In Australia, despite government efforts to house people during the pandemic, we still see many on the footpath with their bags and begging signs. They are mostly the men. Women tend to find other ways to manage their homelessness such as couch surfing or staying with adult kids or extended family.

Read more: Beds in car parks don’t solve Australia’s rough sleeping problem

Beyond the human tragedy, what most passers-by fail to see is the cost of homelessness to us all. It includes the bills for police and ambulance call-outs, prison nights, visits to emergency departments, hospital stays and mental health and drying out clinics.

These expenses are rarely collated and tabulated to find the true cost of homelessness to the public. The costs are dispersed over so many government agencies and facilities that they are managed in a piecemeal way, as they always have been in Australia. The result is a hefty hit to the public purse.

Financial case for housing the homeless is clear

To understand this further, we did a global scoping review of research since 2009 that examined the value of providing a secure, stable home for formerly homeless people and the wider taxpaying community. In total, we examined 100 research papers and analysed outcomes across a range of domains including physical and mental health, emergency department use, substance use, well-being, community integration, mortality, criminal justice interaction, service use and cost-effectiveness.

The overriding consensus among the 100 peer-reviewed studies and agency reports was that housing stability brought a raft of benefits to formerly homeless individuals. Reducing the cost of non-shelter services also saved the public money.

Stable housing generally came through a Housing First model. The first priority is to find people a safe and permanent home, with no strings attached. Wraparound support services are provided, which are critical in helping them adjust to a new life in a stable and permanent home.

Read more: Supportive housing is cheaper than chronic homelessness

The savings start with health

The most researched measure was health. Almost all the research found positive changes when people moved into permanent, secure housing. Almost one-third of the studies looked at the fall in use of hospital wards and emergency services once people were housed.

As one Australian study found, people sleeping rough are less likely to have their own GP. When symptoms become too severe to ignore they go to hospital emergency wards. They are admitted to hospital more often and stay longer.

In the 12 months after the 44 clients in this Perth-based study were housed, emergency admissions were reduced by 57% and overnight stays by 53%. The overall health-care saving was A$404,028.

People’s use of sobering services and mental health clinics also declined once housed. A Canadian study looked at whether placement in a permanent home was a solution for those with a severe mental illness. With the right supports, the researchers found, these people were largely able to manage their own housing.

They were able to sleep better. They were more likely to take medications as prescribed. Continuity of care for health problems was better and infection rates were lower. And they experienced less psychological distress, depression and anxiety.

Read more: If Australia really wants to tackle mental health after coronavirus, we must take action on homelessness

Criminal offending is greatly reduced too

All 18 studies looking at criminality reported improvements once people had a stable home. They had fewer nights in jail, arrests and rearrests, and encounters with police.

A 2013 Californian study found once people were housed, with appropriate support services, police contacts fell by 99%. Health costs fell by 85%.

Another two-year Canadian study of 2,000 people across five cities found, unsurprisingly, a major drop-off in public nuisance offences such as sleeping in public places, urinating in public and washing in public bathrooms.

All 19 studies measuring cost-effectiveness found housing people produced savings across a broad range of areas – including crisis accommodation, the justice system, sobering clinics and hospitals. Even after deducting the cost of housing, a 2011 Australian study of 268 participants found savings of $2,182 per person after 12 months.

Our review found a clear economic case for governments to take a systematic approach to ending homelessness. While this argument might be seen as a capitulation to the “financialisation of everything”, the darkening economic cloud of the pandemic might provide just the right cover for government decision-makers to act on the catastrophe of homelessness.

– ref. If we realised the true cost of homelessness, we’d fix it overnight – https://theconversation.com/if-we-realised-the-true-cost-of-homelessness-wed-fix-it-overnight-143998

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Blair Williams, Associate Lecturer, School of Political Science and International Relations, Australian National University

The grand final of Plate of Origin will air on on Channel Seven tonight.

Like other blockbuster cooking shows (think MasterChef, My Kitchen Rules), Plate of Origin is billed as a celebration of Australia’s multiculturalism — a rare example where other cultures are shown and discussed on mainstream TV.

But don’t be fooled. Plate of Origin provides a clear demonstration of how multiculturalism in Australia remains defined by white people.

What is Plate of Origin?

The program features ten teams cooking off against each other, based on national cuisines, in the “world cup of cooking”. It is described as both an “epic competition” and a “celebration of Australia”.

Read more: Why celebrity, award-winning chefs are usually white men

The teams include Team China, Team Lebanon, Team Vietnam, Team India and Team Greece. It is hosted by Gary Mehigan and Matt Preston of MasterChef fame, and Manu Feildel from My Kitchen Rules.

What’s wrong with it?

For a show that is all about different cuisines and cultures, the judges are three white men (two born in England, one in France).

While their expertise in cooking is undoubted, their position as judges reasserts the wisdom and virtue of white men. This when MasterChef ventured to have an Asian woman, Melissa Leong, on its judging panel this year.

A major issue with the way the show is constructed is the presence of a “Team Australia”. This is comprised of two white Australians —Ethan and Stew — who are “just two regular guys who like to cook”. Considering the show is about the teams cooking food from their heritage, then why not have a “Team United Kingdom” instead?

Having a “Team Australia” frames whiteness as normal and invisible, implying the other teams aren’t “real” Australians.

This idea was reinforced in episode six’s elimination task, where contestants had to prove themselves by adapting “an Aussie classic – the pie!”. This shows how other cultures can demonstrate their ethnicity, but must play by the rules set by white Australia.

There is no First Nations representation in the show at all.

Food from a white perspective

The program also makes assumptions about food from a white, European perspective.

As Team Cameroon noted in the lead up to a dessert challenge, “Africa, we don’t really do desserts”. This is similar to criticisms recently levelled at MasterChef, when it failed to understand Asian cuisine. For example, celebrity chef judge Jock Zonfrillo suggested Asian ingredients did not “automatically lend themselves to a fine dining dish”.

All this of course comes amid growing discomfort and anger about the lack of media diversity in Australia.

Recent Deakin University research showed those on Australian television are overwhelmingly white. The research, which examined two weeks of programs, found more than 75% of presenters, commentators and reporters were of Anglo-Celtic background, compared to 58% of the population.

Plate of Origin and Australian multiculturalism

While Plate of Origin can be viewed for its (questionable) culinary or entertainment value, it also highlights ongoing issues with Australian multiculturalism.

It is a textbook example of what Australian anthropologist Ghassan Hage terms the “white nation fantasy”. This argues multiculturalism and racial bigotry coexist in Australia.

For Hage, Australia’s version of multiculturalism demands mastery over People of Colour, as objects to be looked at, consumed and controlled.

Read more: Masterchef row puts chicken rendang and nasi lemak at the top of the menu

Its key figures are “white multiculturalists” who advocate tolerance and multiculturalism. But they also grant themselves the right to determine who is to be tolerated as part of the nation’s cultural and moral core.

According to Hage, Australians of colour need to “make themselves over as objects tolerable to white Australians”.

One of the main ways in which this is done is through what Hage terms a “multicultural exhibition”, in which minority groups are paraded for the benefit of white audiences.

For example, multicultural festivals and museum displays are prone to displaying a collection of migrant cultures as separate from Anglo-Celtic Australia and can trivialise issues of social inequality.

Read more: We know racism and recessions go together. Australia must prepare to stop a racism spike here

So, Plate of Origin helps us understand why multicultural Australia celebrates the presence of People of Colour when they know their place, which is to say it does not really celebrate them at all.

First Nations Australians can be adored as athletes and artists, but far less so as protesters. That is, they should not disturb how “mainstream Australians” envisage themselves.

Plate of Origin also helps us to understand why so many areas of leadership in Australia, including law, business and federal parliament, remain largely white.

Not ‘just a TV show’

It’s heartening to see Plate of Origin is not proving to be a ratings winner or critics’ favourite.

In its second week, ratings fell to from 667,000 to just 382,000. The program’s final episodes are now being rushed out together to finish off the season.

Nevertheless, the program is still being aired on a major network in a prime time slot – and still being viewed by hundreds of thousands of people each week.

What is shown on our TV screens matters. It is a reflection of how we think about our community. Hopefully the next time a program tries to “celebrate” Australia’s multiculturalism, it does so in a much more thoughtful way.

– ref. Channel Seven’s Plate of Origin shows how Australian multiculturalism is defined by white people – https://theconversation.com/channel-sevens-plate-of-origin-shows-how-australian-multiculturalism-is-defined-by-white-people-145683

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

The conservative tax policies proposed by Labour and National ahead of next month’s election are hard to distinguish in substance, with each party offering no more than a gesture towards income tax equity.

National’s surprise announcement of temporary income tax cuts (based on moving income thresholds) does nothing to change that view. But it does at least distinguish the main opposition party from Labour in terms of philosophy and perception of human psychology.

Labour assumes the sentiment of social solidarity seen during the COVID-19 lockdown will persist. National is counting on voters opting for short-term self-interest.

Labour has attacked National’s proposals on the basis of numbers, notably a NZ$4 billion accounting error. Despite the apparent error, though, National’s figures have been reviewed by a reputable economic consultancy, so they are not pie-in-the-sky promises.

In truth, neither Labour nor National know whose tax policies would be more economically effective. And, of course, we will only be able to judge the effectiveness of the policies of the party that forms the next government.

A low-stakes game

So, the real decision for voters now is philosophical and psychological.

Labour believes it can spend around $2 billion more effectively than individuals can if that money is in their hands. Conversely, while National has couched the tax cuts as a stimulus measure, finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith made it clear a National-led government would have no interest in directing taxpayers how to spend or save their extra disposable income.

Read more: With their conservative promises, Labour and National lock in existing unfairness in New Zealand’s tax system

There is, then, a philosophical element to the proposals. In Labour’s weak communitarian view, the community comes before the individual. In National’s weak libertarian view, that is reversed.

The stakes are not so high that a voter must choose between outright communitarianism and libertarianism. Rather, it is a question of degree.

Under Labour’s proposal, a person earning $180,000 a year will pay income tax at an average rate of 28%, leaving the overwhelming majority of their income to be used as they wish. National’s proposal would see such a person better off but not dramatically so.

Nevertheless, the parties’ policies reflect their different philosophical underpinnings.

Can tax make you feel good?

ACT’s David Seymour, a strong libertarian, has accused National of seeking to have its cake and eat it by cutting taxes but promising not to reduce core services. ACT plausibly and candidly connects tax reduction with curbing the role of the state.

If we assume a simple trade off — tax for services — then voters should see it is possible that National’s $2 billion in tax cuts could lead to a roughly equivalent reduction in public services. If you are risk adverse, you should vote against tax cuts because they could affect you financially far more than the extra after-tax cash in your pocket.

In a national crisis, tax increases may promote a sense of solidarity and the need for strong government. For example, beyond their obvious contribution to government finance, tax surcharges imposed during war time have psychological benefits for those who pay them. Once the surcharges are removed, taxpayers have the benefit of both more disposable income and the peace of mind that the crisis has passed.

National’s proposal appears to run counter to this. Despite the current health and economic crisis, it will lower taxes (benefiting the wealthiest most and the poorest least) but will reverse the cuts in 2022, presumably when the crisis is over.

Risk and reward

Unless it makes the tax cuts permanent (perhaps its tacit hope), National’s problems will come when the tax cuts are reversed and taxpayers’ disposable income falls. For people who have become accustomed to having extra disposable income, the reversal will feel like a tax hike.

Unlike people paying tax surcharges in times of crisis, they will feel the psychological pain of having something taken away without an obvious good cause.

The philosopher John Rawls proposed a “veil of ignorance” when thinking about how benefits should be distributed in society. If people don’t know whether they will prosper or fail in life, he predicted, as a precaution they will favour a system of benefit distribution that looks after everyone, especially the worst off.

While Rawls was a liberal, his proposals promote social solidarity. He did not, however, pay much attention to different appetites for risk: if one thinks one is likely to do well in life, one might prefer low or no provision of benefits, and therefore pay less tax.

Labour’s proposals are Rawlsian, whereas National appears to be banking on “hard-working” middle-income earners having more of an appetite for risk. During a time of uncertainty and anxiety, of course, such a policy carries its own political risks.

– ref. The major parties’ tax promises are more about ideology and psychology than equity or fairness for New Zealanders – https://theconversation.com/the-major-parties-tax-promises-are-more-about-ideology-and-psychology-than-equity-or-fairness-for-new-zealanders-146561

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Wynn, Lead Economist, CSIRO Futures, CSIRO

Over the next few years, science and technology will have a vital role in supporting Australia’s economy as it strives to recover from the coronavirus pandemic.

At Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, we’ve identified opportunities that can help businesses drive economic recovery.

