Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rupert Sutherland, Professor of tectonics and geophysics, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

We think of trees and soil as carbon sinks, but the world’s oceans hold far larger carbon stocks and are more effective at storing carbon permanently.

In new research published today, we investigate the long-term rate of permanent carbon removal by seashells of plankton in the ocean near New Zealand.

We show that seashells have drawn down about the same amount of carbon as regional emissions of carbon dioxide, and this process was even higher during ancient periods of climate warming.

Humans are taking carbon out of the ground by burning fossil fuels deposited millions of years ago and putting it into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
The current rate of new fossil fuel formation is very low. Instead, the main geological (long-term) mechanism of carbon storage today is the formation of seashells that become preserved as sediment on the ocean floor.

The continent of Zealandia is mostly submerged beneath the southwest Pacific Ocean but includes the islands of New Zealand and New Caledonia.

Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels on the continent add up to about 45 million tonnes per year, which is 0.12% of the global total.

Our work documents a project that was part of the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP). Expedition 371 drilled into the seabed of Zealandia to investigate how the continent formed and to analyse ancient environmental changes recorded in its sediments.

Drawing carbon to the ocean floor

Organic carbon in the form of dead plants, algae and animals is mostly eaten by other creatures, mainly bacteria, in both the ocean and in forest soils. Most organisms in the ocean are so small (less than 1mm in size) they remain invisible, but as they die and sink, they transport carbon to the deep ocean. Their shells can accumulate on the seabed to make vast deposits of chalk and limestone.

Read more:
Tiny plankton drive processes in the ocean that capture twice as much carbon as scientists thought

The sediments we cored were many hundreds of metres thick and formed during warmer climates that might resemble the decades and centuries to come. We know the past environments from analysis of fossils.

Seashells, which are made of calcium carbonate, sequester significant amounts of carbon. The accumulation rate of shells averaged over the last million years was about 20 tonnes per square kilometre per year.

The total area of the Zealandia continent is about 6 million square kilometres, so the average rate of calcium carbonate storage was about 120 million tonnes per year, which is equivalent to 53 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

This is about the same as emissions from burning fossil fuels on the continent today, within errors of calculation. However, a much larger area than just Zealandia is accumulating microscopic seashells.

The planetary carbon cycle

Earth naturally expels carbon dioxide from mineral springs and volcanoes, as rocks are cooked at depth. This is unlikely to be affected by climate change. The Earth stores carbon dioxide when rocks are altered at the surface and as seashells accumulate on the seabed. Both these mechanisms might be affected by climate change.

The biosphere and oceans also hold significant carbon stocks that are sure to change. It is a complex system and many scientists are trying to understand how it will respond to human activities.

Different parts of the carbon system will respond in different ways and at different rates. Our work provides clues as to what might happen in the ocean.

About 4-8 million years ago, the climate was warmer, carbon dioxide levels were similar or even higher than today, and the ocean was more acidic. However, we found the average accumulation rate of seashells on Zealandia was more than double that of the most recent million years.

This is a pattern seen elsewhere around the world. Warmer climates during this period had oceans that produced more seashells, but these data are average accumulation rates over million-year time scales.

The mechanism by which these ancient warmer oceans produced more seashells remains a subject of ongoing research (including ours).

Rivers and the wind deliver nutrients to the ocean, especially during extreme weather events, and changes can occur over short time scales. At the other extreme, fully integrated climate models show that large-scale reorganisation of ocean currents to enhance the supply of nutrients from deep waters could take centuries or even millennia.

Read more:
The ocean is essential to tackling climate change. So why has it been neglected in global climate talks?

Our work highlights and quantifies the important role the ocean, and particularly the microscopic life within it, will eventually play in restoring balance to our planet. The rate at which dead plankton draw carbon to the deep ocean and small seashells permanently store it on the seabed is a significant proportion of human carbon dioxide emissions and it is likely to increase in the future.

Our work reveals that a warmer ocean may eventually produce more calcium carbonate shells than today’s ocean does, even though ocean acidification will almost certainly occur.

How quickly natural carbon sequestration in the ocean might change remains highly uncertain. It will take many centuries before we reach an ocean state similar to that found 4-8 million years ago.

More work is needed to understand how this transition might occur and whether it is possible and sensible to enhance biological productivity in our oceans to mitigate climate change and maintain or increase biodiversity.

Rupert Sutherland has received research funding from the New Zealand Government and IODP Expedition 371 was funded by a collaboration of international governments.

Laia Alegret received funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and FEDER funds, project PID2019-105537RB-I00.

– ref. Oceans are better at storing carbon than trees. In a warmer future, ocean carbon sinks could help stabilise our planet – https://theconversation.com/oceans-are-better-at-storing-carbon-than-trees-in-a-warmer-future-ocean-carbon-sinks-could-help-stabilise-our-planet-176154

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Hurley, Policy Fellow, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

International students are returning to Australia after almost two years of closed borders.

The number of international students in Australia increased by 29,856 in the first six weeks after the Australian government opened the border to them in mid-December.

But there are still about 300,000 fewer international students in Australia than before the pandemic. Around 147,000 current student visa holders remain outside Australia.

Read more:
Border opening spurs rebound in demand from international students

It’s not just education institutions that will be anxiously watching the rate at which these students return.

International students are a vital part of the workforce in many industries. In particular, many work in hospitality and carer roles. The Australian government is trying to entice international students to return by offering visa refunds and easing limits on their access to the workforce.

These temporary arrangements highlight the sometimes uneasy relationship between international education, migration and the workforce.

What has changed since the borders opened?

The loosening of border restrictions in December 2021 has reversed the steady decline in international students.

At its lowest point, there were 248,750 international students in Australia. This was a fall of about 57% compared to before the pandemic, and the lowest level since 2007.

Read more:
Why the international education crisis will linger long after students return to Australia

Since the borders reopened, students have returned to Australia in larger numbers from some countries than others.

The numbers of students from India and Nepal have increased the most. Students from these two countries account for over 50% of the increase in the past six weeks.

By comparison, Chinese international students have not returned to Australia as quickly. Over 86,000 of them remain outside Australia. That’s about 60% of all international students who are still overseas.

But this doesn’t mean Chinese students will not return. China recorded the largest increase of any country in student visa holders since borders opened, up by about 5,500. This suggests many new Chinese students have applied for and been granted visas.

These students may be waiting until the start of semester before travelling to Australia.

Read more:
Australia’s strategy to revive international education is right to aim for more diversity

Why is the labour market important?

One reason students are returning at different rates may be due to the labour market.

According to 2016 census data, Indian and Nepalese students are much more likely to be part of the workforce than Chinese students. About 78% of Indian and 87% of Nepalese students are employed in the Australian workforce. This compares to less than 21% of students from China.

The government’s efforts to get international students back to Australia more quickly highlights how important their labour is to many parts of the economy.

The 2016 census showed current and recently graduated international students made up about 2% of the total labour force. This student workforce is concentrated in areas reporting shortages.

Before the pandemic, about 15% of waiters, 12% of kitchen hands and 10% of cooks and chefs were current or recently graduated international students. About 11% of commercial cleaners were current or recent international students.

These occupations have faced widespread difficulties in finding staff.

International students also work in important carer roles. Before the pandemic, about 9% of all nursing support staff and personal care workers in aged care were current or recent international students.

Many other occupations where the pre-pandemic workforce included large numbers of international students are recording vacancies at well above pre-pandemic levels.

Read more:
COVID halved international student numbers in Australia. The risk now is we lose future skilled workers and citizens

What are the implications of students’ role as workers?

Access to the Australian labour market has been a controversial aspect of international education.

International students are required to demonstrate they are a “genuine” student, and not using a student visa to enter the country primarily to work.

Yet the reasons for international students to select Australia as a destination are varied and complex. The ability to work is an important consideration.

Australia uses access to the labour market to compete with other countries for students. In 2008, Australia removed the need for students to apply for a separate work visa. International students have been able to work 20 hours a week. That limit has now been lifted until at least April 2022.

Following the 2011 Knight Review, many international students have been able to apply for a post-study visa. This lets them work in Australia for between one and five years after finishing their course.

Competitor countries are also using post-study work rights to attract a bigger share of international enrolments.

Read more:
International student numbers hit record highs in Canada, UK and US as falls continue in Australia and NZ

The need to temporarily loosen work restrictions shows it is not just universities that rely on international students. Many Australians will benefit from their labour.

In welcoming international students back to the country, it is important to ensure their rights are protected. These students can be particularly vulnerable to exploitation in the workplace. Current visa arrangements can encourage international students to cycle through cheap courses so they can stay in Australia.

As international education recovers, a better understanding of the link between international education, migration and employment can help inform policy that protects everyone’s interests in the sector.

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

– ref. International students are coming back and it’s not just universities sighing with relief – https://theconversation.com/international-students-are-coming-back-and-its-not-just-universities-sighing-with-relief-176530

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

The disruption of the COVID pandemic has led many of us to reconsider our relationship to work, as well as our spending priorities.

Some are eager to return to pre-pandemic “normality”. Others have found working from home to be liberating and are keen to preserve their newfound autonomy.

Still others, such as health workers, are simply exhausted after two years dealing with the ever-changing demands of the pandemic. One manifestation of this exhaustion has been the rise of the “anti-work’ movement”, which rejects the whole idea of paid employment as a way to organise necessary labour.

A less radical response is increased interest in the idea of a four-day working week. A growing number of companies – typically in technology or professional services – are embracing the idea.

Unlike the end of paid work, a four-day week is well within the realm of economic feasibility. But how much, if anything, would it cost in terms of lost production and lower wages?

How did we get to a five-day work week?

In 1856, Melbourne stonemasons became the first workers in the world to achieve an eight-hour working day. It’s a landmark we commemorate with a public holiday in most states and territories (called Eight Hours Day in Tasmania and Labour Day elsewhere).

It took almost a century before the eight-hour day became the norm, and for the six-day week those stonemasons still worked to be reduced. But finally, in 1948, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court approved a 40-hour, five-day working week for all Australians.

A five-day week brought us that great boon, the weekend. Thanks to steady increases in productivity, all this was achieved even while living standards improved steadily.

Read more:
Aussie Rules rules thanks to the eight-hour working day

Increases in leisure continued over the next few decades. In 1945 Australian workers were granted two weeks’ annual leave. This was extended to three weeks in 1963, and to four weeks in 1974. Sick leave, long service leave and an increased number of public holidays all reduced the number of hours worked per year.

But the standard work week remained fixed at five days.