We examined how the pandemic has created or intensified opportunities for economic growth across six sectors benefiting from science and technology. These are food and agribusiness, energy, health, mineral resources, digital and manufacturing.

Advanced healthcare

While some aspects of Australian healthcare are currently digitised, system-wide digital health integration could improve the quality of care and save money.

Doctors caring for patients with chronic diseases or complex conditions could digitally coordinate care routines. This could streamline patient care by avoiding consultation double-ups and providing a more holistic view of patient health.

We also see potential for more efficient healthcare delivery through medical diagnostic tests that are more portable and non-invasive. Such tests, supported by artificial intelligence and smart data storage approaches, would allow faster disease detection and monitoring.

There’s also opportunity for developing specialised components such as 3D-printed prosthetics, dental and bone implants.

Green energy

Despite a short-term plateau in energy consumption caused by COVID-19 globally, the demand for energy will continue to grow.

Through clean energy exports and energy initiatives aligned with decarbonisation goals, Australia can help meet global energy demands. Energy-efficient technologies offer immediate reduced energy costs, reduced carbon emissions and less demand on the energy grid. They also create local jobs.

Read more: It might sound ‘batshit insane’ but Australia could soon export sunshine to Asia via a 3,800km cable

Innovating with food and agribusiness

The food and agribusiness sector is a prominent contributor to Australia’s economy and supports regional and rural prosperity.

Global population growth is driving an increased demand for protein. At the same time, consumers want more products that are sustainable and ethically sourced.

Australia could earn revenue from the local production and export of more sustainable proteins. This might include plant-based proteins such as pea and lupins, or aquaculture products such as farmed prawns and seaweed.

We could also offer more high-value health and well-being foods. Examples include fortified foods and products free from gluten, lactose and other allergens.

Automating minerals processes

Even before COVID-19 struck, the mineral resources sector was facing rising costs and declining ore grades. It’s also dealing with climate change impacts such as droughts, bushfires, floods, and social pressures to reduce environmental harm.

Several innovative solutions could help make the sector more productive and sustainable. For instance, increasing automation and remote mining (which Australia already excels in) could achieve improved safety for workers, more productivity and business continuity.

Read more: The coronavirus has thrust human limitations into the spotlight. Will it mark the rise of automation?

Also, investing in advanced technologies that can generate higher quality data on mineral character and composition could improve yields and minimise environmental harm.

High-tech manufacturing

COVID-19 has escalated concerns around Australia’s supply chain fragility – take the toilet paper shortages earlier in the pandemic. Expanding local manufacturing efforts could create jobs and increase Australia’s earning potential.

This is especially true for mineral processing and manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, food and beverages, space technology and defence. Our local manufacturing will need to adapt quickly to changes in supply needs, ideally through the use of advanced designs and technology.

Digital solutions

In April and May this year, Australian businesses made huge strides in adopting consumer and business digital technologies. One study estimated five years’ worth of progress occurred in those eight weeks. Hundreds of thousands of businesses moved their work online.

Over the next two years, Australian businesses could become more efficient and adaptable by further monetising the data they already collect. For example, applying mobile sensors, robotics and machine learning techniques could help us make better resource decisions in agriculture.

Similarly, businesses could share more data throughout the supply chain, including with customers and competitors. For instance, increased data sharing among renewable energy providers and customers could improve the monitoring, forecasting and reliability of energy supply.

Making the right plans and investments now will determine Australia’s recovery and resilience in the future.

– ref. Healthcare, minerals, energy, food: how adopting new tech could drive Australia’s economic recovery – https://theconversation.com/healthcare-minerals-energy-food-how-adopting-new-tech-could-drive-australias-economic-recovery-146410

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yun Jiang, Senior Research Officer, Australian National University

Last month, the University of New South Wales came under harsh criticism after its media team deleted an article and tweet in which Elaine Pearson, the Australia director of Human Rights Watch, expressed concern over China’s curtailment of human rights in Hong Kong.

The tweet enraged some in the Chinese student community in Australia, who organised an aggressive campaign targeting UNSW’s social media channels.

Pearson later said, the incident shook her:

the pro-Chinese Communist Party students certainly don’t have to agree with my remarks. But I was still somewhat shocked at the ferocity of their response, and disappointed at the university’s feeble reaction.

As I have written in a policy brief for China Matters, the rhetoric and actions of pro-China nationalists create two contrasting problems for Chinese people living in Australia.

First, these nationalists are intimidating people who are critical of the Chinese Communist Party, or China more broadly. Second, the Australian media have argued or insinuated that those who merely express support for Chinese policies must be brainwashed or threats to democracy.

Both of these problems disproportionately affect the Chinese diaspora in Australia.

Intimidation and harassment

The Chinese Communist Party, through its propaganda and education system, encourages the conflation of the concepts of “China” with the state, the party and the Chinese people. As a result, criticisms of the Chinese government, its policies, the party or its leaders can be interpreted by some nationalists as an attack on the entire country and its people.

Some responses to these perceived attacks include intimidating those with alternative views. And such abuse can be more extreme when directed at people of Chinese heritage. The term hanjian or “Chinese traitor” is often used by nationalists against those deemed critical of the state.

Read more: Students from China may defend their country but that doesn’t make them Communist Party agents

Increasingly, some nationalists use the potential threat of the Chinese government as additional leverage. When they come across someone who disagrees with a Chinese government policy in their classrooms or chat groups, they will often publish his or her personal details online or report them to a Chinese consulate.

There is even an online Chinese government reporting portal that facilitates the work of informants. The portal has seen a 40% increase in reports since last October.

This intimidation and harassment can affect people’s families back in China, too. For students, what they say in the classroom in Australia can be reported back to their families or local authorities in China. The families of human rights activists in Australia face even more pressure from authorities.

Because of these threats, people who maintain a strong connection to China may choose to self-censor when speaking publicly or in the classroom, in order to stay within the bounds of what’s acceptable from Beijing’s viewpoint.

Threats to democracy?

Intimidation and harassment of others is no doubt wrong, and in some cases, illegal in Australia. The reporting of people’s personal details or what they have said in classrooms to Chinese authorities is also unacceptable. These actions are detrimental to democracy in Australia, as they serve to restrict freedom of speech.

But not all Chinese nationalists act in these ways. Some may express their patriotism or support for aspects of China’s policies in an email or chat group to other students, for example, without intimidating or threatening anyone.

Yet, just by being supportive or understanding of a Chinese government policy, they are often labelled by commentators in the Australian media as “brainwashed”, or seen as not committed to the values of democracy.

Read more: Why Chinese and Hong Kong students clash in Australia: the patriotic v the protest movement

As Professor Fran Martin of Melbourne University, who studies the social experiences of Chinese students in Australia, has written,

most find the claims [that they are spies for or controlled by the Communist Party] strange, unfair and implausible. Most confusing is the charge that by voicing their political opinions in the classroom, Chinese students are undermining the free speech of others.

Many students feel trapped between China nationalists and popular stereotypes. One Chinese-Australian told a China Matters researcher they cannot speak publicly on sensitive issues such as Taiwan because they would be accused of being a stooge of the Chinese government (if they were pro-unification) or unpatriotic (if they were pro-independence).

Chinese students in Australia have a great opportunity to feel the spirit of democracy and become more politically minded and active. Yet if every time they express their political view, Australian society accuses them of being a threat to democracy, it only serves to alienate them.

What can be done?

There are many things we can do to address both issues. However, any policy response needs to balance protecting the victims of intimidation with the rights of individuals to express their views of China without being labelled as threats to democracy.

The first problem of intimidation and harassment requires stronger enforcement of existing laws and policies. Universities need to take tough actions to punish students who intimidate others, or those who report the views expressed in classrooms, to the Chinese authorities. This should include expulsion.

Read more: Why the Australia-China relationship is unravelling faster than we could have imagined

The Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce should also investigate and punish those who report the details of others to Chinese authorities.

Lecturers should find ways to encourage classroom debate while protecting students from surveillance. Anonymous online discussion is one strategy — students remain anonymous to other students but not to the lecturer. There are other strategies that could work, too.

Democratic resilience is the key to the second problem. Chinese students should be encouraged to express their views, whether they support or oppose the Chinese government.

Rather than blaming these students for their views, Australian society needs to hold institutions accountable when they cave in the face of Chinese government pressure or censor the views of those who are critical of China.

– ref. Pro-China nationalists are using intimidation to silence critics. Can they be countered without stifling free speech? – https://theconversation.com/pro-china-nationalists-are-using-intimidation-to-silence-critics-can-they-be-countered-without-stifling-free-speech-145241

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare Collins, Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

Coffee is regularly in the news for its potential health benefits and drawbacks.

A review of the research found drinking a few cups of coffee a day was associated with a lower risk of dying from any cause. Coffee drinkers had a lower risk of developing heart disease, type 2 diabetes, liver disease, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and prostate, endometrial, liver and skin cancers.

However, the review also found evidence of negative effects related to pregnancy and fracture risk in older women, even after results were adjusted for possible confounding factors, like smoking.

Some of coffee’s positive effects have been attributed to food components called “phytonutrients”. But if you’re not a coffee drinker, don’t worry — you can find phytonutrients in other foods too.

What are phytonutrients?

Phytonutrients, or phytochemicals, are chemical compounds plants produce that help them grow well. They can deter predators or help fight off pathogens.

Research is shedding light on their potential benefits for human health, too. When we digest and absorb foods and drinks that are rich in phytonutrients, these compounds become active in our bodies’ biochemical pathways that affect our health and infleuence whether we develop disease.

Scientists have identified thousands of phytonutrients in plants including nuts, beans, seeds, vegetables, fruit and grains.

Research to identify those with potential for use in disease prevention and treatment is accelerating.

Read more: Health Check: four reasons to have another cup of coffee

Four phytonutrients

Two of the phytonutrients found in coffee beans are caffeic acid and chlorogenic acid. You’ll also find them in a range of fruit, vegetables, herbs and spices.

Caffeic acid is found in dates, prunes, olives, potatoes, sunflower seed meal, cinnamon, cumin, nutmeg, ginger, star anise, spearmint, caraway, thyme, oregano, sage and rosemary.

Chlorogenic acid is found in prunes, blueberries, apples, pears, peaches, globe artichokes, potatoes, sunflower seeds, spearmint, sage and oregano.

Most of the research on caffeic acid and chlorogenic acid has been in laboratory studies, so the results cannot be applied directly to people. But laboratory studies suggest these compounds act on signalling pathways that contribute to the development of chronic diseases, including cancer.

They may prevent cancer development by neutralising free radicals that can damage cell walls, and by converting potential cancer-causing substances into less toxic compounds.

Further, in studies in mice, caffeic acid and chlorogenic acid suppressed the rise in blood sugar levels after eating. These results suggest a mechanism for lowering the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, though we’ll need research beyond laboratory studies before we can move towards any conclusions.

Among other phytonutrients with similar anti-inflammatory and protective properties are quercetin and glucosinolate.

Quercetin compounds give flowers, vegetables and fruit some of their colour. Quercetin helps plants adapt to local growing conditions and regulates the hormones that influence their growth and development.

Food sources include asparagus, black olives, cocoa, cranberries, buckwheat, prunes, broad beans, plums, apples, red and brown onions, shallots, blackberries, raspberries, strawberries, broccoli, red lettuce, red wine, green beans, zucchini, oregano, marjoram, cloves and capers.

While most studies of quercetin have similarly been in cells or animals, and not humans, they show quercetin has anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and anti-cancer effects. Quercetin alters the way cancer cells develop, grow and spread, and helps kill the cancer cells. So more research on quercetin as a potential therapeutic agent for cancer is warranted.

Quercetin supplements have been tested in humans for their effects on blood pressure. In a review of seven randomised controlled trials, both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly reduced among patients taking quercetin.

Read more: Seven things to eat or avoid to lower your blood pressure

Glucosinolates give certain plants their pungent flavour. They’re found in brocolli, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, daikon radish, kale, wasabi, bok choi, rocket, horseradish, radish, turnip, watercress and mustard greens.

Food processing influences glucosinolate content, with steaming preserving more compared to boiling or blanching.

The bioactivity of glucosinolate is likely to have evolved as part of the plants’ defence systems against disease and insect pests. Laboratory studies in cells, mice and rats have shown glucosinolates exert antimicrobial activity, as well as anti-cancer activity by deactivating potential carcinogens.

We need more research to evaluate whether glucosinolates could be used to increase the effectiveness of current cancer therapies.

Putting it all together

While research progresses to identify how phytonutrients could help prevent disease and improve our health and well-being, eating a variety of phytonutrient-rich foods is part of having a balanced diet.

These foods have the highest total phytonutrient content:

Here are some ideas to include more of these foods in your meals and snacks:

1. buy a new herb or spice next time you’re at the supermarket — and use them in cooking regularly

2. try a spiced fruit compote. Simmer a mix of fresh, canned, dried or frozen fruit, including apples, peaches, apricots, or mixed berries with spices such as cinnamon, ginger, cloves or star anise. Store in the fridge and spoon over cereal or yoghurt

3. make a spice base by browning chopped onions in a frying pan with a splash of olive oil, crushed garlic and a teaspoon of dried herbs such as cumin, caraway, oregano, thyme or marjoram. Add to soups, sauces and casseroles

4. finely chop peppermint, spearmint or parsley and add to cooked peas, mashed potato and salads.

Read more: What is a balanced diet anyway?

– ref. Phytonutrients can boost your health. Here are 4 and where to find them (including in your next cup of coffee) – https://theconversation.com/phytonutrients-can-boost-your-health-here-are-4-and-where-to-find-them-including-in-your-next-cup-of-coffee-132100

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bryan Fry, Associate Professor, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland

Funnel webs are considered one of Australia’s most fearsome spiders, but their ability to kill humans is by accident rather than design, our new research shows.

In findings published today, we reveal how the highly toxic and quick-acting venom of male funnel-web spiders is likely to have developed as a defence against predators.

When male funnel-web spiders are young, their venom is potent mainly to insects, which they eat. But once males start searching for a female mate, they must leave the safety of their burrows. That’s when their venom becomes potent to vertebrates such as reptiles and mammals – including humans.

So while humans can theoretically die from a funnel web bite, this is just an evolutionary coincidence – our research suggests the spiders aren’t specifically out to get us.

Why so deadly?

About 15% of all animals use venom for reasons such as to kill or immobilise prey, self-defence or to gain advantage over competitors, such as during breeding season. As an animal matures and its activities change, so too can its venom.

Australian funnel webs are among a small group of spiders whose venom can kill humans. However all 13 recorded deaths occurred before anti-venom was introduced in 1981.

Funnel web venom is lethal because it contains a type of neurotoxin called “delta-hexatoxin”. This toxin can kill humans by attacking the nervous system, keeping nerves “turned on” and firing over and over again. In severe cases the venom can cause muscles to go into spasm, blood pressure to drop dangerously, coma and organ failure, and ultimately death – sometimes within a few hours.

Read more: Don’t like spiders? Here are 10 reasons to change your mind

Scientists have long been puzzled by why these toxins are so deadly to humans, when we and other primates have never been funnel web prey or predator. Scientists were also perplexed as to why male funnel webs appeared to have much deadlier venom than females, and caused most human deaths.

However we did know most funnel web bites in humans occur during the spiders’ summer mating season, when the male spiders rarely feed. This suggested the venom played a defensive role.

Spider sleuthing

We set out to solve this mystery, using molecular analysis of the venom. Although 35 species of Australian funnel-web spiders were officially recognised, only nine delta-hexatoxins from four species had previously been identified. Our analysis increased the number of known delta-hexatoxins to 22, from the venom of ten funnel-web species.

Having this extra data helped us paint a much clearer picture of the venom’s story. It all comes down to natural selection – the process where organisms best adapted to their environment survive and procreate. The genes responsible for this success are preserved and carry on to the next generations, driving the process of evolution

Our data revealed how natural selection triggered a change in the venom of adult male funnel webs. When males sexually mature, they leave the safety of their burrow and wander considerable distances to find a female. This puts male funnel web spiders in the path of vertebrate predators. These can include reptiles (such as lizards or geckos), marsupials (such as antechinus and dunnarts), mammals (such as rats) and birds.

Read more: Should I kill spiders in my home? An entomologist explains why not to

When funnel-web spiders evolved millions of years ago, toxins in its venom mainly targeted their natural prey: insects such as cockroaches and flies. We examined the genetic sequences of all delta-hexatoxins in funnel web venom. We found over time, the venom of adult males evolved to be potent to vertebrate predators. Unluckily for humans, who are vertebrate animals, we copped it in the process.

Female funnel webs stay safely in their burrows and let the males come to them. So the venom of females is thought to remain potent only against insects their entire lives.

Take comfort

Now armed with a stronger understanding of how delta-hexatoxins evolved, we want to put that knowledge to use. The new genetic sequences we discovered will enable a better understanding of what funnel web spider venom does to the human body. This could be critical for improving existing anti-venoms, and for designing evidence-based treatment strategies for bite victims.

We’re not just looking at the venoms of sexually mature males. We’re also examining female funnel-web venom, hoping their insect-specific toxins will lead to new types of insecticides which are less harmful to non-target insects and the broader environment.

Funnel webs may be one of Australia’s most deadly spiders. But perhaps its some comfort to know their venom is not targeted against us, and the potential lethal effects are just a stroke of evolutionary bad luck.

Read more: Curious Kids: why do spiders need so many eyes but we only need two?

– ref. ‘I didn’t mean to hurt you’: new research shows funnel webs don’t set out to kill humans – https://theconversation.com/i-didnt-mean-to-hurt-you-new-research-shows-funnel-webs-dont-set-out-to-kill-humans-146406

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tracey Muir, Associate Professor in Mathematics Education, University of Tasmania

Parents and carers were responsible for overseeing their children’s learning during the first wave of COVID restrictions in Australia. Many parents in Melbourne and some in regional Victoria will still be doing for some of term four.

We surveyed and interviewed parents and carers of primary school-aged children in Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and the ACT to explore their experiences of helping their children with remote schooling.

We asked parents to rate their levels of agreement with statements such as “I felt the school provided enough guidance for me to support my child while learning from home” and “I feel that my child has continued to progress in their education during the home-learning period”.

Out of the 131 responses to the survey during July and August, 22% of parents found their experience good, 34% found it poor and 44% reported mixed feelings. While 72% of parents and carers agreed schools provided enough guidance to support children while learning at home, this was not the case for 28% of people. And 68% indicated they found themselves teaching beyond provided materials.

This suggested a number of parents were taking a proactive role in their children’s learning and exploring areas of interest beyond the scope of the work allocated, even where they found it adequate.

Read more: Students in Melbourne will go back to remote schooling. Here’s what we learnt last time and how to make it better

Individual interviews with 20 parents revealed concerns about the amount and quality of learning materials provided. Many also said their children’s needs were not supported in the learning materials and there was little opportunity for children to connect with peers.

Other researchers have found the experience of remote learning was also immensely stressful for teachers, most of whom had a very short time to convert to online teaching – but our survey only looked at the effects on parents and carers.

So much information, so little feedback

Parents and carers spoke about the pressure they felt to ensure children completed work and to return it on time. For some the workload was too much, for others too little.

One parent of a Year 5 child said:

the workload was so intense[…] he was working from 9 am until 3 or 4pm, pretty solidly throughout the day.

While another parent of a Year 3 child said:

I had one child that had literally finished all his work by midday.

At least five of the parents interviewed had multiple children and found managing the differing workloads challenging. A parent of children in Year 5 and Year 1 said often one child would finish daily tasks in an hour, while another child could not complete set tasks for the day.

Read more: Only one fifth of school students with disability had enough support during the remote learning period

At least half of the parents interviewed felt there were unrealistic expectations placed on them and lacked direction on how to help their children:

One parent of a Year 5 child told us:

When they ask detailed questions, I would say let me just Google that for you — and that’s not very helpful[…] that’s where not being a teacher really stood out.

Once the work was finished, parents were generally disappointed teachers provided no, or limited, feedback. One parent described the teacher’s use of emojis and like buttons as “Facebooking my daughter’s learning”.

Some parents interpreted this type of feedback as devaluing the efforts of parents and children. One parent of a Year 1 child said:

If they do want us to communicate in a platform, then at least give us the respect of replying with decent replies rather than a thumbs up.

Another parent expressed frustration with the lack of feedback:

I’m getting no emails off the teacher with feedback, or anything like that — no saying “just letting you know that Josh did great this week”, or “just letting you know Josh has not handed in anything”, so I have no idea if he’s doing well or doing bad.

One parent felt her Year 3 daughter “wasn’t that interested in some of the activities – she was not being challenged — it was boring”. So the mother “created resources that suited my child better, based on what the teacher provided”.

There were some positives

In the survey, 80% of parents and carers agreed: “The experience of home learning has helped me to understand how my child learns”.

One parent said:

I got to know them a bit better as people, which is nice.

And another said:

Being able to teach my kids allowed me to be closer to them and engage in their learning world.

Other parents saw their children develop in confidence and become more autonomous with their learning.

A parent of Year 1 child told us:

She can now take photos on my phone, Bluetooth it to the laptop, find it on the laptop and put it on Seesaw. I don’t think I could do that until I was 30 so the IT skills are great.

But that same parent was also generally concerned about the quantity of screen time required in remote learning, especially for a six year old.

Here’s what would help

We asked what would help to support parents and carers, and their children, learning from home. The overwhelming response was to increase opportunities for children to connect with their teachers and peers.

Read more: ‘Exhausted beyond measure’: what teachers are saying about COVID-19 and the disruption to education

Parents appreciated regular class catch ups online, when these were held. One parent told us their child’s school held a “class meet” every morning, and individual Zoom sessions were scheduled for children who needed additional support.

One parent highlighted: “communication has to be paramount and it’s got to be regular”.

In general, parents held the view connecting was more important than a focus on curriculum. This can be summed up by this parent’s comment:

Instead of trying to do maths tests in a Zoom session, or quizzes or finding out whether they’re reaching their reading levels, just have a conversation with them about something that’s important to them. That’s just as important I think, forget all those other activities to show you’re doing lots of work.

If you are a parent or carer of a child in primary school who has or is currently experiencing learning from home, and would like to tell us about your experiences, you can still participate in our survey.

– ref. ‘The workload was intense’: what parents told us about remote learning – https://theconversation.com/the-workload-was-intense-what-parents-told-us-about-remote-learning-146297

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marilyn Lake, Professorial Fellow in History, University of Melbourne

Review: Vida: A Woman for Our Time, published by Penguin (Viking imprint)

Australian women were not the first to win the right to vote in national elections. That world-historic distinction belongs to New Zealanders. But they were the first to win, in 1902, both the right to vote and stand for election to the national parliament.

Three Australian women quickly availed themselves of the opportunity. Nellie Martel and Mary Bentley from New South Wales joined Vida Goldstein from Victoria as candidates in the 1903 federal election.

Little is now known of Martel and Bentley, but Goldstein’s contribution to politics has been commemorated in numerous scholarly studies, theses, essays, book chapters and encyclopedia entries, Janette Bomford’s biography That Dangerous and Persuasive Woman, and a federal electorate named in her honour. But historical memory is fickle and we need still to know more about the political history of women in Australia.

Read more: Women’s votes: six amazing facts from around the world

Enlivened by speculation

A skilled and prize-winning biographer, Jacqueline Kent brings fresh enthusiasm and focus to her quest to understand Vida’s extraordinary political career and its disappointments in her new biography. Goldstein stood five times for election to the federal parliament and suffered five defeats.

Kent’s previous biography was The Making of Julia Gillard and it seems the painful experiences of our first woman Prime Minister – subject to relentless misogyny and sexist attacks – remain fresh in the writer’s mind.

In Kent’s telling, Vida’s story is framed by Gillard’s fate. There are regular references to Gillard’s experiences and the trials of politicians such as Julie Bishop and Sarah Hanson-Young. Thus Vida’s biography becomes a story of continuity, rather than change, with Vida still “a woman for our time”.

Kent’s account is enlivened by speculation. Vida and her activist mother “might very well have attended” the initial meeting of the Victorian Women’s Suffrage Society (VWSS) and “must have known about” the women’s novels then in circulation.

There is also a good amount of authorial displeasure evident. Women speakers had to endure “the tedious jocularity that was de rigueur” for mainstream journalists. The Age newspaper “evidently considered the welfare of women and children to be a trivial matter”.

Some of the most vivid passages in the book sketch the range of forceful personalities in the Melbourne “woman movement” of the late 19th century, who served as Vida’s models and mentors.

Henrietta Dugdale, cofounder of the VWSS was small in stature, but formidable in argument and the author of the radical Utopian novel A Few Hours in a Far-Off Age. Brettena Smyth, “an imposing speaker, being six feet tall and voluminous in figure, with blue shaded spectacles” was also a member of the VWWS, and sold women contraceptives. Annette Bear-Crawford and Constance Stone were cofounders of the Shilling Fund that made possible the Queen Victoria Hospital for Women.

Read more: ‘Expect sexism’: a gender politics expert reads Julia Gillard’s Women and Leadership

Missing chapters

The larger community of the Australian “woman movement” is largely absent from this account.