In 1988, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission cleared the way for the working week to be cut from 40 to 38 hours.

Unionised workers in industries such as construction were able to negotiate slightly shorter hours – 36 hours a week – that made a nine-day fortnight possible (by continuing to work eight hours a day). So while they were still doing the same daily hours as in the 19th century, they were working about one-third fewer days a year.

All this progress came to a halt with the era of microeconomic reform (often called neoliberalism) beginning in the 1980s.

There has been no significant reduction in standard hours since. The actual number of hours worked has ebbed and flowed according to the state of the labour market, but without any clear trend. Employers have consistently favoured longer hours for their core full-time workforce, while workers and unions have pushed for better work-life balance.

Benefits and costs

Some Australian workers already work a nine-day fortnight. (There are no solid numbers on how many, but Australian Bureau of Statistics data suggests it is fewer than 10% of the workforce.) For these workers shifting to a four-day week would reduce their total hours worked by a little more than 10%.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that reducing working hours, if implemented correctly, can be partly offset by an increase in output per hour. Large-scale trials in Iceland reducing weekly hours from 40 to 36, for example, found no drop in productivity.

However, despite some optimistic claims, there is insufficient evidence to show there will be no reduction in output in all circumstances.

Read more:
The success of Iceland’s ‘four-day week’ trial has been greatly overstated

A plausible guess is that reducing hours by 10% will be associated with a 5% reduction in output.

If this cost were shared equally between employer and employee, workers would have to forgo wage increases of 2.5%. This would correspond to somewhere between two and five years of real wage growth based on recent history in Australia.

The cost to employers would reduce their profits. But over the past 20 to 30 years the share of national income going to the owners of capital as profits (instead to labour as wages and salaries) has increased considerably. This cost would be just a fraction of those gains.

Making the transition

For most Australians working a standard full-time job – a little more than seven hours a day, Monday to Friday – moving to a four-day work week could occur in two stages.

The first stage would be to be shift to a nine-day fortnight with no change in total weekly hours. So the average working day would increase by 50 minutes (from seven hours 36 minutes to eight hours 26 minutes).

The second stage would be to shift to a four-day week with eight-hour working days (a 32-hour working week).

A lot of more detailed questions would still need to be resolved.

Should we choose to extend the weekend to three days, or stick with a five-day week – having different workers taking different rostered days off? Should schools continue to operate five days a week? How will working from home fit in? Will there be even more pressure than there is already to deal with work-related demands on notional days off?

Read more:
A life of long weekends is alluring, but the shorter working day may be more practical

These problems, and others, do complicate the shift to a four-day week. But they are not insurmountable.

The real question, 70 years after the arrival of the weekend, is whether we are ready to trade in some of our increased productivity for a life with more free time for family, friends and fun. Or we do we want to keep on working so we can consume more and live in bigger houses with room to store the stuff we buy to make ourselves feel better about working so much.

There’s a lot of evidence that experiences give us more happiness than material goods. But experiences require time as well as money. A four-day week would be one way to get that time.

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

– ref. There’s never been a better time for Australia to embrace the 4-day week – https://theconversation.com/theres-never-been-a-better-time-for-australia-to-embrace-the-4-day-week-176374

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

Scott Morrison has said he is “devastated” by failing to deliver the religious discrimination legislation but declared he would rather lay down the attempt than see the protections compromised.

He confirmed the legislation is dead for this term – the government will not attempt to revisit it in budget week.

The Prime Minister abandoned the package, which also involved change to the sex discrimination act, after five Liberal defectors combined with Labor and crossbenchers to amend it in the House of Representatives to protect transgender students at religious schools.

The five – Trent Zimmerman, Dave Sharma, Fiona Martin, Katie Allen, and Bridget Archer – acted despite strong pressure from Morrison and have come under attack from some colleagues.

Morrison on Sunday attended St Maroun’s Maronite Church in Adelaide to say he was “devastated” by the result and explain his refusal to compromise .

He said much of his passion for seeking to protect Australians of religious faith from discrimination was based in his deep appreciation of the Maronite community and many of the eastern Orthodox faiths.

Many in these communities had known persecution at home and come to Australia seeking religious freedom.

“That freedom is here. But we sought to add to those protections and we were unsuccessful. And that is a bitter disappointment,” he said.

But he did not regret bringing the legislation forward.

He said it was disappointing this bid to provide more protections “was undermined by those who would seek to undermine the very religious institutions upon which so much of Christian community depends”, including schools and charitable organisations.

Morrison said he’d had to make a very important decision about the legislation, and in doing so “I felt very much like the woman before Solomon”.

According to the biblical story two women had babies, one of whom was smothered when the mother rolled on it during the night. The mother of the dead child put it next to the other woman, and took the living one.

When the women went before Solomon each claiming to be the mother of the living child, he proposed cutting the baby in half.

“And the woman whose child it was said, no, the other woman can have my child. And at that moment, Solomon knew who the mother was,” Morrison said.

“So, I would rather lay down our attempt to secure those additional protections, than see them compromised or undermined.

“And I’m sure that communities of faith all around this country, you all understand that.

“I share your disappointment, but I have not forgotten upon which everything else rests, and that is not something that I would forsake.

“So there will be those who will say that I have been humiliated and all of those things. But [I am] happy to suffer those things in a cause that I believe strongly in and that I know you share. We will see where this goes in the future.”

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

– ref. Morrison draws on Bible story to explain refusal to compromise on religious discrimination package – https://theconversation.com/morrison-draws-on-bible-story-to-explain-refusal-to-compromise-on-religious-discrimination-package-177043

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

NSW state byelections occurred Saturday in the seats of Bega, Monaro, Strathfield and Willoughby. Labor gained Bega and held Strathfield, but the Nationals held Monaro. In Willoughby, the Liberals are likely to hold off an independent challenger.

Current figures could change when postal votes are counted next Saturday, February 19. ABC election analyst Antony Green said postal votes returned so far are over 20% of enrolled voters in Bega, Strathfield and Willoughby, and these percentages don’t include votes in the mail. Owing to COVID, all voters were sent a postal pack, but could vote in-person, early or on election day.

There are also outstanding pre-poll booths in Bega, Monaro and Strathfield. Green said that pre-poll booths not counted on Saturday night will not be completed until Monday.

Bega was easily the best result for Labor. The Poll Bludger’s projection was for a final two party of 56.5-43.5 to Labor, an 11.7% swing to Labor from the 2019 results. Current primary votes are 43.7% Labor (up 13.5%), 36.5% Liberal (down 11.2%), 8.0% Greens (down 2.7%) and 5.6% Shooters (down 1.3%).

In Monaro, Labor had a swing to it, but the Nationals easily retained. The projected two party is 55.3-44.7 to the Nationals, a 4.9% swing to Labor. Current primary votes are 46.9% National (down 5.0%), 33.8% Labor (up 6.4%), 7.5% Greens (down 0.3%) and 6.1% for an independent.

Labor retained Strathfield with very little swing. The projected two party is 54.5-45.5 to Labor, a 0.1% swing to the Liberals. Primary votes are currently 41.1% Labor (down 3.0%), 38.2% Liberal (down 0.8%), 9.5% for an independent and 6.1% Greens (down 2.8%).

The Liberal primary in Willoughby had a large fall, but they would win on current primary votes. The Liberals had 43.5% (down 13.5%) and independent Larissa Penn 32.2%, with 11.9% for the Greens (up 0.8%) and 6.1% Reason. Labor did not contest.

The Electoral Commission selected the Greens as the Liberals’ two candidate opponent, and now need to re-do so it is Liberal vs Penn. With optional preferential voting in NSW, the Liberals’ current lead is enough; the ABC estimates 53.1-46.9 to the Liberals, an 18.0% swing against the Liberal vs Labor two party share in 2019.

Willoughby appears to be the only seat where the large postal vote could overturn the current Liberal lead. While habitual postal voters skew Liberal, it’s possible that progressive voters were more concerned about COVID, and so voted by post. That could offset the normal postal vote skew.

The Bega, Monaro and Willoughby byelections were caused by well-known Coalition MPs resigning, with former premier Gladys Berejiklian resigning in Willoughby, former Nationals leader John Barilaro in Monaro and former transport minister Andrew Constance in Bega.

When an MP resigns, they take their personal vote with them. Labor should have performed better in Monaro, which was Labor-held at the 2003 and 2007 NSW elections. The National margin only blew out from 2.5% to 11.6% at the 2019 election.

Jodi McKay did not become Labor leader until after the 2019 election, so Labor only lost her personal vote as an MP in Strathfield. A near-zero swing is disappointing for Labor.

Green said that, since coming to power at the 2011 election, the Coalition has suffered double digit swings after preferences at every byelection, until the Upper Hunter byelection in May 2021, which the Nationals retained with a 3.3% two party swing in their favour.

In the three seats Labor contested, they had an average two party swing of 5.5%, well below the double digit swings the Coalition has usually copped since 2011.

These byelection results are more consistent with the federal Essential poll last week that gave Labor just a one-point lead after preferences than with the Newspoll two weeks ago that gave Labor a 56-44 lead.

They do not suggest that voters are in a “baseball bat” mood when it comes to either the NSW or federal Coalition governments.

The loss of Bega will knock the NSW Coalition down to 45 of the 93 lower house seats, to 37 for Labor. Two of the crossbenchers are Coalition MPs accused of wrongdoing.

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

– ref. Mixed NSW byelection results do not imply voters in a “baseball bat” mood – https://theconversation.com/mixed-nsw-byelection-results-do-not-imply-voters-in-a-baseball-bat-mood-176879

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lavina Lee, Senior lecturer, Macquarie University

The stakes were high when the foreign ministers of the Quad security group met in Melbourne this week. The US has warned a Russian invasion of Ukraine could be imminent. And Russian President Vladimir Putin had just met with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, and announced a “no limits” partnership between the two powers.

Amid such uncertainty, the main goal of the foreign ministers of the US, Australia, Japan and India was to display unity, resolve and collective strength as a response to the increasing authoritarian challenge to world order.

In the lead-up to the dialogue, US Secretary of State Antony Blinkin laid down the gauntlet, declaring

I would put our partnerships, our alliances, our coalitions against anything anyone else has to offer.

But the Quad members were also keen to show they are not merely reacting to a rival’s agenda, but able to offer their own ambitious, positive and practical contributions to the development goals of smaller states in the Indo-Pacific region.

A force for global good

This objective of recasting of the Quad as not just an anti-China coalition, but a force for global good began over a year ago with the no-strings-attached pledge to donate at least one billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines to developing countries in the region by the end of 2022.