There are glimpses of Rose Scott and Louisa Lawson in Sydney and Catherine Spence in Adelaide, who could be frosty when confronted by Goldstein’s evident ambition.

In 1902, Goldstein represented “Australasian” women at the First International Woman Suffrage Conference in Washington, DC. Yet Spence, who preceded Goldstein in her informal role as ambassador for Australian women at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893 and embarked on a lecture tour, offered her successor a long list of contacts and helpful advice.

Scott, Spence, Goldstein and others of their generation were strong advocates of non-party politics for women, convinced they should avoid the male domination of established political parties. Their strong international connections reinforced woman-identified politics. But would enfranchised women vote as a bloc?

While in Boston in 1902, lecturing to a range of women’s groups, Goldstein met a bright young feminist, Maud Wood Park, whom she invited to Australia. When Goldstein hosted Park and her friend Myra Willard in Melbourne in 1909 she introduced them to future Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher and a number of Labor women at a tea party at Parliament House.

Elected to government in 1910, in a historic victory assisted by a strong women’s vote, Fisher responded to lobbying from Labor women and introduced the acclaimed Maternity Allowance.

Kent misses the significance of the rise of the labour women’s movement and its part in the 1910 election result.

Questions of class

Class divisions mattered, but Kent tends to read Goldstein’s failure as a symptom of sexism, rather than class affiliation.

In the Epilogue, she observes that in the UK and US, Nancy Astor and Jeanette Rankin were quickly elected to Parliament and Congress. In Australia, Dorothy Tangney and Enid Lyons had to wait until 1943 to win seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. Kent doesn’t note, however, that Astor (Conservative) and Rankin (Republican) were party-endorsed candidates, as were Tangney (Labor) and Lyons (Liberal).

Sadly, Vida Goldstein’s series of electoral defeats as a non-party woman candidate would prove prophetic rather than path-breaking.

Goldstein’s courage and endurance qualify her as a woman for our time. But her political strategy of seeking power as an “independent woman candidate” meant she didn’t succeed then or set the most compelling example for aspiring political women today.

Read more: More than a century on, the battle fought by Australia’s suffragists is yet to be won

– ref. Review: new biography shows Vida Goldstein’s political campaigns were courageous, her losses prophetic – https://theconversation.com/review-new-biography-shows-vida-goldsteins-political-campaigns-were-courageous-her-losses-prophetic-145691

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

The Morrison government will tell its refocused clean energy agencies and the clean energy regulator to give priority to investment in five low emissions technologies and report how they are accelerating them.

The technologies are clean hydrogen, energy storage, low carbon steel and aluminium, carbon capture and storage, and soil carbon.

The government last week announced it would legislate to extend the remit of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) beyond renewables.

On Tuesday it will indicate the “priority low emissions technologies” they, and the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) – which is responsible for administering the government’s emissions reduction fund – should concentrate on.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor, in a Tuesday speech on low emissions technology, will say the government is putting technologies into four categories. Apart from the priority low emissions technologies, the other categories are emerging and enabling technologies, “watching brief” technologies, and mature technologies.

Priority technologies “are those expected to have transformational impacts here and globally and are not yet mature,” Taylor says in his speech, released ahead of delivery.

“They are priorities where government investments can make a difference in reducing costs and improving technology readiness.

“Technologies where we, as a government, will not only prioritise our investments but where we will streamline regulation and legislation to encourage investment.

“Investors will have confidence that identified priority technologies are of long-term strategic importance for the government.”

Emerging and enabling technologies, such as those for energy efficiency and infrastructure for electric and hydrogen vehicle charging/ refuelling, will also be included in the mandate of the government’s investment agencies.

In the “watching brief” category are those that are for the longer run or are longer odds, such as direct air capture and small nuclear modular reactors. (There is a moratorium on nuclear power in Australia at the moment but the government is watching developments in Europe and the United Kingdom.)

Notably, key renewables and key fossil fuels are in the “mature” category, which includes coal, gas, solar and wind.

The government says it will only invest in them where there is market failure or where such investments secure jobs in key industries.

Last week Scott Morrison threatened to build a gas power station in the Hunter region if private investors left a supply gap for when the Liddell coal-fired station closes, while he also indicated renewables could now stand on their own feet.

Taylor will release an overarching technology roadmap, which he says “arms the government with “four levers to enact change”: an investment lever, a legislative lever, a regulator lever, and international co-operation and collaboration.

“The roadmap will guide the deployment of the $18 billion that will be invested, including through the CEFC, ARENA, the Climate Solutions Fund [which will evolve from the Emissions Reduction Fund] and the CER.

“This will turn that into at least $50 billion through the private sector, state governments, research institutions and other publicly funded bodies. That will drive around 130 000 jobs to 2030,” Taylor says.

The legislative level “is about flexibility and accountability.

“We don’t currently have that. Our agencies are restricted by legislation and regulation to invest in the new technologies of 2010 not the emerging technologies of 2020.”

The regulator lever “is about enablement”.

Taylor says the government’s plan is not based on ideology but “balance and outcomes”.

The government is announcing several “stretch goals” (see table for details). Stretch goals are the point at which new technologies become competitive with existing alternatives. The government announced the hydrogen stretch goal earlier in the year.

“Getting these technologies right will strengthen our economy and create jobs,” Taylor says.

“This will significantly reduce global emissions, across sectors that emit 45 billion tonnes annually.

“Australia alone will avoid 250 million tonnes of emissions by 2040.”

He says “Australia can’t and shouldn’t damage its economy to reduce emissions”.

– ref. Morrison government lays down five technologies for its clean energy investment – https://theconversation.com/morrison-government-lays-down-five-technologies-for-its-clean-energy-investment-146584

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Maguire, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, University of Newcastle

The Jerusalem District Court has ruled Malka Leifer should be extradited to Australia.

The former Melbourne headmistress faces 74 charges of child sexual abuse against three alleged victims.

How is this ruling significant?

Leifer’s case has been protracted and politicised. Today’s is the first ruling on the merits of Leifer’s extradition case, following over 70 court hearings taken up with her repeated attempts to avoid extradition.

Leifer, a former headmistress of the ultra-orthodox Adass Israel girls’ school, fled to Israel in 2008 when the allegations against her first surfaced. Australia lodged an extradition request in 2013, which Israeli police eventually acted on. Leifer was arrested in 2014. However, she was later bailed.

Leifer managed to delay today’s outcome for several years by claiming to be too unwell to attend multiple subsequent hearings. In 2018, she was again jailed when it emerged she had been living and socialising in an orthodox Israeli settlement.

Israel’s Deputy Health Minister, Ya’acov Litzman, was accused of altering medical records to insure against Leifer’s extradition. Israeli police recommended Litzman be indicted for witness tampering.

Australian politicians, including Attorney-General Christian Porter, commented that the slow progress of Australia’s extradition request was regrettable. Porter personally raised the case with Israeli officials on a visit to Israel in 2019. In 2020, he confirmed Australia’s view that the appropriate outcome was Leifer’s extradition to answer the serious charges against her.

District Court Judge Chana Miriam Lomp’s ruling today is very significant. It addresses the substantive legal question at the heart of the extradition request from Australia. In order for extradition to be possible, an Israeli court had to determine a clear case existed against Leifer that justified her surrender to Australia’s jurisdiction.

Read more: The Israeli Supreme Court has cleared the way for Malka Leifer’s extradition hearing. What happens now?

What happens next?

A key concept in relation to extradition is jurisdiction. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter makes clear the significance of political independence, territorial integrity and domestic jurisdiction to the status of a country. The international legal system is built on an assumption countries are equally entitled to non-interference in their domestic affairs.

According to the territoriality principle, crimes committed within a country’s territory are subject to prosecution there. This is so whether the person accused of the crime is a national of the prosecuting country or not.

On this basis, Australia has requested Israel agree to transfer Leifer to Australia for prosecution. A court in Victoria can only exercise criminal jurisdiction over Leifer’s case once she is physically present to stand trial.

At this stage, three potential obstacles to Leifer’s trial in a Victorian court remain.

The first is a potential appeal from the District Court decision to the Israeli Supreme Court.

Leifer is likely to lodge a request to appeal. This would be subject to “special leave” being granted by the Supreme Court. The possible outcomes are:

• the Supreme Court refuses leave to appeal, ending the Israeli legal process and clearing the path for extradition

• the Supreme Court gives leave to appeal, but denies the appeal on the merits (which would similarly clear the path for extradition)

• the Supreme Court gives leave to appeal before rejecting the District Court’s finding.

In the last case, Australia’s request for extradition would be denied, with no obvious avenue for reversal of that outcome. No written ruling has been issued by the District Court, so it is not possible to read the judge’s reasoning for today’s decision. However, it is fair to say the Supreme Court would need a very strong reason to reverse the lower court’s substantive decision.

Read more: Explainer: what is extradition between countries and how does it work?

The second potential obstacle is a political one. If the Israeli legal process ends with confirmation of today’s decision, Israeli Justice Minister Avi Nissenkorn will be asked to sign an extradition order. He could refuse to do so.

Given this case has raised tensions in the Australia-Israel relationship, it seems unlikely – and certainly undesirable – for Nissenkorn to refuse extradition. However, it is by no means impossible. Again, in such a case, Australia has no way of compelling Leifer’s extradition.

The third potential obstacle is a practical one. Australia’s borders are currently closed. None of the exemption categories appear to allow for a travel exemption to facilitate Leifer’s speedy transfer to Australia.

It is possible Leifer could remain in custody indefinitely in Israel, due to the pandemic, even if an extradition order is approved.

Extradition is in the public interest

Dassi Erlich, Nicole Meyer and Elly Sapper – the sisters who accuse Leifer of sexually abusing them when they were schoolgirls – have campaigned tirelessly for Leifer’s extradition. Justice delayed, in this case, has certainly been justice denied.

As the court process in Israel is not yet final, the Australian government will likely be restrained in its response to today’s news. However, it would be appropriate for the Australian government to confirm the District Court has reached the right decision. There is a clear public interest in Australia for Israel to approve an extradition order and allow for Leifer’s transfer to Melbourne.

Should an appeal confirm today’s District Court decision, the Israeli government should act quickly to facilitate Leifer’s extradition. As a condition of extradition, Israel could require Leifer be returned to Israel to serve a sentence delivered by a Victorian court.

However, it could show its good faith in the integrity of Australia’s legal system by refraining from imposing any such limitation on the justice process.

– ref. Israeli court rules Malka Leifer should be extradited to Australia, but obstacles remain – https://theconversation.com/israeli-court-rules-malka-leifer-should-be-extradited-to-australia-but-obstacles-remain-146549

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tracey Varker, Senior research fellow, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne

Can psychoactive drugs be used to treat mental health problems? The idea has been around for years, and recently received some attention in the media.

Interest in the potential of drugs such as MDMA (scientific name 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), ketamine, psilocybin and LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) has been growing among scientists and doctors, as well as the wider community.

However, there is still debate among experts about whether these drugs are safe and effective. In a new study, we reviewed the state of the evidence for using these drugs in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

How PTSD is treated now

Up to 10% of people who are exposed to traumatic events such as a serious accident, physical assault, war, natural disaster, sexual assault or abuse will develop PTSD. Symptoms can include reliving the event through unwanted thoughts, flashbacks or nightmares; feeling wound up, having trouble sleeping, concentrating or being on the lookout for danger; and avoiding reminders of the event. These symptoms may last for years if left untreated.

Read more: Explainer: what is post-traumatic stress disorder?

Psychotherapies such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy are first-line treatments for PTSD. These types of treatments involve teaching patients to confront and come to terms with the painful memories, thoughts and images they have been avoiding. They also provide patients with tools to get back into the activities or places they have been avoiding, and to relax when they start to feel wound up.

While there is strong evidence showing these treatments are effective, not everyone responds to them. Psychoactive drugs are often touted as the solution to this problem. But does the science match the hype?

What do we already know about psychoactive drugs for PTSD?

Ketamine, MDMA, LSD and psilocybin have all been considered as potential treatments for PTSD:

• ketamine was developed as a general anaesthetic but is used recreationally because of its psychedelic and hallucinogenic properties. It acts mainly on the glutamergic system, which regulates large regions of the nervous system and has been implicated in the formation of traumatic memories and reduction of the stress response

• MDMA is a synthetic compound and is typically the main constituent of “ecstasy”. It induces changes in human emotion and it is possible that MDMA, in combination with psychotherapy, can increase a person’s ability to access and process painful or negative emotions, and increase positive emotions and social interactions

Read more: Is psychiatry ready for medical MDMA?