This was a direct response to Beijing’s use of COVID-19 vaccine donations to cast itself as a regional saviour, while simultaneously demanding political concessions from smaller countries.

Read more:
Quad group makes vaccine deal as a wary China watches on

This time around, the Quad foreign ministers were keen to emphasise their vaccine pledge had not been derailed by India’s devastating second wave of COVID infections last year, with more than 500 million doses already delivered to the region.

Such a pledge directly addresses the top priority of Southeast Asian states, whose ability to move to a post-COVID economic recovery has been hobbled by a lack of vaccines, deepening poverty and global inequality.

Additionally, the Quad members signalled their intent to strengthen collaboration on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. This is a return to the group’s 2004 origins, when the four countries first came together to respond to the Indian Ocean tsunami.

The Quad members have, for example, been active in supporting Tonga after its January volcano eruption. While not openly discussed, such collaboration also provides opportunities for the four countries’ navies to coordinate more closely, which has military advantages.

Countering Chinese actions in South China Sea

Despite the focus in Melbourne on being a force for good, the Quad has not forgotten the realpolitik objective of countering China’s ability to create an uncontested sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific.

Though not mentioning China directly in their joint statement, the foreign ministers set their sights on countering its expansive and illegal claims over nearly the entirety of the South China Sea.

As the other Southeast Asian claimants to the sea have been consumed with responding to the pandemic, Beijing has deployed coast guard ships, civilian militia vessels, fishing fleets and resource survey ships in ever greater numbers to aggressively block other nations from fishing and exploiting oil and gas deposits in their own exclusive economic zones.

In response, the Quad announced it will deepen engagement with regional partners to build their capacities to safeguard their exclusive economic zones. This includes developing coast guard resources, strengthening information sharing, ensuring freedom of navigation and helping combat illegal fishing.

This approach is very appealing to regional states, such as Vietnam and Indonesia, who are reluctant to openly join an anti-China coalition but are keen to develop their own sovereign capabilities to defend their access to resources.

Read more:
With vision of a ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’, Quad leaders send a clear signal to China

Slight differences in approach

Despite these shared goals, there were slight differences between the Quad members. A conspicuous omission from their joint statement was America’s framing of the global competition with China (and Russia) as an ideological contest between democracies and authoritarian states, or liberal and illiberal regimes.

Australia, Japan and India are reluctant to enter into ideological warfare with China. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has at times spoken about the intractable differences between democratic and authoritarian political systems. However, the general Australian approach remains to criticise Chinese behaviour without necessarily implying it is derived from an illegitimate and dangerous authoritarian political system.

Japan, too, is uncomfortable with taking the US approach, fearing it will undermine its foreign policy influence built on a foundation of investment and development aid to quasi-democratic and authoritarian countries alike.

India is the most reluctant of all, having deep historical ties and a strong defence relationship with both the former Soviet Union and now Russia.

India diverged from the other members on the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, instead preferring the Quad focus on Indo-Pacific issues and avoid any agenda that might damage its relationship with Moscow.

At the same time, India would not want to legitimise a Russian invasion of Ukraine, as this might offer Pakistan cover to do the same against Indian-controlled Kashmir.

Nevertheless, the schisms between democratic and authoritarian great powers are widening and will be increasingly difficult to manage.

The good news is the declaration of a Sino-Russian “no-limits” partnership has given even more momentum to the Quad and further strengthened the resolve of the four members to advance a “free and open Indo-Pacific”.

The bad news is we are a few steps closer to outright division between the democratic Quad members and China and Russia, with less room to manoeuvre to find common ground.

Read more:
Russia and China’s growing ‘friendship’ is more a public relations exercise than a new world order

Lavina Lee has received funding from the Australian Department of Defence. She is a member of the ASPI Council.

– ref. The Quad has a strategy to counter China and Russia: be a force for global good without ideological warfare – https://theconversation.com/the-quad-has-a-strategy-to-counter-china-and-russia-be-a-force-for-global-good-without-ideological-warfare-176555

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Power, Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University

A focus on pleasure in sexual health education can increase condom use and enhance positive attitudes toward safe sex, according to a new international study led by the University of Oxford.

The study, published today, supports decades of policy and advocacy work seeking to push sexuality education beyond abstinence or risk-based approaches to improve sexual health outcomes.

Read more:
Netflix’s Sex Education is doing sex education better than most schools

What did the researchers find?

The study, a systematic review and meta-analysis, involved collating and analysing all existing research on the topic.

The review included 33 interventions that placed pleasure and fun at the centre of safe-sex messaging. Interventions ranged from sex education workshops to online resources, videos and pamphlets.

The interventions targeted people from multiple countries and backgrounds, including gay men, heterosexual young people and adults, women attending primary care clinics, and men recently diagnosed with a sexually transmissible infection (STI).

Despite this wide diversity in settings and population groups, the studies showed consistent findings. Interventions which affirmed people’s right to pursue pleasurable sex were associated with more consistent use of sexual health services and improved awareness of contraception and preventing STIs.

The meta-analysis combined data from eight interventions aimed at increasing condom use among their target population.

Findings showed emphasising eroticism and fun in condom messaging was more effective at increasing people’s uptake of condoms than other approaches, such as those that focus on messages about negative health outcomes.

This study makes an important contribution to existing evidence that risk-focused approaches to sexual health education, or health promotion, are less effective than comprehensive approaches, which encourage open communication about multiple aspects of sex and relationships, including sexual pleasure.

Pleasure is part of life

Sexual health interventions – which may include school-based education or broader health promotion campaigns targeting people of all ages – are usually designed to achieve particular health goals. These might be increasing STI screening, promoting human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, or reducing incidence of STIs.

Concern for sexual pleasure is often not considered relevant and messages about health risk dominate.

However, sexual relationships and pleasure are important aspects of human life and sexual health promotion is more effective if it accounts for this.

Read more:
‘I always get horny … am I not normal?’: teenage girls often feel shame about pleasure. Sex education needs to address this

Compelling examples of this come from the HIV prevention campaigns created by activists and community organisations in the 1980s and 90s. Many of these campaigns were controversial due to their use of highly sexualised imagery and celebration of gay and bisexual men’s sexuality, which had been criticised as hedonistic and irresponsible in the face of the HIV/AIDS crisis.

However, sex-positive messages were key to the success of these campaigns, which worked to normalise safe-sex through presenting it as fun and erotic.

Pleasure and consent

Affirmation of sexual pleasure is an important part of sexual consent education.

More than 30 years ago, in an important early paper, American scholar Michelle Fine famously articulated how a “missing discourse of desire” in school-based sexuality education undermines young women’s sexual health and safety.

Writing about the US education system, Fine argued school-based sexuality education invalidates female sexual desire. This leaves young women more vulnerable to sexual violence or unwanted pregnancy.

The capacity to assert what one does not want in their sexual relationships, requires awareness of what one does want. It also requires the confidence to voice these desires without fear of being shamed.

Read more:
How to get consent for sex (and no, it doesn’t have to spoil the mood)

Sexuality education should therefore be about building people’s sexual agency and confidence to talk openly about the pleasures and risks of sex. Achieving this requires recognition of, and respect for, young people’s sexuality and relationships.

Does sexual pleasure belong in classrooms?

The idea that school-based sexuality education should focus on pleasure can be controversial. How do we teach sexual pleasure in a classroom?

However, pleasure-based sexuality education is not about the mechanics of sex. Rather it’s an approach to sexuality education that affirms people’s right to sexual pleasure and fulfilment.

This may include emphasising fun and enjoyment in condom use, rather than focusing on cautionary tales.

Or it may be about giving people permission to talk openly about sexual identity or the complexities of relationships.

Educators caution this approach should not impose particular definitions of pleasure – pleasure can be many different things to different people.

Rather, pleasure-based sex education is about opening educational space for young people to safely explore, and developing critical thinking around, sex and relationships.

Sexual pleasure supports sexual rights and health

The basis of sexual rights is the opportunity for all people to pursue satisfying sexual relationships, free from harm or discrimination.

Respect for sexual rights underpins inclusive sexuality education, universal access to sexual and reproductive health care, and protection from sexual violence and discrimination.

Intrinsic to sexual rights is the acknowledgement that sexual pleasure is a valued part of human relationships that supports health and well-being.

Read more:
Good sex ed doesn’t lead to teen pregnancy, it prevents it

Jennifer Power receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Health and Fairer Victoria. She has previously received funding from ViiV Healthcare.

– ref. Sex ed needs to talk about pleasure and fun. Safe sex depends on it and condom use rises – https://theconversation.com/sex-ed-needs-to-talk-about-pleasure-and-fun-safe-sex-depends-on-it-and-condom-use-rises-176572

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

It’s a bad sign when a government starts eating its own.

The backbench Liberal revolt that pushed a protection for transgender kids through the House of Representatives, and thereby inadvertently doomed Scott Morrison’s religious discrimination legislation, has bitten deeply with the PM and senior ministers.

It showed they’d lost control of their troops. Humiliatingly, it revealed they hadn’t known what was coming.

Figuratively speaking, they’d had been caught undressed, on the floor of the parliament in the middle of the night.

During the debate on the religious discrimination package, Trent Zimmerman, Bridget Archer, Katie Allen, Dave Sharma and Fiona Martin crossed the floor on an amendment to the sex discrimination act that would protect all children at religious schools.

This was in contrast to the government’s much narrower proposal to protect gay students from expulsion from these schools, but not cover transgender students.

Normally, senior ministers would just apply a big dollop of spin to the situation in explaining away the government’s loss. They’d say it was unfortunate but just stay with the line that Liberal MPs can exercise their consciences and cross the floor when they feel strongly about something.

But publicly and privately, ministers are in high dudgeon with the now-famous (or infamous, in their eyes) five, claiming treachery and betrayal. They allege people went back on their word, deals were broken, the PM was ambushed.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton holds the position of “leader of the house.” He has a lot of skin in the game when it comes to ensuring the government doesn’t lose votes.

Dutton told the ABC on Friday Morrison had been “misled”.

“There were undertakings that were given. The undertaking wasn’t honoured,” he said.

Dutton didn’t provide details or specify individuals. “But the government doesn’t go into a vote like that unless there’s been assurances given.”

“We had very clear statements from a number of people, including beyond the five. … The Prime Minister based his judgement, his actions, his decisions on a perfectly reasonable basis following discussion, and it’s difficult when you get to the floor of parliament and those undertakings aren’t honoured.”