• LSD is a hallucinogen that produces psychosensory changes and alters cognition, often increasing optimism and inducing a sense of well-being. By increasing prosocial behaviour, it may strengthen the alliance between therapist and patient and so increase the effectiveness of psychotherapy. It can also encourage catharsis and relaxation

• psilocybin naturally occurs in “magic mushrooms” and, like LSD, it increases a person’s sense of optimism and well-being and reduces negative mood. It can also be associated with increased capacity for introspection, and research studies have found it can reduce levels of anxiety and depression in cancer patients.

But do these drugs make a real difference in resolving PTSD symptoms? And are they any better than the treatments that we already have?

What does the latest evidence say?

To find out what the current evidence says, my colleagues and I at Phoenix Australia conducted a systematic review of the published research.

We found two small randomised trials in which ketamine was used in combination with psychotherapy to treat PTSD. Overall, we found ketamine shows some promise when compared with placebo, but future research is needed to investigate how ketamine, in combination with psychotherapy, stacks up against standard PTSD treatment.

The effect of using MDMA with psychotherapy was a little more encouraging, with four small randomised trials reporting positive effects in treating PTSD. We found MDMA currently has more promise than ketamine, based on the studies included in our review. It should be noted, though, that none of these four studies compared MDMA, in combination with psychotherapy, to a typical treatment for PTSD.

The MDMA studies in the review found that improvements in clinician-rated PTSD symptoms, and in self-reported physical responses to stress, were “significantly greater” for those who received MDMA and psychotherapy compared to a placebo. A small trial showed that 17-74 months after MDMA and therapy was delivered, on average, improvements were still being felt.

Another slightly larger trial involved military veterans, firefighters and police officers with chronic PTSD, and found a significant reduction in the severity of symptoms. Out of 24 participants who completed a 12-month follow-up, 16 did not have a PTSD diagnosis.

We also looked for research on the use of LSD and psilocybin in PTSD treatment, and were surprised to discover no randomised controlled trials have been conducted.

Where to from here?

Attitudes towards psychoactive drugs for the treatment of PTSD are changing. Some proponents suggest they offer a “chemical safety net” for patients.

However, our review highlights the fact that, scientifically, this area is still in its infancy. There is a clear need for further high quality research, to provide us with a better understanding of these treatments, and how they might fit into treatment options for PTSD.

– ref. PTSD and psychoactive drugs: MDMA treatment shows potential, but others lack evidence – https://theconversation.com/ptsd-and-psychoactive-drugs-mdma-treatment-shows-potential-but-others-lack-evidence-146092

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Carter, Professor emeritus, The University of Queensland

Culture has long been stratified as “high” or “low”, or perhaps “high” and “popular” to soften the blow. But what about the in-between?

The word “middlebrow” emerged into English in the 1920s as an insult. It described works that mistook mere good taste for serious art – and consumers who couldn’t tell the difference.

We asked almost 1500 Australians about their cultural preferences and participation, and mapped their responses on a spectrum. There is a clear divide between those who don’t regularly engage with arts and culture on one side and the dedicated lovers of high or avant-garde art forms on the other.

The most concentrated area of mapped data was in the middle space. This patch – filled with likes for Phantom of the Opera, Rhapsody in Blue, light classical music and jazz, TV documentaries and police shows, Monet and Ken Done, Tim Winton, Jane Austen and more – can tell us what constitutes middlebrow culture today.

Read more: Australians’ favourites show Aboriginal art can transcend social divisions and art boundaries

Airs and graces

From the early decades of the 20th century, the new twin forces of modernist high culture and mass commercial culture produced ongoing fights over cultural value and authority among critics and consumers alike in a “battle of the brows”.

The language of brows suggested not just different but dramatically opposed tastes. Worse, the three brow levels could be taken to represent high, low and middle-class tastes. Any rise from below threatened those above.

Most threatening to cultural elites was not the vulgar but the middlebrow’s pretensions to culture and good taste. As Virginia Woolf put it, the middlebrow was:

… of middlebred intelligence … in pursuit of no single object, neither art itself nor life itself, but both mixed indistinguishably, and rather nastily, with money, fame, power, or prestige.

Middlebrow art imitated serious art, but only offered easy pleasure. Middlebrow consumers aspired to culture, but for its social prestige. Middlebrow institutions like book clubs or radio made high culture accessible to all, supposedly “dumbing it down” in the process.

Read more: Friday essay: the politics of dancing and thinking about cultural values beyond dollars

Major works, minor arts

For French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, “middle culture” comprised the “major works of the minor arts” and the “minor works of the major arts”. But almost anything could be deemed middlebrow depending on how it was perceived or packaged.

There’s nothing essentially middlebrow about Vivaldi’s Four Seasons, landscape painting or Jane Austen’s novels, but the term could describe most occasions for their consumption today – Vivaldi over dinner, landscapes in the gallery gift shop, Austen in The Jane Austen Book Club!

The works still carry their prestige as serious art, but packaged for pleasurable or tasteful consumption.

Since the 1990s a new field of middlebrow studies has arisen, relocating the middlebrow in cultural history to understand it in its own right. Scholars have identified recurrent aspects of middlebrow culture: taking culture seriously as “purposeful recreation” or empathetic engagement but also as a source of pleasure; open to both high and popular culture but within clear boundaries, nothing too arty or abstruse, nothing trashy or cheap.

The Australian Cultural Fields project conducted a national survey of Australian’s cultural preferences in 2015, and in the new book, Fields, Capitals, Habitus: Australian Culture, Social Divisions and Inequalities, specific attention is given to the “middle space” of Australian cultural tastes and engagement.

A map of the middle

Individuals’ likes and dislikes for certain kinds of books, art, music, TV, heritage and sport, and participation in cultural activities, were mapped so that shared preferences would be clustered together. So too attitudes to certain named artists, authors, composers, and TV and sports personalities. These results were mapped against social variables including age, gender, education and occupational class.

This exercise reveal two very different zones of taste and engagement, and a crowded middle space between.

On one side is a zone of low participation (42% of those surveyed) where negative responses are registered for almost all book types, for Impressionism, Renaissance and abstract art, classical and light classical music, TV arts and documentary programs, and more.

Likes and engagement are restricted to commercial TV, reality and sports shows, country music, landscapes and portraits, sports books, author Stephen King, family and homeland heritage, and rugby league.

On the other side (21%), positive tastes are dominant, especially for the traditionally prestigious or “learned” items such as literary classics, modern novels, Impressionism, Indigenous books, Aboriginal and migrant heritage, the ABC and SBS, author David Malouf and artist Margaret Preston. Dislikes register for certain popular or declassé genres including dance music and landscapes.

But the densest concentration of likes and dislikes falls in the cultural middle ground. This helps us visualise the middlebrow. Positive responses congregate around classical music, Aboriginal and Renaissance art, Australian histories and biographies, crime novels, TV news and lifestyle programs.

In terms of named artists and works, the middle space is even more crowded. In the literary field, Jane Austen sits proudly at the centre, alongside authors such as Bryce Courtenay, Jodi Picoult and Woolf, and painters Rembrandt, Monet and Jackson Pollock. Musically, Nessun Dorma and Phantom of the Opera are playing.

Dislikes also fall within the middle space: for Ben Quilty, Francis Bacon, Kate Grenville, Ian Rankin, Ai Weiwei and Caravaggio (alongside Stephen King, Big Brother and Kylie Minogue!). The very presence of the negative responses, however, suggests cultural capital – that it matters to have a view on such figures, even if negative.

Read more: Artists help communities during a crisis, not hinder. Why are we still told they don’t matter?

Who likes the middle?

We can map the distribution of tastes against key social variables. The middle space corresponds closely to lower professional-managerial occupations (like teachers, curators, academics); tertiary (but not postgraduate) education; the 45-64 age group; and urban or suburban residents. Women occupy the middle space; men are closer to the less engaged zones. There is no simple alignment with class; middlebrow culture doesn’t align neatly with the “middle class”.

The term “middlebrow” remains difficult because of its still potent, pejorative connotations. What it can tell us is that imagining culture divided simply into high and low won’t get us very far. There is plenty to enjoy in the middle space.

– ref. Jane Austen, Monet and Phantom of the Opera – middlebrow culture today – https://theconversation.com/jane-austen-monet-and-phantom-of-the-opera-middlebrow-culture-today-145176

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This week’s Newspoll, conducted September 16-19 from a sample of 2,068, gave the Coalition a 51-49 lead, a one-point gain for the Coalition since the previous Newspoll, three weeks ago.

Primary votes were 43% Coalition (up two), 34% Labor (down two), 12% Greens (up one) and 3% One Nation (steady) – all figures from The Poll Bludger.

65% were satisfied with Scott Morrison’s performance (up one), and 31% were dissatisfied (down one), for a net approval of +34. Anthony Albanese’s ratings fell into negative territory: his net approval was -1, down three points. Morrison led Albanese as better PM by 59-27 (58-29 last time).

The last Newspoll had the Coalition’s lead dropping from 52-48 to a 50-50 tie, while Morrison’s net approval was down seven points. This Newspoll implies movements in the previous Newspoll may have been exaggerated.

It is also possible the federal Coalition is benefiting from restrictions to fight coronavirus becoming less popular in Victoria. A Morgan Victorian state poll (see below) gave Labor a narrow lead, but that lead was well down on the November 2018 election result. In other state polls, there was a clear surge to the incumbent government.

Australian state polls: Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania

A Victorian SMS Morgan poll, conducted September 15-17 from a sample of 1,150, gave Labor a 51.5-48.5 lead over the Coalition, a six-point gain for the Coalition since the November 2018 state election. Primary votes were 38.5% Coalition, 37% Labor and 12% Greens. Morgan’s SMS polls have been unreliable in the past.

A South Australian YouGov poll, conducted September 10-16 from a sample of 810, gave the Liberals a 53-47 lead over Labor, a six-point gain for the Liberals since March, likely due to the state’s handling of coronavirus. Primary votes were 46% Liberals (up seven), 35% Labor (down three) and 10% Greens (down one).

Liberal Premier Steven Marshall had a massive surge in net approval, to +52 from -4 in March. Opposition Leader Peter Malinauskas had a +22 net approval.

A Tasmanian EMRS poll, conducted August 18-24 from a sample of 1,000, gave the Liberals 54% (up 11 since the last publicly released EMRS poll in March), Labor 24% (down ten) and the Greens 12% (steady). Liberal Premier Peter Gutwein led Opposition Leader Rebecca White by 70-23 as better premier (41-39 to White in March).

Time running out for Trump

This section is an updated version of an article I had published for The Poll Bludger last Thursday.

Six weeks before the November 3 election, FiveThirtyEight’s national aggregate gives Joe Biden a 6.8% lead over Donald Trump (50.3% to 43.5%). This is an improvement for Trump from three weeks ago, when he trailed by 8.2%. In the key states, Biden leads by 7.6% in Michigan, 6.6% in Wisconsin, 4.6% in Pennsylvania, 4.5% in Arizona and 2.0% in Florida.

In my article three weeks ago, the difference in Trump’s favour between the Electoral College tipping-point state and the national vote had widened to three points, but this difference has fallen back to about two points, with Arizona and Pennsylvania currently two points more favourable to Trump than national polls.

If Biden wins all the states carried by Hillary Clinton in 2016, plus Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona, he gets exactly 269 Electoral Votes, one short of the 270 required for a majority. Maine and Nebraska award one EV to the winner of each of their Congressional Districts, and two to the statewide winner. All other states award their EVs winner-takes-all.

Under this scenario, Biden would need one of either Nebraska’s or Maine’s second CDs for the 270 EVs required to win the Electoral College. Nebraska’s second is a more likely win for Biden as it is an urban district.

The US economy has rebounded strongly from the coronavirus nadir in April. Owing to this, the FiveThirtyEight forecast expects some narrowing as the election approaches. Every day that passes without evidence of narrowing in the tipping-point states is bad news for Trump. Biden’s chances of winning in the forecast have increased from a low of 67% on August 31 to 77% now.

While Trump has improved slightly in national polls, some state polls have been very good for Biden. Recently, Biden has had leads of 16 points in Minnesota, 21 points in Maine, 10 in Wisconsin and 10 in Arizona.

Trump’s ratings with all polls in the FiveThirtyEight aggregate are currently 43.2% approve, 52.7% disapprove (net -9.5%). With polls of likely or registered voters, his ratings are 44.0% approve, 52.8% disapprove (net -8.8%). In the last three weeks, Trump has gained about two points on net approval, continuing a recovery from July lows.

The RealClearPolitics Senate map has 47 expected Republican seats, 46 Democratic seats and seven toss-ups. If toss-ups are assigned to the current leader, Democrats lead by 51-49, unchanged from three weeks ago.