Dutton added the obvious – in a parliament where the government only had a majority of one, individuals are empowered on issues they believe important to them. (He did not reference periodic threats – which admittedly often haven’t come to much – by Nationals MP George Christensen.)

To the five, the issue of transgender children was important, for reasons of principle, politics and in a couple of cases professional background (Allen is a former paediatrician, Martin a psychologist).

À lire aussi :
Grattan on Friday: Morrison’s religious discrimination package couldn’t fly on a wing and a prayer

Ministers argue that undertakings were broken. But if that was the case – and we can’t know without more information – it was a two-way street.

Morrison had undertaken that trans kids would be offered protection. This was documented in a letter to Anthony Albanese which the opposition leader tabled in the debate.

In his letter dated December 1, Morrison wrote: “in keeping with my Second Reading Speech, where I stated there is no place in our education system for any form of discrimination against a student on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity, the Government will move an amendment to remove the provision of the Sex Discrimination Act which was included in 2013 which limited the protections provided under this act.”

The same day, Allen posted on Facebook: “Proud that the Sex Discrimination Act will be modified to protect LGBTIQA+ kids in schools. This will help the lives of so many children- it’s a real win for tolerance and diversity. Thank you Angie Bell MP, Dave Sharma MP and Fiona Martin MP for your strength in advocacy.”

It was clear a comprehensive amendment was then expected by those Liberals involved with the issue. But by this week, the PM had narrowed what he was willing to do.

Whatever the ins and outs of the haggling, we do know that some of the five had given notice they would or could break ranks.

Archer went public opposing the religious discrimination package. Zimmerman told the Coalition party room he reserved his position (that is the formal way MPs declare to colleagues they may vote against something). Sharma had expressed concerns in media interviews.

While Dutton has been out with the stock whip publicly, it’s understood the Prime Minister’s office has been expressing its displeasure behind the scenes. Its approach is said to be heavy handed.

As he put his religious discrimination legislation in the freezer, Morrison was hit by yet another leak.

A story in The Australian claimed he had been overridden in cabinet when he proposed, as a way of trying to secure votes for the religious discrimination legislation, that the government “put a national integrity commission bill on the notice paper for debate”.

Ministers dispute the story, insisting the matter was canvassed in a much more low key manner as part of a general strategy discussion. But from Morrison’s point of view, most disturbing would be the fact of the leak and the way it had been cast to discredit him.

At what is both the fag end and the business end of the term, Morrison is living in an unnerving world where he doesn’t know what might turn up next.

Michelle Grattan ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. View from The Hill: Peter Dutton accuses Liberal rebels of breaking undertakings – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-peter-dutton-accuses-liberal-rebels-of-breaking-undertakings-176989

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jaya A R Dantas, Deputy Chair, Academic Board; Dean International, Faculty of Health Sciences and Professor of International Health, Curtin University

While Omicron continues to infect people across Australia and the world, many people who’ve already had COVID will likely be re-exposed to the virus.

Depending on your local rules, if you’re exposed again within 30 days of your last infection, you’re unlikely to need to isolate or get another COVID test.

In some countries, you may not need to re-test for 90 days, unless you develop new symptoms.

So why is this the case?

What’s the incubation period for Omicron?

The time between exposure to the virus and symptoms for COVID is between one and 14 days. This lag time is known as the “incubation period”.

However, most people display symptoms by day five or six after exposure.

Emerging evidence suggests the median incubation period for Omicron is even shorter. In US and European studies, the median incubation time for Omicron was three days.

More reinfections with Omicron

Research suggests Omicron is more capable than past variants of reinfecting people who have already had COVID.

A study from the Imperial College London’s COVID-19 response team estimated the risk of reinfection with Omicron to be 5.4 times higher than with Delta. So people who’ve had a prior COVID infection, from any variant before Omicron, were five times more likely to be re-infected during the Omicron wave than the Delta wave.

Omicron appears significantly more likely to evade the natural immunity people build up from past infections.

How long should I wait before re-testing?

Global studies indicate you don’t need to re-test for 30-90 days after a COVID positive test if you’re re-exposed, depending on the jurisdiction.

This is because most people develop some immunity after recovering from the virus, so have a low risk of becoming re-infected in the short term.

A large study undertaken in one of Italy’s former COVID hotspots reveals people who’ve had COVID should be tested again, if re-exposed, only after at least four weeks.

This study found the virus takes an average 30 days to clear from the body after the first positive test result and an average 36 days after symptoms first appear.

Read more:
If my child or I have COVID, when can we get our vaccine or booster shot?

In Queensland, you don’t need to be re-tested or isolate if you’re exposed again within 28 days after ending isolating, regardless of symptoms. In New South Wales it’s also 28 days and in Victoria it’s 30 days, but you’ll need to get another test if you develop fresh symptoms.

If you come into contact with someone with COVID after this time frame, you’ll need to self-isolate, test and follow local advice.

This time frame is different in the United Kingdom. Following a substantial clinical review of evidence and testing data in the UK, the government now advises waiting at least 90 days after a positive test before retesting – unless you develop new symptoms.

Part of the rationale is you have a low chance of becoming reinfected within 90 days after testing positive. So it’s highly likely a positive test in this window would be a false result due to viral shedding, meaning you’d have to unnecessarily isolate.

The UK Health Security Agency defines COVID reinfection as having a positive test more than 90 days after your last positive test.

Read more:
What’s the difference in protection against Omicron between 2 doses and 3 doses of vaccine?

You should still get a booster dose

The evidence for the immunity we get from COVID infection is more limited than that for the immunity we get from vaccines.

Growing evidence also suggests getting vaccinated after having COVID significantly improves protection and further lowers the risk of reinfection.

So the need for boosters remains strong.

However, we should keep in mind the huge issue of vaccine equity, as many people including some health workers, the elderly and those immuno-compromised in low and middle income countries haven’t even received their first two doses yet.

As a Global Public Health researcher, Jaya Dantas has been mapping the Global COVID-19 pandemic especially as it impacts developing countries, social determinants and vaccine equity. She is currently involved with two projects in Western Australia focussing on COVID-19. She is part of a team funded by WA Future Health Research and Innovation Fund – ‘Quantifying contact networks for COVID-19 outbreak and leading a second project funded by Healthway that will examine the impact of COVID-19 and domestic violence on CALD communities. Jaya is the International SIG Convenor of the Public Health Association of Australia and is on the Global Gender Equality in Health Leadership Committee for Women in Global Health, Australia.

– ref. Why don’t most people with COVID need to test for another 30 days, even if they’re re-exposed? – https://theconversation.com/why-dont-most-people-with-covid-need-to-test-for-another-30-days-even-if-theyre-re-exposed-176515

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Cross, Associate Dean (Learning & Teaching) Faculty of Creative Industries, Education and Social Justice, Queensland University of Technology

In the chart-topping Netflix documentary The Tinder Swindler, three women describe how they were defrauded by convicted conman Simon Leviev (who was born Shimon Hayut) after meeting him on the dating app.

The film gives a detailed and deeply personal account of how Leviev used Tinder to connect with his victims and ultimately swindle them out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I have been researching romance fraud for more than a decade. I have heard the painful and traumatic stories of hundreds of victims. While each story is unique, there are common factors, and some wider lessons to learn.

The Tinder Swindler is a powerful example of what can go wrong, but what does it teach us about romance fraud, and how can you avoid becoming the next victim?

What is romance fraud?

Romance fraudsters use the guise of a personal relationship to exploit their victim’s trust and gain a financial advantage (or sometimes, as ASIO this week warned, to access private or classified information).

It typically happens online, through a dating website or app, or social media platform. In many cases, the victim and offender never actually meet. However, as The Tinder Swindler shows, it can also happen in face-to-face relationships.

Romance fraudsters use a range of skilful grooming techniques, social engineering practices and psychological abuse tactics to gain compliance from their victims.

Leviev successfully manipulated several women by posing as the son of a diamond magnate, before claiming his family was being violently threatened and asking his victims to take out loans on his behalf to help deal with a purported security emergency.

Each of his actions was deliberate and purposeful, and is reflected across known offending patterns more broadly. Here are some typical tactics, all of which were used by Leviev:

1. Create an attractive profile and identity that exudes power, wealth and status.

2. “Love-bomb” victims with grand expressions of affection, including moving rapidly towards being “a couple” and discussing a possible future together.

3. Manufacture an “emergency” that urgently requires financial help – this might be a business situation, medical problem or criminal justice issue such as claiming to have been arrested overseas.

4. Escalate these financial demands over time, typically by asking victims to transfer money, register credit cards or take out bank loans.

5. Threaten, abuse or otherwise coerce the victim if they refuse.

Why do victims send money?

Watching from the safety of your living room couch, it’s easy to say “I wouldn’t go along with that”. But we must not underestimate a skilled offender’s ability to identify a weakness or vulnerability and exploit it mercilessly.

Using surveys with victims and non-victims, research has revealed a handful of traits associated with falling victim to romance fraud. Crucially, people with higher levels of romanticised beliefs, or who believe in the idea of “true love”, are more likely to become victims.

Several victims I spoke with could identify a particular reason that prompted their initial decision to engage with an offender. It may have been the loss of a previous relationship or a change in life circumstances (such as retirement or children leaving home). In many cases, a split-second decision to swipe right on a profile, or respond to a friendly message, changed their lives forever.

Someone’s level of vulnerability to fraud is not static; it can change on a monthly, weekly or even daily basis. Many victims would not have been deceived had they seen the message at a different time. Offenders target hundreds of victims in the hope of a single success.

My research has also found many offenders use psychological abuse techniques similar to those commonly found in domestic violence. Offenders might prevent victims from communicating with family and friends, bombard them with messages to monopolise their attention, or verbally abuse them to make them feel worthless. All these tactics impair a victim’s ability to think clearly about their situation or seek help.

‘I’d never fall for it’

No victim wakes up in the morning thinking “I am going to give away all my money today”. Instead, it’s the result of a painstaking grooming process. Offenders, having earned their victim’s trust, will often create realistic-looking contracts, bank statements or official letters to justify their requests for money.

They will typically depict these requests as both urgent and secret, as in the case of Leviev’s “security emergency” in which he claimed to be attempting to negotiate business deals while in hiding. This tactic reduces the victim’s ability to respond rationally or seek outside advice.

Victims of romance fraud suffer a wide range of negative impacts, including shame and social stigma. They are often blamed and held responsible for their financial losses, and this stereotyping makes it less likely they will report such crimes.

How can I prevent it happening to me?

Online dating is fraught enough without having to worry about financial fraud. It is hard to know someone on a dating app is really who they say they are.

Current fraud-prevention advice focuses on taking the relationship into the real world as soon as you feel ready, and never giving money to someone you haven’t met face-to-face. But in The Tinder Swindler, this advice is redundant because Leviev, like many offenders, had curated a real-life persona that matched his digital profile.

The truth is that a determined enough fraudster can extend their online lies into the offline world. Meeting someone in person, researching their background, and doing a reverse image search on their profile picture is all good advice – but it’s not foolproof.

Ultimately, fraud is almost always about money. So consider the motives behind any request for financial help, and never send money you can’t afford to lose. In 2020, Australians lost more than A$131 million to romance fraud. It’s a heavy price to pay for chasing true love.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of romance fraud, you can report it to ReportCyber. For support, contact iDcare. For prevention advice, consult Scamwatch.

Cassandra Cross has previously received funding from the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Cybersecurity Cooperative Research Centre.

– ref. First the ‘love-bomb’, then the ‘financial emergency’: 5 tactics of Tinder swindlers – https://theconversation.com/first-the-love-bomb-then-the-financial-emergency-5-tactics-of-tinder-swindlers-176807

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Yeates, Director of the Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO

While relaxing at the coast this summer, you might have noticed a few fellow beach goers failing to socially distance. You might even have had the unpleasant experience of one biting you and drawing blood.

Australia’s large buzzing flies – commonly called march flies – are very quick to home in on napping sunbathers, looking for a meal of blood. But what are they actually doing on our beaches, given we’re seemingly the only large animals there?

The answer: breeding. Female march flies use your blood to boost their egg production. Then they lay eggs in the sand. After hatching, the hungry maggots wait for prey under your feet.

In large enough numbers, these flies can make beachgoing downright unpleasant. But there are ways to protect yourself. Wearing vertical stripes confuses them, and thicker clothes are harder to bite through. Put a towel over your body while you nap.

The largest of all bloodsucking insect families

The flies ruining your beach outing are mostly members of the family Tabanidae, the horse, deer, and march flies. Globally, there are around 4,600 species of these fast, alert flies. That makes tabanid flies the lineage with the most species of all bloodsucking insects, more diverse than mosquitoes, fleas, or lice. About 500 species are endemic to Australia, with dozens of species left to describe. They are diverse and plentiful, ranging from our highest mainland peak, Mount Kosciuszko, down to sea level.

Tabanid flies have streamlined bodies with eyes taking up most of their heads. Individual parts of their eyes can be sized or coloured differently to filter light, giving them clearer focus on contrast and shadow. Their antennae are strong and sensitive. These flies can detect everything from the carbon dioxide we exhale to octenol, a key component of our sweat and breath, as well urine.

Why are they on my beach?

You might look up and down a salty, windswept beach and wonder where these flies are coming from. And what do they feed on after school holidays are over?

Well, beaches are just one of the micro-habitats where land meets sea. Many invertebrates take advantage of these areas due to the mix of resources. While they might look desolate, beaches are important for many bird and marsupial species. Some wallaby species only live on coastal habitats.

So while you might not see other possible meals for march flies, they sure do. Adept and manoeuvrable in flight, march flies travel kilometres in search of blood meals. They are not picky and most will bite any vertebrate they can find.

It’s only the female march flies who are out for your blood. Both females and males also rely on nectar, visiting the flowering plants in beach dune systems.

Not all march fly species need blood. While protein in blood boosts egg production, some species can produce a smaller clutch of eggs using only nectar and larval resources. One beach dune subfamily, Scepsidinae, has no functional mouthparts as adults. The food they eat during their rich larval stage is ample.

What’s worse than biting march flies? Their predatory maggots.

March flies spend most of their lives as legless predatory maggots hiding underground. Covered in warty armour and fleshy tubercles, these maggots are voracious predators of soil fauna. To subdue their prey, they have long fangs with venom canals.

If that description makes you think of Dune’s giant sandworms, you’re not far off. Tabanid maggots have been seen pulling down toads as they rest on the surface.

While adults have broad tastes, the larvae are specialised predators operating in specific micro-habitats. In fact, larval adaptation to soil type and humidity has likely contributed to the species richness of Tabanidae. Within each small niche, the maggots are fearsome.

Take mangroves, which are nearly as rich in fly species as rainforests. The roots of sand dune plants also host insect, crustacean and worms, which the maggots prey on. Nowhere in these coastal systems is safe from them. They can find prey in the muddy divots among dunes and even go down to the waves’ edge.

Many flies have adapted to be able to eat seaweed and marine life washing in on the tide. But as these different fly species land, march fly maggots may well be there waiting beneath the sand for the first brave arrivals. It is likely many more species of larvae are growing under our feet, as yet unknown to science. The first we know of the great drama below ground is when the maggots pupate into hungry and clever adults.

How can we avoid them?

Most people would like to avoid being feasted on by adult march flies while on the beach. There’s no simple fix, alas. These flies can easily see polarised light and dark colours contrasting with sand and vegetation. Their painful bites can penetrate light fabrics.

Heavier fabrics, including rashies and stinger suits, can provide some protection. And if that fails, try wearing stripes. Recent studies suggest march flies are baffled by vertical stripes, which is one reason zebras are coloured as they are.

Insect repellents with DEET can provide some reprieve, though the flies are so fast they can zoom in for a nip before being repelled. So what can we do? Luckily, the flies tend to settle for a moment before biting. That’s your best opportunity to shoo them away.

March flies are worst in the warmer months, particularly on clear, sunny days without wind. In humid regions, they can stay active over winter too. Thankfully, tabanid flies are not involved in human disease transmission in Australia, though their bites can cause allergic reactions and they can carry pathogens to kangaroos and wallabies.

You’ll notice that some beaches are plagued by march flies and others have barely any. In our years of researching flies, we’ve found march flies and other tabanid flies to be at their most annoying on remote beaches with natural bushland. Take a moment to appreciate their aerodynamic adaptations before moving to another beach.

David Yeates currently receives funding from CSIRO and The Schlinger Trust.

Keith M. Bayless works for CSIRO. He is a recipient of Schlinger Trust funds at the Australian National Insect Collection.

– ref. March flies prowl Australia’s beaches looking for blood – but why? – https://theconversation.com/march-flies-prowl-australias-beaches-looking-for-blood-but-why-176469

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor in the Practice of Higher Education Policy, Australian National University

Many universities, facing revenue losses due to COVID-19, announced major staff cuts over the past two years.

Estimates of the job losses have ranged from 12,000 by October 2020 to as high as 35,000 in the year to May 2021.

Read more:
After 2 years of COVID, how bad has it really been for university finances and staff?

These estimates drew on university announcements and a general ABS labour force survey. I explain the problems with these estimates in more detail here. Ideally, we should use statistics collected on a standard basis from all universities, such as the Department of Education, Skills and Employment’s higher education staff data, which had a long-overdue release this week.

The department’s statistics are best on permanent and fixed-term contract staff. It lets us compare employment levels on March 31 2021 with the same day in 2020. It shows a net loss of 9,050 permanent and fixed-term contract employees, a 6.9% decline.

This is only the third decrease in university staff since 1989. It’s much bigger than the previous largest fall of 1.8% in 1997.

Casuals and non-academic staff bore the brunt of losses

The department’s statistics report casually employed staff on a full-time equivalent basis, with no count of distinct jobs or persons. Casual staff typically work part-time or for limited periods such as semesters. This means it takes several of them to add up to one full-time equivalent, the hours worked by a full-time employee.

For universities needing to save money casuals were an easy option. They are employed on flexible short-term contracts, so universities could act quickly as borders closed to international students in February and March 2020.

Casual job losses are clear in the department’s statistics for 2020 compared to 2019. For other staff the March 31 census date hides retrenchments later in the year, which are only revealed in the 2021 to 2020 comparison.

Casual staff fell by 4,258 full-time equivalents in 2020 compared to 2019, a 17.5% decrease. In data going back to 1991, all previous casual staff decreases have been by less than 1%.

But casual staff losses may be over. In March 2021 universities estimated casual staff numbers, in full-time equivalent terms, would be stable in 2021 at 2020 levels.

Other datasets include more detailed but still imperfect information on casual numbers. Australia’s universities probably had nearly 100,000 casual employees before the pandemic.

Read more:
COVID hit casual academics hard. Here are 5 ways to produce a better deal for unis and staff

Significant problems with all potential data sources make confident estimates of how many casual employees lost jobs impossible, but a 15,000–20,000 range seems plausible. Additional statistics due later this year may improve on this estimate.

Non-academic staff accounted for nearly three-quarters of all university permanent or fixed-term contract job losses on a headcount basis between 2020 and 2021. Normally, non-academic employees make up around 57% of university permanent or fixed-term staff.

It was a similar story with casual non-academic staff. They usually make up about 35% of casual full-time equivalents, but accounted for 47% of lost hours.

What types of academics lost their jobs?

Universities tried to protect their core academic activities, but job losses were not spread evenly among all types of academics.

The largest drop in academic employment – down 1,837 positions, or 5.9% – was in combined teaching and research roles. The next largest was teaching-only (-321, -4.8%), then research-only (-254, -1.5%).

While academics with teaching and research contracts still outnumber specialised teaching or research-only staff, they are a threatened species. This employment model was built on a previous funding system that combined government grants for teaching and research. But over the past 30 years policymakers have separated out teaching and research funding, making it much harder to line up teaching and research dollars to pay the salaries of academics who are supposed to do both.

The trend towards more specialised academic employment was slowed because the high fees paid by international students partially reunited teaching and research income. With that revenue source in decline, teaching-and-research positions became more difficult to sustain.

Read more:
Universities lost 6% of their revenue in 2020 — and the next 2 years are looking worse

Research-only academic employment was relatively protected. This might seem surprising given how reliant Australian university research has been on international student profits.

One reason might be that by October 2020 universities knew they were getting an extra $1 billion in Commonwealth government research assistance. With that funding not available for 2022, research-only jobs could be more vulnerable.

Young staff were hit hard

One early fear as COVID-19 struck university income was that this would affect early career staff the most. They are often employed on fixed-term contracts, which make them relatively cheap to retrench. Contractual vulnerability was a factor in who lost jobs, with a 10% decline in staff on fixed-term contracts compared to 5% of those on permanent contracts.

Age data show 20-something university staff suffered heavy job losses. Some older staff were sent off into retirement, with mid-career staff at the lowest risk of job loss.