Coronavirus and the US economy

The US has just passed the grim milestone of over 200,000 deaths attributable to coronavirus. However, daily new cases have dropped into the 30,000 to 50,000 range from a peak of over 70,000 in July. Less media attention on the coronavirus crisis assists Trump.

In the US August jobs report, 1.4 million jobs were created and the unemployment rate fell 1.8% to 8.4%. The unemployment rate has greatly improved from its April high of 14.7%.

The headline jobs gained or lost are from the establishment survey, while the household survey is used for the unemployment rate. In August, the household survey numbers were much better than the establishment survey, with almost 3.8 million jobs added.

It is probably fortunate for Biden that the September jobs report, to be released in early October, will be the last voters see before the election. The October report will be released November 6, three days after the election.

I believe Trump should focus on the surging economy in the lead-up to the election, and ignore other issues like the Kenosha violence and culture war issues. Particularly given the Supreme Court vacancy, Biden should focus on Trump and Republicans’ plans to gut Obamacare.

Implications of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death

On Friday, left-wing US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. While Democrats control the House of Representatives, only the Senate gets a vote on judicial appointments, and Republicans control that chamber by 53-47.

Even if Democrats were to win control of both the Senate and presidency at the November 3 election, the Senate transition is not until January 3, with the presidential transition on January 20.

There is plenty of time for Trump to nominate a right-wing replacement for Ginsburg, and for the Senate to approve that choice. That will give conservative appointees a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

– ref. Coalition regains Newspoll lead; time running out for Trump – https://theconversation.com/coalition-regains-newspoll-lead-time-running-out-for-trump-146560

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allan Fels, Professorial Fellow, University of Melbourne

It has been a long time since an Australian government turned its mind to policy concerning the news media — other than the removal of outdated ownership regulations.

Now, thanks to the government’s intention to make Google and Facebook pay a negotiated price to news media organisations for using their content, policies to safeguard the health of the news media are front of mind.

The government has accepted journalism is a public good, deserving of public support. All sides acknowledge the future of the news media is under threat from the collapse of the advertising-based business model that has traditionally paid for most journalism.

To its credit, the government has shown determination to push ahead with its proposed news media bargaining code in the face of a concentrated campaign by Google and Facebook against it. By doing so, it has taken on a position of global leadership.

But there is a danger the government will regard the code as the end, rather than beginning, of a comprehensive policy response. What is needed is a suite of policy measures.

Ways to encourage investment in public interest journalism

The code, while welcome, does not directly encourage investment in public interest journalism and quality news media.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has previously recommended a range of such measures. These include restoring adequate funding for the ABC, allowing tax deductions for philanthropic donations to news media and providing increased grants to local media.

Read more: How much should Facebook have to pay for news? We have a suggestion how to calculate it

One of the ideas the ACCC considered, but did not pursue, was favourable tax treatment for producers of public interest journalism.

The Public Interest Journalism Initiative has continued to research this idea and has released a proposal for a new tax rebate scheme that would encourage investment in public interest journalism in Australia.

This scheme, if adopted, could be transformative.

How a proposed tax rebate would work

Previous research by the Centre for International Economics (commissioned by PIJI) found such a tax rebate scheme would increase the amount of public interest journalism being produced and was more than justified on a cost-benefit analysis.

Meanwhile, Essential Media public opinion surveys prepared for PIJI have established how much the Australian public values journalism — respondents are prepared to see taxes increase by as much as $6 a year per head in order to support it.

The new tax rebate scheme we propose is modelled on the government’s existing research and development tax incentive.

Read more: ‘Suck it and see’ or face a digital tax, former ACCC boss Allan Fels warns Google and Facebook

The proposal has been developed by a taskforce comprising journalist and academic Margaret Simons, David Pearce of the Centre for International Economics and Eddie Ahn and Gabrielle Hedge of DLA Piper Australia. It incorporates insights gained from extensive research on the “public good” nature of journalism.

This is how the scheme would work: it would allow news media organisations to claim a tax benefit for the money they spend on producing “core news content” -– that is, journalism of importance to democracy and community cohesion.

As with the research and development tax incentive, this benefit would be calculated as a percentage of the organisation’s eligible expenditures each year.

The tax benefit would be available to all serious players in the industry, including small and start-up organisations and rural and regional media. They would need to register with the Australian Communications and Media Authority in order to be eligible.

The refund would be administered by the Australian Tax Office and claimed through the usual annual income tax return.

Available to any news media covering local issues

This tax benefit is designed to encourage investment in all public interest journalism — including, but not restricted to, the high-profile investigative journalism that makes headlines.

Of equal importance, we believe, is the less glamorous but essential daily grind of reporting on courts, local governments and parliaments, community events and other issues of significance to Australians.

As such, any news media organisation covering these issues should be eligible for a tax rebate under this proposal. To qualify, they would need to show their journalism is “core news content”, which is defined by PIJI’s submission to the ACCC bargaining code consultation as

content that records, investigates or explains issues that are of public significance for Australians, are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or relate to community and local events.

Organisations would also have to commit to professional journalistic standards that include a transparent complaints process.

Read more: The government’s regional media bailout doesn’t go far enough — here are reforms we really need

PIJI’s proposed guidelines also include clear delineations of what would and would not be an eligible expenditure under the scheme.

Advertising and advertorials, opinion articles and public relations lobbying and advocacy would not be eligible. Nor would reporting on the private lives of celebrities, shopping guides and reviews of goods and services.

What would be covered are such editorial costs as conducting interviews, attending and reporting public events, accessing information and providing analysis and explanation.

We propose the scheme be reviewed after three years of operation, and then at five-year intervals after that.

The essential service nature of public interest journalism justifies the provision of an industry rebate scheme. It should form part of a suite of public policy measures to ensure that in the future, the Australian public is able to access trusted sources of news.

– ref. Funding public interest journalism requires creative solutions. A tax rebate for news media could work – https://theconversation.com/funding-public-interest-journalism-requires-creative-solutions-a-tax-rebate-for-news-media-could-work-146563

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Steller, PhD Student, UNSW

The recent discovery of phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus is exciting, as it may serve as a potential sign of life (among other possible explanations).

The researchers, who published their findings in Nature Astronomy, couldn’t really explain how the phosphine got there.

They explored all conceivable possibilities, including lightning, volcanoes and even delivery by meteorites. But each source they modelled couldn’t produce the amount of phosphine detected.

Most phosphine in Earth’s atmosphere is produced by living microbes. So the possibility of life on Venus producing phosphine can’t be ignored.

But the researchers, led by UK astronomer Jane Greaves, say their discovery “is not robust evidence for life” on Venus. Rather, it’s evidence of “anomalous and unexplained chemistry”, of which biological processes are just one possible origin.

If life were to exist on Venus, how could it have come about? Exploring the origins of life on Earth might shed some light.

Read more: Life on Venus? Traces of phosphine may be a sign of biological activity

The ingredients for life (as we know it)

Understanding how life formed on Earth not only helps us understand our own origins, but could also provide insight into the key ingredients needed for life, as we know it, to form.

The details around the origins of life on Earth are still shrouded in mystery, with multiple competing scientific theories. But most theories include a common set of environmental conditions considered vital for life. These are:

Liquid water

Water is needed to dissolve the molecules needed for life, to facilitate their chemical reactions. Although other solvents (such as methane) have been suggested to potentially support life, water is most likely. This is because it can dissolve a huge range of different molecules and is found throughout the universe.

Mild temperatures

Temperatures higher than 122℃ destroy most complex organic molecules. This would make it almost impossible for carbon-based life to form in very hot environment.

A process to concentrate molecules

As the origin of life would have required a large amount of organic molecules, a process to concentrate organics from the diluted surrounding environment would be required – either through absorption onto mineral surfaces, evaporation or floating on top of water in oily slicks.

A complex natural environment

For life to have originated, there would have had to be a complex natural environment wherein a diverse range of conditions (temperature, pH and salt concentrations) could create chemical complexity. Life itself is incredibly complex, so even the most primitive versions would need a complex environment to originate.

Trace metals

A range of trace metals, amassed through water-rock interactions, would be needed to promote the formation of organic molecules.

So if these are the conditions required for life, what does that tell us about the likelihood of life forming on Venus?

It’s unlikely today …

The possibility of life as we know it forming on the surface of present-day Venus is incredibly low. An average surface temperature above 400℃ means the surface can’t possibly have liquid water and this heat would also destroy most organic molecules.

Venus’s milder upper atmosphere, however, has temperatures low enough for water droplets to form and thus could potentially be suitable for the formation of life.

That said, this environment has its own limitations, such as clouds of sulfuric acid which would destroy any organic molecules not protected by a cell. For example, on Earth, molecules such as DNA are rapidly destroyed by acidic conditions, although some bacteria can survive in extremely acidic environments.

Also, the constant falling of water droplets from Venus’s atmosphere down to its extremely hot surface would destroy any unprotected organic molecules in the droplets.

Beyond this, with no surfaces or mineral grains in the Venusian atmosphere on which organic molecules could concentrate, any chemical building blocks for life would be scattered through a diluted atmosphere – making it incredibly difficult for life to form.

… but possibly less unlikely in the past

Bearing all this in mind, if atmospheric phosphine is indeed a sign of life on Venus, there are three main explanations for how it could have formed.

Life may have formed on the planet’s surface when its conditions were very different to now.

Modelling suggests the surface of early Venus was very similar to early Earth, with lakes (or even oceans) of water and mild conditions. This was before a runaway greenhouse effect turned the planet into the hellscape it is today.

If life formed back then, it might have adapted to spread into the clouds. Then, when intense climate change boiled the oceans away – killing all surface-based life – microbes in the clouds would have become the last outpost for life on Venus.

Another possibility is that life in Venus’s atmosphere (if there is any) came from Earth.

The planets of our inner solar system have been documented to exchange materials in the past. When meteorites crash into a planet, they can send that planet’s rocks hurtling into space where they occasionally intersect with the orbits of other planets.

Read more: Meteorites from Mars contain clues about the red planet’s geology

If this happened between Earth and Venus at some point, the rocks from Earth may have contained microbial life that could have adapted to Venus’s highly acidic clouds (similar to Earth’s acid-resistant bacteria).

A truly alien explanation

The third explanation to consider is that a truly alien form of life (life as we don’t know it) could have formed on Venus’s 400℃ surface and survives there to this day.

Such a foreign life probably wouldn’t be carbon-based, as nearly all complex carbon molecules break down at extreme temperatures.

Although carbon-based life produces phosphine on Earth, it’s impossible to say only carbon-based life can produce phosphine. Therefore, even if totally alien life exists on Venus, it may produce molecules that are still recognisable as a potential sign of life.

It’s only through further missions and research that we can find out whether there is, or was, life on Venus. As prominent scientist Carl Sagan once said: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

Luckily, two of the four finalist proposals for NASA’s next round of funding for planetary exploration are focused on Venus.

These include VERITAS, an orbiter proposed to map the surface of Venus, and DAVINCI+, proposed to drop through the planet’s skies and sample different atmospheric layers on the way down.

– ref. If there is life on Venus, how could it have got there? Origin of life experts explain – https://theconversation.com/if-there-is-life-on-venus-how-could-it-have-got-there-origin-of-life-experts-explain-146407

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Bradbury, Associate Professor, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW

This week, support to unemployed Australians will be dramatically reduced.

In April, the new Coronavirus Supplement roughly doubled the level of benefits for unemployed people on the JobSeeker payment and a range of other working-age payments.

The supplement will drop from $550 to $250 a fortnight from Friday. This is before it is dropped entirely at the end of 2020.

While there has been increasing pressure from welfare groups to maintain a higher level of JobSeeker supplement, there have also been calls from within the government to remove extra supports, amid claims people are not looking for work.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has warned about increased unemployment payments. As he said in June,

what we have to be worried about now is that we can’t allow the JobSeeker payment to become an impediment to people going out and doing work, getting extra shifts.

But will cutting support to unemployed Australians really help them get a job?

Our analysis shows there is considerable scope to increase JobSeeker payments before they might hinder people’s motivation to find paid work.

Lack of job searching is not the problem

Right now, there is little evidence a lack of job search effort is a significant problem for the economy.

Around 6.8% of the workforce is looking for work. But in July, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg acknowledged the real unemployment rate was closer to 13.3%, when “discouraged jobseekers” — not actively looking for work because their business is locked down or on hold — are included.

With about 1.6 million people on JobSeeker but only 130,000 job vacancies in May 2020, it matters little if some job seekers are more selective about the job offers they accept.