Among academic staff, level B (lecturer) academics had the largest reduction in employment (-1,009) and percentage decline (-5.9%) of all academic levels. This is consistent with job losses being greatest for young university staff.

Read more:
Hit hard by the pandemic, researchers expect its impacts to linger for years

Job losses varied by university

Job losses varied greatly across the higher education sector. Universities in Victoria and New South Wales were affected the most, reflecting their high international student enrolments.

At the upper end of the range, UNSW, Monash, RMIT and UTS each lost more than 500 staff.

Charles Darwin and Southern Queensland went against the trend and added small numbers of employees.

When will university employment recover?

The newly released data used above are already nearly a year old. There is some evidence that employment in the second half of 2021 improved on earlier in the year.

An analysis of academic job advertisements found that by June 2021 they were at more than 90% of June 2019 levels, after having crashed during 2020. Australian Taxation Office payroll data show that in tertiary education, which includes vocational as well as higher education, more people were being paid in the last quarter of 2021 than at the same time in 2020.

Commonwealth research funding returning to normal will reduce university income in 2022, but increased revenue from international students will partly offset this loss. International student numbers are slowly recovering after Australia’s borders reopened to them in December 2021, but still have a long way to go to get back to 2019 levels.

The worst is almost certainly over for university staff, but the long COVID of university employment will not clear for some time.

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

– ref. Universities had record job losses, but not as many as feared – and the worst may be over – https://theconversation.com/universities-had-record-job-losses-but-not-as-many-as-feared-and-the-worst-may-be-over-176883

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Thorpe, Professor in Sociology of Sport and Physical Culture, University of Waikato

The stereotype of action sports as the domain of the young and the cool is long out of date. The demographics of these sports – surfing, skateboarding, snowboarding, climbing, mountain biking – have been expanding to include more girls and women, queer and non-binary people and older participants.

These demographic and cultural shifts have been highlighted recently by the remarkable achievements and career highlights of some of these sports’ greatest exponents.

In the past week, we’ve seen legendary American surfer Kelly Slater win the prestigious Pipeline contest in Hawaii, just a few days shy of his 50th birthday, beating 24-year-old Hawaiian local Seth Moniz.

This was Slater’s 56th career victory, on top of 11 world titles won over three decades of elite-level surfing. Having claimed his first world title at 20, he routinely competes against athletes three decades his junior.

A few days later, US snowboarder Lindsey Jacobellis – at her fourth Winter Olympics – won the snowboard cross gold medal at the age of 36. Jacobellis was publicly criticised at the 2006 Winter Olympics for falling and losing the lead after a celebratory manoeuvre on the penultimate jump in a speed event – infamously known as the “Lindsey Leap”.

Gold continued to elude her at subsequent Olympics, but Jacobellis overcame a series of psychological challenges to make the comeback of her career in Beijing.

Read more:
How snowboarding became a marquee event at the Winter Olympics – but lost some of its cool factor in the process

Meanwhile, the world’s most famous snowboarder, Shaun White, competed in the Beijing halfpipe finals at the age of 35 at his fifth Olympics. He won his first Olympic gold aged 19 in Torino in 2006, and again in Vancouver in 2010 and PyeongChang in 2018. More than 15 years after his first Olympic appearance, White finished just outside the medals but wowed audiences with his huge airs and timeless style.

The greying of action sports

Longevity in elite sporting careers can be attributed to advances in training techniques, nutrition and sport science. But the unique cultures and communities of action sports are also important factors.

The action sports industry began noting a trend towards “greying” participants over a decade ago. Those who took up action sports as teenagers in the 1970s and 1980s are still active today. Many have taught their children and grandchildren, sharing these sporting cultures with their families.

Read more:
Alt goes mainstream: how surfing, skateboarding, BMX and sport climbing became Olympic events

Researchers have referred to these activities as “lifestyle sports” because of their central organising role in people’s lives; their jobs, holidays and consumption revolve around their passion for these sports. The rise of the “silver surfer”, middle-aged snowboarder and older skateboarder is well documented.

With older participants identified as a new niche market, new product lines were developed to target their needs. Many action sport brands proudly include “legends” and “veterans” in their professional teams.

Cultural commitment is highly valued, demonstrating a lifetime of dedication to the sport. Many older action sport participants also give back to the community in a range of ways, from organising events and fundraising to creating nonprofits to expand opportunities for others.

Replacing retirement blues with lifelong passion

In many traditional organised sports, elite athletes are dropped from teams when they’re injured or simply considered too old. Research has consistently shown the psychological challenges experienced by athletes retiring from competitive sports.

They can experience “identity loss”, as well as physical changes, which can lead to depression, anxiety and even suicide.

Read more:
The high-speed physics of how bobsled, luge and skeleton send humans hurtling faster than a car on the highway

By contrast, action sports athletes rarely retire in the conventional sense. Even if they stop competing at the elite level, they typically remain committed to the sport they love because of the pleasure and enjoyment it brings.

Furthermore, the sense of community and identity these sports offer remains important throughout the lives of many passionate participants.

Community, progression and fun

This obvious camaraderie has intrigued Olympic audiences. Witness the women in the park skateboarding event at the Tokyo Olympics singing, dancing and hugging one another throughout the competition. Or fellow competitors mobbing and hugging Zoi Sadowski-Synnott after she won gold in the women’s slopestyle final last week.

These displays of collegiality and shared joy stand in start contrast to most Olympic sports, which pit nation against nation. Within action sport subcultures, however, the behaviour is accepted as normal. To see a peer persevering and progressing is worthy of celebration.

Read more:
Your guide to the best figure skating at the Beijing Winter Olympics – through the eyes of a dancer

The transnational community in action sports distinguishes them from many traditional organised sports, which tend to be nationally based and focused on defeating the opponent, another country.

While action sports have become increasingly professionalised and the athletes are serious about their careers, they are also part of a community that values progression, self-expression and friendship. Individual and national competitive values are relatively new, driven by such things as inclusion in the Olympics.

These underpinning values of community, friendship and fun help explain why athletes like Slater, Jacobellis and White continue to train and compete. They’re still there decades later because they love it.

Lessons to be learned

Outside structured competition, middle-aged action sport athletes continue to defy expectations.

In 2018, professional skateboarder Tony Hawk, perhaps the most recognised skateboarder of all time, celebrated his 50th birthday by releasing his “50 tricks at age 50” video. At 57, Steve Caballero continues a professional skateboard career, having overcome a recent broken femur (sustained in a motocross accident in 2019).

As pioneers of the sport, they continue to influence and reshape expectations of what is possible and inspire others to continue, regardless of age.

As sport, health and educational organisations around the world seek new strategies and policies to encourage lifelong physical activity, much can be learned from these inter-generational action sports communities, where fun and friendship continue to inspire participants throughout their lives.

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

– ref. Old gold: how action sports athletes are challenging age stereotypes and redefining lifelong physical activity – https://theconversation.com/old-gold-how-action-sports-athletes-are-challenging-age-stereotypes-and-redefining-lifelong-physical-activity-176882

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Beth Morrison, Doctoral Research Candidate, The University of Queensland

Islamic State recently staged their most sophisticated attack since 2019 – a prison break to release former IS fighters in an effort to refill their ranks once again.

According to Save the Children, hundreds of boys and teenagers were allegedly used as human shields during the fighting.

In late January, Islamic State militants attacked the Kurdish-run Gweiran prison in north-eastern Syria. The militants used car bombs to breach the gates of the prison, releasing hundreds of prisoners. They allegedly then holed up in childrens’ dormitories to slow the counter-attack from Kurdish-led forces.

It is still unclear how many children were killed during the siege and where survivors have been relocated to.

This latest battle is another sign Western countries, including Australia, must do more more to ensure the safety of foreign nationals trapped in Syria.

Children trapped in Syria

Like many prisons in Syria, Gweiran houses children as well as hardened militants. It is estimated about 700 children are detained there, 150 of whom are Western nationals, including at least one Australian.

Overall, there are about 7,830 foreign children living in squalid conditions in prisons and camps in Syria. The children were either taken to Syria by their parents, or were born in the camps.

Most of them are are under the age of 12 and are being detained due to the alleged crimes of their parents.

From camps to prisons

Following the collapse of the caliphate in 2019, Islamic State fighters and their families were rounded up by Kurdish forces. The men were sent to prisons, and their wives and children sent to displacement camps.

Boys remain in camps until they are about 12 years old, at which point they are sent to an adult prison that also houses hardened Islamic jihadists, whether they have committed a crime or not.

International legal experts describe the conditions in detention as akin to torture. Detention is arbitrary and indefinite, and has been likened to “Europe’s Guantanamo”.

What options do these children have?

Children held in the displacement camps have some hope of repatriation, depending on their nationality.

To date, Australia has repatriated eight orphaned children, with 47 children still left in the camps. Western European states have opted to repatriate children under 12 on a case-by-case basis.

However, the boys held in the adult prisons have few options. In particular, Western governments have been reluctant to repatriate male children over the age of ten due to concerns they have received military training, been radicalised and could pose a risk to society.

As for the adults, the Australian government has revoked the citizenship of dual nationals who chose to travel to Syria.

In terms of further assistance to young people and children in Syria, the government argues it was their parents’ decision to destroy these children’s lives by taking them to Syria, and Australia will not risk its personnel to rescue them.

As Foreign Minister Marise Payne recently commented:

Australia does not have diplomatic representation in Syria, and we have been very clear about the challenges of Australian citizens who have found themselves in that part of the world, having either gone there or being the children of parents who chose to go there […].

What should the international community do?

Both Kurdish authorities and the United States government have called on Western governments to repatriate all their citizens immediately.

Kurdish forces cannot guarantee the security of the camps and prisons, and do not have the capacity to hold detainees indefinitely.

Read more:
War devastates the lives of children: what the research tells us, and what can be done

Counter-terrorism experts similarly say repatriation is the safest long-term solution. This is not without risk, but Western societies have the capacity to monitor these people, assist with de-radicalisation and provide the support needed to rehabilitate adult fighters and traumatised children.

If necessary, adult returnees can also be prosecuted for their crimes and dealt with through the judicial system.

A moral issue

Repatriation is not just a national security issue, it is also a moral one – particularly in regard to children. Leaving children in prisons and camps makes them highly vulnerable. Along with numerous health and safety risks they can also be recruited by the Islamic State.

Many of these children are innocent victims, and all have rights under international law.

Read more:
What does the future hold for Middle Eastern states?

This includes the right to nationality, the right to life, survival and development, the right to be treated with humanity, and the right to be protected against unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Even if older children are suspected of being radicalised or having committed crimes, Australia still has an obligation to repatriate them and apply due process.

Islamic State has a history of using jail breaks to free prisoners to add to their numbers. This latest attack shows it intends to repeat this strategy.

The international community has a choice: either repatriate and rehabilitate their citizens, or leave them in hopeless conditions and risk them refilling the ranks of the Islamic State.

Beth Morrison is affiliated with Women in International Security (WIIS) – Australia

Shannon Zimmerman is affiliated with Women In International Security (WIIS) – Australia

– ref. Children are being used as ‘human shields’ in Syria – what is the world doing about it? – https://theconversation.com/children-are-being-used-as-human-shields-in-syria-what-is-the-world-doing-about-it-175655

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Harry Hobbs, Senior lecturer, University of Technology Sydney

The 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart is one of the most significant documents on constitutional change in Australian history. The result of extensive consultation and debate, it explains how First Nations want to be included in the constitution.

Despite the enormous moral authority of the statement, its call for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament was immediately rejected by then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. His successor, Scott Morrison, is also opposed.

Instead, Morrison has proposed a legislated Voice to Government. In December, his government published a report on how that might work. The Indigenous co-design group who worked on it was not allowed to consider whether the Voice should be put in the Constitution.

Opponents of the Voice to Parliament have used three main arguments. In a technical sense, they have claimed it will make our current Westminster system unworkable. Morally, they argue it is undemocratic and creates privilege for a specific group. And pragmatically, they have said the Voice is “not capable of winning acceptance in a referendum”.

The Uluru Statement concludes by inviting non-Indigenous Australians to “walk with us”. In that spirit, we published a journal article defending the statement against common criticisms and explaining why non-Indigenous Australians should not fear a Voice to Parliament in the Constitution.

Read more:
Voice to Parliament design report still doesn’t meet international human rights standards

A constitutional Voice is workable

The Voice to Parliament was initially rejected by leading Coalition MPs on the basis it distorts Australia’s bicameral system by introducing a “third chamber”. This fear is based on the false assumption the Voice could block legislation or dictate government policy.

The Voice does not include any veto power, but simply allows First Nations to advise the parliament on laws and policy that will affect them. As one of the chief architects of the Uluru Statement, Professor Megan Davis has explained it is focused on ensuring “Aboriginal participation in the democratic life of the state”.

Putting the Voice in the Constitution is not only workable within Australia’s parliamentary system, it is key to its success. Earlier Indigenous advisory bodies created by parliament have been disbanded by parliament. The most notable example is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, which functioned for 14 years before being abolished in 2004.

Protecting the Voice in the Constitution will also make it more effective. As Davis explains, constitutional entrenchment would improve the likelihood that government actually listens to Indigenous people.

A constitutional Voice means equality, not privilege

A philosophical criticism of the Voice is it violates the democratic principle of “one person, one vote” and allows special treatment for a particular group. In a legal sense, Indigenous Australians enjoy the same rights as others at an individual level. What is frequently denied — and what the Voice addresses — are collective rights.

In our article, we use the term “egalitarian nationhoods” to describe a scenario where both individual and collective rights are respected. A key plank in this theory is acknowledging that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are legitimate nations which exercised sovereignty over their lands for thousands of years before British colonisation.

Nationhood is not the same as statehood. It is a psychological bond which can include cultural, linguistic, religious or ethnic identities as well as shared symbols, memories and traditions. Non-Indigenous Australians already enjoy individual rights and collective rights as members of the Australian nation. The Voice would promote equality by allowing First Nations peoples to also enjoy collective rights as members of distinct and legitimate nations.

Read more:
Our research shows public support for a First Nations Voice is not only high, it’s deeply entrenched

A constitutional Voice can win a referendum

Carrying a referendum in Australia is difficult as it requires the endorsement of an overall majority of voters and a majority of states. The last successful referendum was in 1977 and no government has even tried to change the Constitution this century.

Despite this, there is evidence a constitutionally enshrined Voice can pass a referendum.

A survey of poll data since 2017 conducted by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research suggests 70–75% of voters with a committed position support the Voice. That study also found a referendum on a Voice to Parliament would likely be carried, especially if the Coalition leadership approached it “with a more positive frame than in 2017”.

Public consultation on the co-design process also overwhelmingly supported putting the Voice in the Constitution. Analysis of the more than 2,500 public submissions received by the co-design group reveals 90% wanted the Voice to be constitutionally enshrined.

The most successful referendum in Australian history removed constitutional discrimination against First Nations in 1967. It was carried with over 90% support. Similarly, there is wide public support and good will for the Voice to Parliament in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. This is the key ingredient for a successful referendum.

Read more:
Black Lives Matter has brought a global reckoning with history. This is why the Uluru Statement is so crucial

Why this matters

It has been over 14 years since then-Prime Minister John Howard promised Indigenous recognition in the Constitution and almost five years since First Nations explained what they want that to look like in the Uluru Statement.

Since then, understanding and awareness about the Voice to Parliament has grown. A Voice to Parliament is workable, will promote equality, and can win a referendum.

It is time for the government to put the question to the people.

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

– ref. Non-Indigenous Australians shouldn’t fear a First Nations Voice to Parliament – https://theconversation.com/non-indigenous-australians-shouldnt-fear-a-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-176675

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Camp, Senior Lecturer, University of Auckland

In the 1970s, many critics and filmgoers had given up on the movie musical. While the mid-60s had seen the phenomenal successes of The Sound of Music, Mary Poppins and My Fair Lady, most subsequent attempts to adapt hit Broadway shows or develop new film musicals did not make back anything close to their large budgets.

A more radical approach was needed: not one that would merely bloat a stage show for the camera, but one that would re-imagine the material for the medium of film.

Bob Fosse’s 1972 film version of the 1966 Broadway musical Cabaret would turn out to be that radical revision.

Now 50 years old, the film still feels groundbreaking, its influence continuously felt in the film musical genre.

Divine decadence

While the film is undoubtedly the most famous version of its story of “divine decadence” in Weimar Republic era-Berlin, the material it is based on goes back long before 1972.

In the late 1920s, young gay English writer Christopher Isherwood travelled to Berlin to soak up some of the sexually and artistically liberal lifestyle. He wrote about his experiences in a series of short stories assembled as the novel Goodbye to Berlin in 1939, focusing on his complicated friendship with a cabaret singer named Sally Bowles.

John van Druten adapted (and santitisedsantitised) the novel into a hit 1951 Broadway play, I Am a Camera, which was itself turned into a movie in 1955.

Producer/director Hal Prince spearheaded the transformation of van Druten’s play into the Broadway musical Cabaret in 1966, with dialogue by Joe Masteroff, music by John Kander and lyrics by Fred Ebb.

Van Druten’s 1950s audience wasn’t quite ready for a fully accurate picture of hedonist 1920s Berlin. But by the 1960s, tastes had loosened enough the stage musical could daringly juxtapose a portrayal of the era’s sexual freedoms with the violence of the growing Nazi movement – but it was still very much a “hetero” version of the material.

Finally, by 1972, director/choreographer Bob Fosse and screenwriters Jay Presson Allen and Hugh Wheeler could return to the feeling of the 1920s to present an even more frank portrayal of the period on film.

Read more:
From Chicago to West Side Story, how to successfully adapt a musical from stage to screen

Gritty modernism

The team’s most important structural decision in making their film adaptation was to limit the musical numbers to the stage of the titular cabaret, the Kit Kat Klub.

Cabaret is not a musical like My Fair Lady or Singin’ in the Rain: the characters do not spontaneously burst into song. Instead, the musical numbers we see performed in a stylised manner in the cabaret comment obliquely on the realistically presented events of the plot.

This lack of stereotypical song-bursting is probably one reason why the film was so successful in 1972 amid many traditional musical flops. The musical numbers become modernist commentary rather than the illustrations of romantic idealism typical of the genre.

This style of gritty modernism was very much in the air at the time: Cabaret’s competitors at the Academy Awards included The Godfather (which beat Cabaret for Best Picture) and Deliverance (another film with creepy musical commentary).

Much of the star power of the film comes from Liza Minnelli as Sally Bowles. Some Isherwood fans (and Isherwood himself) criticised Minnelli’s performance. Isherwood’s original portrait was of a rather untalented Englishwoman, but here was an outstanding member of American showbiz royalty.

Despite this criticism, Minnelli’s interpretation works well within Fosse’s vision. Her star power is undeniable.

The film’s casting riches go well beyond Minnelli. Through his physicality and voice, Michael York beautifully captures the character of straitlaced Englishman Brian Roberts, the Isherwood stand-in, wanting to break free. His still, quiet energy contrasts Minnelli’s freneticism.

Fosse fills the film with expressive faces, sometimes modelled after specific artworks of the period, and Marisa Berenson and Franz Wepper give sensitive portrayals of a Jewish department store heiress and her down-at-heel suitor.

But at the centre of the film stands the “Emcee” of the Kit Kat Klub, famously embodied by Joel Grey.

The Emcee is a mysterious figure. We primarily see him onstage performing, or backstage casting enigmatic and sinister glances at the camera, breaking the fourth wall. He seems to be the only character fully aware Berlin is riding for a fall, but he keeps his secret. He is at once complicit and refractory. He entreats us to “leave [our] troubles outside” – so he and his cabaret acts can distract us from what is really going on.

The film’s characters seek liberation from social and sexual mores, but their attempts are halted by wider political forces we know will only make those mores even more strict. While the Nazis were eventually defeated, Cabaret nonetheless offers a cautionary tale.

Ultimately, Cabaret is a depressing film, and therein lies its continued power. Our world is still full of Emcees hiding villainy underneath their sly smiles.

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

– ref. Life is (still) a Cabaret: revisiting Bob Fosse’s groundbreaking film, 50 years on – https://theconversation.com/life-is-still-a-cabaret-revisiting-bob-fosses-groundbreaking-film-50-years-on-176354

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Huw Joseph Horgan, Associate Professor of Geophysical Glaciology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Underneath Antarctica’s vast ice sheets there’s a network of rivers and lakes. This is possible because of the insulating blanket of ice above, the flow of heat from within the Earth, and the small amount of heat generated as the ice deforms.

Water lubricates the base of the ice sheets, allowing the ice to slide towards the ocean at speeds of many hundreds of metres per year. When the water emerges from beneath the ice, it enters a cold and salty cavity underneath ice shelves, the floating extensions of ice sheets that fringe the continent.