In fact, for the longer term health of the economy, it is important people find jobs that suit their skills. International evidence shows the provision of unemployment benefits slightly increase both the wages received when work is found and the stability (or duration) of the new job.

But would higher benefits be a problem as the economy recovers?

If benefits start to approach the level of minimum wages, some workers with low earning potential might decide the extra effort is not worth it — and so reduce their job search effort.

As the economy recovers, this will mean some potential jobs will go unfilled and government expenditure on JobSeeker will remain unnecessarily high.

Comparing JobSeeker to the minimum wage

However, our analysis shows Australia is in no danger of creating a disincentive for people to seek work because of higher JobSeeker payments.

We have compared Newstart and JobSeeker payments for single people with the minimum adult full-time wage (after tax) over the past three decades. This is a standard benchmark for assessing incentives to move from welfare benefits into work — assuming work is available.

Our analysis also looks at the payments provided to single pensioners. Pensioners received around 55% of the minimum wage up until 2009, when the pension was increased under the Rudd government. After that, net pension income was around 65% of the minimum wage. This is close to the commonly used poverty line, set at half the median household disposable income.

But for unemployed people on JobSeeker (or its predecessor, Newstart), the past two decades have seen a steady decline in their position relative to the minimum wage. It has fallen from around 50% in the 1990s to under 40% at the start of 2020 — well below the poverty line.

These calculations changed with the introduction of the Coronavirus Supplement in April, which almost doubled the payment for single unemployed people. Nonetheless, JobSeeker plus the supplement was still well below the adult minimum wage (76%, or 82% if we add shared accommodation rent assistance).

Read more: Australia has been stigmatising unemployed people for almost 100 years. COVID-19 is our big chance to change this

On September 25, the Coronavirus Supplement will drop by $300 a fortnight. And the combined JobSeeker/supplement payment will fall back to 55% of the minimum wage until December 31.

Unless the federal government makes further changes, the supplement will be removed entirely at the end of the year. So those on JobSeeker will be back receiving less than 40% of the minimum wage.

The crisis isn’t over, why is support being wound back?

Neither the pandemic nor the economic crisis will be over by the end of 2020.

As the wage subsidy program JobKeeper is also wound back, next week and then again, next year, increasing numbers will become reliant upon JobSeeker.

If the payment reductions continue as forecast, this will force many people well below the poverty line. A recent Australian National University analysis estimated an extra 740,000 people will be pushed into poverty.

This would not only be a disaster for the people directly affected, but also likely have large adverse economic effects. Deloitte Access Economics estimates withdrawing the Coronavirus Supplement support would be equal to a reduction in the size of the economy of $31.3 billion and an average loss of 145,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

The case to maintain much of the crisis-induced increase in payments is clear. In the short term, there will be no shortage of people looking for work. Maintaining payments at around the pension level — close to the poverty line — should be our policy objective.

Read more: When the Coronavirus Supplement stops, JobSeeker needs to increase by $185 a week

Even in the longer term, as labour demand increases, the large gap between welfare payments and minimum wages leaves plenty of room for permanent increases in income support, without creating a disincentive for people to look for work.

At a minimum, permanently increasing JobSeeker to 50% of the minimum wage — as was the case in the 1990s — should be an easily achievable target for Australia as it makes it way through the economic wreckage of COVID-19.

– ref. Unemployment support will be slashed by $300 this week. This won’t help people find work – https://theconversation.com/unemployment-support-will-be-slashed-by-300-this-week-this-wont-help-people-find-work-146289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Wake, Program Manager, Journalism, RMIT University

From today, ABC local radio listeners will no longer hear the majestic fanfare theme on local radio at 7:45am, signalling the 15-minute morning news.

Although it might seem a smart managerial decision to reduce reporting costs and respond to audience behaviour, the move overlooks the wide accessibility of radio, especially to low-income and regional Australians. It will also be a huge loss to people struggling with an avalanche of misinformation from online sources.

For more than 80 years, the 7:45am bulletin was a uniquely Australian fixture on local radio. It provided a soundtrack to the major events of our nation, bringing to our ears the sounds of wars, invasions, sporting triumphs, political scandals and disasters. Those 15 minutes were all listeners needed to get on with their day as informed and active citizens in a democracy.

ABC reporters would set up their work to aim for the longer 7:45am radio bulletin, and listeners specifically tuned in for it. There would be a shorter version of the story at 6am, another for 7am, and then a fully formed report (usually featuring the reporters’ own voices) at 7:45am.

Big stories might also feature on the flagship current affairs program AM starting at 8am, and stories with dramatic pictures might be picked up television news bulletins.

The 7:45am bulletin had a big emphasis on international news, catching us up on happened while we were sleeping. There would often be the big Washington story of the day (because of how much that country influences our lives), but the bulletin had space to also include important reports from the ABC’s foreign correspondents in countries that we should, or need, to care about. Think PNG, or China and India.

It provided the agenda for the day’s debate at the kitchen table, at the water cooler, in the halls of government, or in corporate boardrooms. Early morning ABC journalists in the capital cities made sure that day’s newspapers scoops were included, while regional reporters and international correspondents tuned in to check their work had made the cut.

Each state had its best newsreaders rostered across the weekday mornings, their voices providing flawless delivery, reassuring warmth and authority, particularly at times of disaster.

The raw emotion of audio captured by reporters in the field — a bird call, a mother’s cry, or a burst of gunfire — could pull at the heart in a way other mediums did not. It could also force action from governments when action was needed.

Read more: Latest $84 million cuts rip the heart out of the ABC, and our democracy

The curse of social/digital

It has been ironic to read the outpouring of concern about the axing of the bulletin on social media, because it is the boom in digital on-demand technology (such as the ABC Listen app), and the resulting ways audiences access news, that has allowed ABC managers to kill off a much-loved bulletin.

While 2020 radio audiences have been up overall this year as people have tuned in for bushfire and COVID-19 coverage, statistics provided by the ABC clearly show listeners have been moving away from the 7:45am bulletin for several years.

Even I, an audiophile, listened to the very last 7:45am bulletin in isolation in my home office, on my computer, some time after it went to air. And I also wanted to hear the last one from Queensland, my home state, rather than Victoria, my adopted home. My husband was listening to another ABC platform, and my teenagers were in their rooms, listening to something on Spotify. Our family represents the very change in demographics the ABC is grappling with.

Read more: Latest $84 million cuts rip the heart out of the ABC, and our democracy

ABC communications noted there would be substantial savings from moving away from a focus on “one 15-minute long, single-use, broadcast-only bulletin at 0745”. At the ABC right now, nothing produced has a single-use — everything needs to be used on a second or third platform. The statement said:

We want to be able to provide quality local news for all of our listeners on all of our platforms. While the majority of our resources are still dedicated to our broadcast services, we need to make sure we have the resource to also serve our growing number of listeners using the digital on-demand services.

Those arguments are strong. But not all 7:45am stories, particularly ones in the region, will make the main state television news, and many stories just don’t have pictures worthy of television, or even an online report. There are also still many Australians who do not have access to digital or online technologies, particularly our elderly and regional residents.

The decision to axe the 7:45am bulletin comes as dozens of experienced journalists have left the ABC. Many of those were senior journalists in behind-the-scenes production roles, who guided and supported younger journalists out in the field, learning their reporting craft with radio stories. It is those experienced journalists who took a role in overseeing the 7:45am bulletin to ensure its quality, and helping the ABC mantain its position as the country’s most trusted news source.

In some ways the ABC management has tried to act like a surgeon, trying to save the body by cutting off a limb. But the 7:45am bulletin wasn’t a limb. It was the beating heart of ABC Radio. The graphs of falling listener numbers only tell part of the story. At a time when so many Australian communities have little or no alternative news outlet, killing off the main news bulletin of the day feels like a dagger in the heart of democracy.

– ref. That was the news: a sad farewell to the ABC’s 7:45am bulletin – https://theconversation.com/that-was-the-news-a-sad-farewell-to-the-abcs-7-45am-bulletin-146478

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Annette Cowie, Adjunct Professor, University of New England

Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor is on Tuesday expected to outline the Morrison government’s first Low Emissions Technology Statement, plotting Australia’s way forward on climate action. It’s likely to include “negative emissions” technologies, which remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says negative emissions technologies will be needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to well below 2℃. In other words, just cutting emissions is not enough – we must also take existing greenhouse gases from the air.

Last week, the government broadened the remit of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). It flagged negative emissions technologies, such as soil carbon, as one avenue for investment.

Some negative emissions ventures are operating in Australia at a small scale, including carbon capture, reforestation and soil carbon management. Here, we examine seven ways to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, including their pros and cons.

1. Managing soil carbon

Up to 150 billion tonnes of soil carbon has been lost globally since farming began to replace natural forests and grasslands. Improved land management could store or “sequester” up to nine billion tonnes of CO₂ each year. It could also improve soil health.

Soil carbon can be built through methods such as:

• “no-till” farming, using techniques that don’t disturb soil
• planting cover crops, which protect soil between normal cropping periods
• grazing livestock on perennial pastures, which last longer than annual plants
• applying lime to encourage plant growth
• using compost and manure.

It’s important to remember though, that carbon can be hard to store in soils for long periods. This is because microbes consume organic matter, which releases carbon back to the atmosphere.

2. Biochar

Biochar is a charcoal-like material produced from organic matter such as green waste or straw. It is added to soil to boost carbon stores, by promoting microbial activity and aggregation (soil clumps) which prevents organic plant matter breaking down and releasing carbon.

Biochar has been used by indigenous people in the Amazon to increase food production. More than 14,000 biochar studies have been published since 2005. This includes work by Australian researchers showing how biochar reacts with soil minerals, microbes and plants to improve soil and stimulate plant growth.

Read more: Earth may temporarily pass dangerous 1.5℃ warming limit by 2024, major new report says

On average, biochar increases crop yields by about 16% and halves emissions of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas. The production of biochar releases gases that can generate renewable heat and electricity. Research suggests that globally, biochar could store up to 4.6 million tonnes of CO₂ each year.

However its potential depends on the availability of organic material and land on which to grow it. Also, the type of biochar used must be suitable for the site, or crop yields may fall.

3. Reforestation

Planting trees is the simplest way to take CO₂ from the atmosphere. Reforestation is limited only by land availability and environmental constraints to growth.

Reforestation could sequester up to ten billion tonnes a year of CO₂. However, carbon sequestered through reforestation is vulnerable to loss. For example, last summer’s devastating bushfires released around 830 million tonnes CO₂.

4. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

Plant material can be burned for energy – known as bioenergy. In a BECCS system, the resulting CO₂ is captured and stored deep underground.

Currently, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is only viable at large scale, and opportunities for storage are limited. Only a few CCS facilities operate internationally.

BECCS has the potential to sequester 11 billion tonnes annually. But this is limited by availability of material to burn – which in theory could come from forestry and crop waste, and purpose-grown plants.

The large-scale deployment of CCS will also have to overcome barriers such as high costs, challenges in dealing with leaks, and determining who takes long-term responsibility for the stored carbon.

5. Enhanced weathering of rocks

Silicate rocks naturally capture and store CO₂ from the atmosphere when they weather due to rain and other natural processes. This capturing can be accelerated through “enhanced weathering” – crushing rock and spreading it on land.

The preferred rock type for this method is basalt – nutrient-rich and abundant in Australia and elsewhere. A recent study estimated enhanced weathering could store up to four billion tonnes of CO₂ globally each year.

However low rainfall in many parts of Australia limits the rate of carbon capture via basalt weathering.

6. Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS)

Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) uses chemicals that bond to ambient air to remove CO₂. After capture, the CO₂ can be injected underground or used in products such as building materials and plastics.

DACCS is in early stages of commercialisation, with few plants operating globally. In theory, its potential is unlimited. However major barriers include high costs, and the large amount of energy needed to operate large fans required in the process.

7. Ocean fertilisation and alkalinisation

The ocean absorbs around nine billion tonnes of CO₂ from the air each year.

The uptake can be enhanced by fertilisation – adding iron to stimulate growth of marine algae, similar to reforestation on land. The ocean can also take up more CO₂ if we add alkaline materials, such as silicate minerals or lime.

However ocean fertilisation is seen as a risk to marine life, and will be challenging to regulate in international waters.

Looking ahead to a zero-carbon world

The foreshadowed government investment in negative emissions technologies is a positive step, and will help to overcome some of the challenges we’ve described. Each of the technologies we outlined has the potential to help mitigate climate change, and some offer additional benefits.

But all have limitations, and alone they will not solve the climate crisis. Deep emissions reduction across the economy will also be required.

Read more: ‘A dose of reality’: Morrison government’s new $1.9 billion techno-fix for climate change is a small step

– ref. The Morrison government wants to suck CO₂ out of the atmosphere. Here are 7 ways to do it – https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-government-wants-to-suck-co-out-of-the-atmosphere-here-are-7-ways-to-do-it-144941

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alberto Posso, Professor of Economics, RMIT University

Closing schools has been one response around the world to try to stop the spread of COVID-19. In Australia, states mandated an end to face-to-face learning for some time during the so-called first wave of the pandemic, and schools across Victoria are still closed to most students.

Some criticised this strategy, as evidence showed children may not spread the virus as much as adults; others were concerned parents were unable to work from home while also supervising their kids’ schooling. These points are valid, but public debate must also consider the potential long-term costs of school closures.

One approach to figure out what to expect is to look at the experiences of different countries after they closed schools due to previous pandemics, war or industrial action. The problem with this approach is, of course, that these places are vastly different to Australia, so all potential repercussions must be considered carefully.

The Ebola epidemic occurred in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone — countries vastly different to Australia in terms of culture, politics and economics. But that crisis resulted in a policy response that is now very familiar to Australians: school closures. And we can still learn some things, albeit with caveats.

More disadvantaged kids may drop out

Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone closed all schools throughout 2014 and 2015. In these nations, internet use is not as common as it is in Australia, so school closures actually meant most children were fully held out of education (and often food programs, which they get simply by attending schools).

A 2015 report by the United Nations Development Programme found school closures had a disproportionately strong effect on girls. Gender gaps for school attendance widened once schools were reopened, while dropout rates increased. Importantly, the report found evidence of more teenage pregnancies and early marriages, which prevent girls from ever going back to school.

Read more: COVID-19: what closing schools and childcare centres would mean for parents and casual staff

While child marriage is almost unheard of in Australia, drop out rates could be a potential repercussion of the Australian school closures. Children from relatively disadvantaged households, where parents are less able to work from home and help with remote learning, may find returning to school very difficult.

Evidence from the US suggests summer holidays contribute to a loss in academic achievement equivalent to one month of education for poorer kids.This effect is likely to contribute to increasing drop-out rates among more vulnerable children in Australia throughout the 2020s.

In Victoria, a report found more than 10% of Victorian students from disadvantaged schools were absent during the state’s first period of remote learning – compared to 4% in advantaged schools. And an organisation working with disadvantaged children in Sydney recently reported more than 3,000 public school students in NSW have not returned to their classrooms since the remote learning period ended in May.

Kids may have less access to food

Another potential similarity is related to food security. Australia doesn’t have the same type of food programs we see in some of the poorest developing countries. But poorer Australian children can suffer from food insecurity, which is associated with long-term health impacts (including, ironically, obesity) and lower performance in school.

As many as one in five children in Australia start the school day without eating breakfast. Evidence from the US and EU shows school lunch is associated with improvements in academic performance, as schools can provide access to more regular and healthier diets.

Many schools across Australia have breakfast clubs, or have emergency food and lunches for children who might otherwise go hungry. These programs are not consistent across Australia though, with some funded by schools, and others through food agencies or state governments.

Read more: Schools provide food for many hungry children. This needs to continue when classes go online

It may affect future earnings

One of the goals of education — of course not the only one — is to prepare children for work. So, what’s the effect of school closures on future earnings?

Two papers published in the Journal of Labor Economics can shed light on the answer to this question. The first studies the long-term effects (40 years) of school closures by looking at teacher strikes in Argentina occurring in the early 1980s. The second compared long-term labour market outcomes of children affected by the second world war. Austrian and German people who were ten years old during the war received less education than comparable adults from non-war countries.

The Argentinian study, published in 2019, showed missing around 90 days of class reduces earnings by 2-3%. The European study, published in 2004, found Austrian children missed around 20% of classes during the war and their earnings dropped by around 3%. German children lost around 25% of classes and had earnings dropped by around 5% (albeit the German data does not allow for very precise estimates).

Schools in Australia have not been truly closed. They’ve remained virtually open through Zoom and other platforms. But not all children have equal access to computers, independent study areas and parents who can explain Pythagoras’ theorem.

Read more: Schools are moving online, but not all children start out digitally equal

Virtual classrooms are no substitute for physical learning environments where trained teachers can closely monitor children’s progress. So while the class of 2020 will not necessarily be 3-5% poorer than the class of 2019, a wage gap between the two cohorts wouldn’t be surprising. Future studies will tell.

Future studies may find increments in earnings and education inequality resulting from COVID school closures. Future work may also find long-term health consequences, related to not just inequality, but also nutrition and mental health. The Lancet has published two recent studies that document the mental health effects of closures, which the authors say can have serious long-term repercussions.

We must consider all this evidence when we discuss our approach to policy in the future, and when making decisions as to whether to close schools again, if another “wave” hits.

The author would like to thank Trong Anh Trinh for his research assistance.

– ref. From WW2 to Ebola: what we know about the long-term effects of school closures – https://theconversation.com/from-ww2-to-ebola-what-we-know-about-the-long-term-effects-of-school-closures-146396

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tebeje Molla, Research Fellow, Deakin University

For disadvantaged people with disrupted educational trajectories, such as refugees, vocational qualifications can widen access to paid jobs and enhance economic independence. But many still consider vocational education and training (VET) qualifications not as prestigious as university degrees. This is a widespread issue, especially in African communities.

Many African parents push their children to go to university regardless of their preparedness or interest. The outcome is dispiriting. Most of them leave university without a degree. They drop out.

But African youth I have interviewed for as-yet unpublished research have found VET in Australia to be a supportive environment, where they have been successful. More should be encouraged to consider VET, and policies must be in place to help them get there.

Unequal trends of higher education participation

For African Australians, higher education attainment is closely associated with migration status. Compared to their non-refugee counterparts, refugee background African youth are less likely to transition to university within five years of their arrival in Australia. The trend has not changed much over the last 25 years.

This difference between the two groups can in part be explained by the fact African refugee youth arrive with limited educational attainment. For instance, in 2016, 19% of people (aged 15 years and over) born in the main countries of origin of African refugees had no qualifications. The corresponding rate for the non-refugee African population was 10%; for the total Australian population, it was 8.5%.

But the persistence of the problem warrants policy attention.

VET is an equaliser

People from the main countries of origin of African refugees (Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan) have considerably benefited from the VET sector.

The VET sector provides them with an equity pathway to university. For many students from refugee background, low academic results at school mean a direct transition to university remains challenging. In 2016, there were close to 1,000 Africans from refugee background in the VET sector compared to fewer than 500 in the university sector.

The majority of African youth I interviewed in the last two years came to the university sector through VET, using the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) pathway. They said passing through TAFE helped them develop their “navigational capacity” — their ability to plan and work towards future goals. They specifically noted the supportive learning environment in TAFE institutes prepared them for independent learning. It set them up for success in university.

VET courses also give African Australians a second chance. Africans from refugee backgrounds attend vocational courses as mature age students, with the largest age group being 30 to 39 year olds. For the general Australian population, the largest age group enrolled in VET courses was 15 to 19 year olds.

Despite limited educational attainment at arrival, refugee-background African Australians are over-represented in VET courses. In the 2016 census, people born in the eight main countries of origin of African refugees accounted for less than 0.3% of the total population of Australia. But the group represented about 1.3% of the total enrolment in funded VET programs and courses in the last five years (2015-2019).

Between 2015 and 2019, there were more than 91,000 refugee-background African Australians enrolled in VET courses, and over that same time period, 20,000 completed VET courses.

In the university sector, a total of close to 11,000 African refugee youth enrolled for undergraduate degrees between 2001 and 2017. But fewer than 2,000 of those successfully completed their courses over the same period.

Public investment is necessary

In the post-COVID world, Australia’s success will largely depend on the adaptability and responsiveness of the education system. It will be critical to ensure disadvantaged members of society do not slip through the policy cracks.

Refugees in particular require extra support to succeed in education and training. For instance, African refugees arrive with a level of disadvantage not experienced by other cohorts of refugees.

We need to acknowledge the unique situation of African refugees and provide them with targeted policies. For refugee youth who spent years in refugee camps with little or no education, it can be difficult to fit in a school system that operates on age cohorts. There is a need for expanding the “catch-up schooling” that is offered for young refugees and diversifying the existing pathways to tertiary education.

Refugee status should also be recognised as a category of disadvantage in the higher education sector. Recognising refugees as an equity group enables tertiary education institutions to provide the necessary support for success.

Without access to lifelong learning opportunities, refugees are likely to remain vulnerable to fast-paced changes in the world of work.

Educational attainment is instrumental for integration and economic independence. African American civil right activist Ella Baker’s truism “Give people light and they will find the way” aptly encapsulates the self-reliance that comes with learning.

– ref. Young African migrants are pushed into uni, but more find success and happiness in vocational training – https://theconversation.com/young-african-migrants-are-pushed-into-uni-but-more-find-success-and-happiness-in-vocational-training-145026

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Vredenburg, Senior Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Marketing, Auckland University of Technology

So-called brand activism is evolving fast. When Colin Kaepernick first knelt during the US national anthem in 2016, professional football turned its back on him. Now, consumer and sports fan expectations are forcing brands to see activism as good for business.

According to a recent Nielsen survey, 72% of sports fans believe athletes are an important influence in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. A whopping 59% expect athletes to engage personally with BLM activism.

In short, if brands aren’t taking a stand (or a knee), consumers notice.

Sporting codes have woken up to the benefits of strategically targeting a younger, more racially-diverse demographic. As National Hockey League (NHL) executive vice president for social impact Kim Davis put it:

People understand that doing the right thing is also right for the business.

After the shooting of Jacob Blake by Kenosha police, however, that activism ramped up. Players from most major professional sports protested by refusing to play at all.

Brand activism cuts both ways

It began with local NBA team the Milwaukee Bucks, whose own player Sterling Brown had been brutally beaten by police in 2018. Having refused to take the court for a playoff game, the team’s actions were picked up by social media and the no-play protest spread to other sports.

The backlash and praise were immediate, with the Bucks becoming the most mentioned brand on social media that week.

Read more: Woke washing: what happens when marketing communications don’t match corporate practice

There were asymmetric effects for the team brand: a clear drop in brand sentiment from those who disagreed with their stand, and a surge of brand love driven by the backlash.

Whereas brands might once have avoided controversy, there is now a clear case for taking a stand — as the NHL discovered when it continued to play while other sports “went dark”. The backlash from fans and players alike forced the cancellation of two days’ play.

Similarly, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) took a stand by not playing for one day after player Naomi Osaka threatened not to compete in the Western & Southern Open semifinals in Cincinnati. She explained:

Before I am an athlete, I am a black woman. And as a black woman I feel as though there are much more important matters at hand that need immediate attention, rather than watching me play tennis.

Osaka went on to win the US Open, and was praised for donning protective face masks with the names of seven black people killed by police. There was also criticism that a one-day break in play, without further commitment, did little to further the BLM cause.

Read more: Brands may support Black Lives Matter, but advertising still needs to decolonise

But accusations of virtue signalling and woke washing put the ATP between a rock and a hard place. If tennis officials hadn’t engaged in some way with the moment, they risked being called out for insensitivity (as were the NHL and some cricket teams).

In business we trust

It may not be surprising that brand activism is increasingly being driven by consumers demanding they take a stand (and condemning those who don’t), as some studies now show businesses are more trusted than government.

We may be reaching a point where it is more surprising to consumers when brands don’t take a stand on social issues than when they do.

In 2018, consumers responded extremely positively to Nike’s now-iconic Black Lives Matter campaign with Colin Kaepernick. Now the brand has an established pro-social reputation, however, the response to recent anti-racism action has been more muted.

Nike’s You Can’t Stop Us campaign and its declaration of Juneteenth as an annual paid company holiday have been met with a positive but noticeably milder reaction from consumers.

Read more: Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ rights, Trump: The risks and rewards of corporate activism

Surprise is no longer a strategy

Nike was just one of many brands to declare Juneteenth a holiday in the US (along with Google, Lyft, The New York Times, JCPenney, the NFL, Tumblr and Postmates). As our research suggests, such acts are simply not as surprising in 2020 as they once were.

As brand activism becomes more widespread, consumers’ appreciation of it also becomes more sophisticated — to the point where it is a key component of brand loyalty.

However, while consumers expect brands to take a stand, many also believe social issues are used too often as a marketing ploy.

The challenge for brands is clear: practice what you preach, make a real difference, pay more than lip service to causes. Staying relevant has never been harder.

– ref. Athlete activism or corporate woke washing? Getting it right in the age of Black Lives Matter is a tough game – https://theconversation.com/athlete-activism-or-corporate-woke-washing-getting-it-right-in-the-age-of-black-lives-matter-is-a-tough-game-146301