Here the water mixes, releases nutrients and sediment, and melts the underside of the ice shelves, which act as buttresses and hold back the flow of the ice sheets.

How these processes play out over the next centuries is a major factor in understanding sea-level rise. Unfortunately, this is also one of the least-explored parts of our planet.

Our Aotearoa New Zealand Antarctic Science Platform project is the first direct survey of an Antarctic under-ice river, and it supports earlier research suggesting these sub-glacial rivers form estuaries as they flow into the ocean, albeit at 82.5 degrees south, hidden under 500m of ice and about 500km from the open ocean.

Exploring an under-ice river

Our team has just returned from Kamb Ice Stream on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). Kamb is a sleeping giant.

This massive river of ice lies on the other side of the WAIS from Thwaites Glacier, Antarctica’s “doomsday” glacier which has been losing ice rapidly. Kamb used to flow fast, but this ceased about 160 years ago because of changes in how water was distributed at the base of the ice.

While the Kamb region isn’t vulnerable to ocean warming at the present time, it currently offsets much of the ice loss happening elsewhere in Antarctica. Changes at Kamb will herald major changes for Antarctica’s ice sheets and oceans.

One challenge is that ice sheets respond to external changes, such as rising ocean temperatures, but also to difficult-to-predict internal changes, such as flood events that occur when sub-ice rivers and lakes “burst their banks”.

Read more:
Antarctica’s ‘doomsday’ glacier: how its collapse could trigger global floods and swallow islands

Getting there

The COVID pandemic has been hard on national Antarctic programmes and the field science they support. Global supply and freight delays kept our team on the edge in the lead-up to our season.

This summer, New Zealand started the rebuild of its main Antarctic station, Scott Base, and has been developing an over-snow traverse to deploy large teams across great distances. Our Kamb team was one of the first to benefit from this new capability, with a camp operating for months, more than 900km from New Zealand’s permanent station.

There’s an art to drilling through Antarctic ice. In reality, we melt our way through with recycled hot water.

Once on site, the team was able to drill through 500m of the ice shelf and keep a 0.4m-diameter hole open for nearly two weeks. This allowed us to take samples and gather observations for a diverse range of science projects.

A hidden river

Almost a decade of research paid off when the team pinpointed the exact spot to drill to hit the onset of the narrow river beneath. This was even more impressive than initially thought, with borehole surveys revealing a river more than 240m high but less than 200m wide – a much narrower target than indicated by the surface icescape.

Working from a borehole means we can only look in one spot. As an antidote to this limitation, colleagues from Cornell University deployed their ocean robot Icefin to study the space below the ice.

One of the discoveries that will keep the team going for some time is a dense community of likely amphipods, which we spotted when we lowered cameras to the seafloor. The swarm was so dense, we first thought there was something wrong with our equipment.

Read more:
What an ocean hidden under Antarctic ice reveals about our planet’s future climate

The last task the team completed was to deploy an ocean mooring beneath the ice. These instruments will continue to report back on ocean conditions over the coming years.

Only five days after deployment, we detected the tsunami from the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcanic eruption.

Apart from baseline observations, such discoveries provide strong motivation for deploying long-term monitoring equipment. The team will be watching closely over the coming years for any changes in the under-ice river flow, including flood events.

Huw Horgan is part of the Antarctic Research Centre and School of Geography Environment and Earth Sciences at Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington. He receives funding from the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Antarctica New Zealand Antarctic Science Platform (ASP), MBIE Strategic Science Investment Fund. He is also a Rutherford Discovery Fellow funded by MBIE through the New Zealand Royal Society.

Craig Stevens has a joint position at NIWA and the University of Auckland and receives funding from the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Antarctica New Zealand Antarctic Science Platform (ASP), MBIE Strategic Science Investment Fund and the New Zealand Royal Society Te Apārangi Marsden Fund. He is on the Council of the New Zealand Association of Scientists.

– ref. Exploring Antarctica’s hidden under-ice rivers and their role in future sea-level rise – https://theconversation.com/exploring-antarcticas-hidden-under-ice-rivers-and-their-role-in-future-sea-level-rise-176456

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

Just over 12 months ago, we were sitting at Woomera, in the Australian outback, waiting for a streak of light in the sky to testify that the Hayabusa2 spacecraft had returned from its voyage to collect a little piece of a near-Earth asteroid called Ryugu. Unfortunately for us, it was cloudy in Woomera that day and we didn’t see the spacecraft come in.

But that was the only imperfection we saw in the return. We found and retrieved Hayabusa2, brought it back to Woomera, cleaned and examined it.

Read more:
The Hayabusa2 spacecraft is about to drop a chunk of asteroid in the Australian outback

The sample capsule was removed from the spacecraft. It was in good shape, it had not exceeded 60℃ on reentry, and the capsule rattled when it was turned over, suggesting we did indeed have a solid sample. Its vacuum had been maintained, allowing whatever gases had been released from the asteroid sample to be collected, and a preliminary analysis of these was carried out in Woomera.

A year down the track, we know a lot more about that sample. In the past month, three papers have now been published concerning the first analysis of the Ryugu samples, including an article in Science this week concerning the relationship between the material seen at the asteroid, and the sample returned to Earth.

These observations open a window into the formation of the Solar System, and helps to clear up a meteorite mystery that has puzzled scientists for decades.

Fragile fragments

All up, the sample weighs about 5 grams, split between the two touchdown sites that were sampled.

The first sample came from Ryugu’s exposed surface. To get the second sample, the spacecraft fired a small disk at the asteroid to make a little crater, then collected a sample near the crater in the hope this second sample would contain material from below the surface, shielded from space weathering.

The touchdown sampling was recorded by video cameras on board Hayabusa2. Through detailed analysis of the video, we have found the shapes of the particles ejected from Ryugu during the touchdowns are very similar to the particles retrieved from the sample capsule. This suggests both samples are indeed representative of the surface – the second may also contain some subsurface material, but we don’t yet know.

Back in the laboratory we can see that these samples are extremely fragile and have very low density, which indicates they are quite porous. They have the constitution of clay, and they behave like it.

The Ryugu samples are also very dark in colour. In fact, they are darker than any meteorite sample ever recovered. The in situ observations at Ryugu indicated this as well.

But now we have a rock in hand and we can examine it and get the details of what it is.

A meteorite mystery

The Solar System is full of asteroids: chunks of rock much smaller than a planet. By looking at asteroids through telescopes and analysing the spectrum of light they reflect, we can classify most of them into three groups: C-type (which contain a lot of carbon), M-type (which contain a lot of metals), and S-type (which contain a lot of silica).

When an asteroid’s orbit brings it into a collision with Earth, depending on how big it is, we might see it as a meteor (a shooting star) streaking across the sky as it burns up in the atmosphere. If some of the asteroid survives to reach the ground, we might find the remaining piece of rock later: these are called meteorites.

Most of the asteroids we see orbiting the Sun are the dark-coloured C-types. Based on their spectrum, C-types seem very similar in makeup to a kind of meteorite called carbonaceous chondrites. These meteorites are rich in organic and volatile compounds such as amino acids, and may have been the source of the seed proteins for making life on Earth.

However, while around 75% of asteroids are C-types, only 5% of meteorites are carbonaceous chondrites. Until now this has been a conundrum: if C-types are so common, why aren’t we seeing their remains as meteorites on Earth?

The observations and samples from Ryugu have solved this mystery.

The Ryugu samples (and presumably meteorites from other C-type asteroids) are too fragile to survive entering Earth’s atmosphere. If they arrived travelling at more than 15 kilometres per second, which is typical for meteors, they would shatter and burn up long before reaching the ground.

The dawn of the Solar System

But the Ryugu samples are even more intriguing than that. The material resembles a rare subclass of carbonaceous chondrite called CI, where C is carbonaceous and the I refers to the Ivuna meteorite found in Tanzania in 1938.

These meteorites are part of the chondrite clan, but they have very few of the defining particles called chondrules, round grains of predominantly olivine apparently crystallised from molten droplets. The CI meteorites are dark, uniform, and fine grained.

These meteorites are unique in being made up of the same elements as the Sun, and in the same proportions (besides the elements that are normally gases). We think this is because CI chondrites formed in the cloud of dust and gas that eventually collapsed to form the Sun and the rest of the Solar System.

But unlike rocks on Earth, where 4.5 billion years of geological processing have changed the proportions of elements we see in the crust, CI chondrites are largely pristine samples of the planetary building blocks of our solar system.

No more than 10 CI chondrites have ever been recovered on Earth, with a total known weight of less than 20kg. These objects are rarer than samples of Mars in our collections.

What are the chances, then, of the first C-type asteroid we visit being so similar to one of the rarest kinds of meteorite?

It is likely the rarity of these CI meteorites on Earth is indeed related to their fragility. They would have a hard time surviving the trip through the atmosphere, and if they did reach the surface the first rainstorm would turn them into puddles of mud.

Asteroid missions such as Hayabusa2, its precursor Hayabusa, and NASA’s Osiris-REx, are gradually filling in some blanks in our knowledge of asteroids. By bringing samples back to Earth, they allow us to look back into the history of these objects, and back to the formation of the Solar System itself.

Read more:
Hayabusa’s asteroid dust reveals space secrets

Trevor Ireland receives funding from The Australian Research Council and is a member of the Hayabusa Joint Science Team.

– ref. What are asteroids made of? A sample returned to Earth reveals the Solar System’s building blocks – https://theconversation.com/what-are-asteroids-made-of-a-sample-returned-to-earth-reveals-the-solar-systems-building-blocks-176548

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Kearney, PhD student, The University of Queensland

Over the last decade, the area protected for nature in Australia has shot up by almost half. Our national reserve system now covers 20% of the country.

That’s a positive step for the thousands of species teetering on the edge of extinction. But it’s only a step.

What we desperately need to help these species fully recover is to protect them across their range. And that means we have to get better at protecting them on private land.

Our recent research shows this clearly. We found almost half (48%) of all of our threatened species’ distributions occur on private freehold land, even though only 29% of Australia is owned in this way.

By contrast, leasehold land – largely inland cattle grazing properties – covers a whopping 38% of the continent but overlaps with only 6% of threatened species’ distributions. And in our protected reserves? An average of 35% of species’ distribution.

Why do we need more? Aren’t our protected areas enough?

When most of us think of saving species, we think of national parks and other safe refuges.

This is the best known strategy, and efforts to expand our network are laudable. New additions include the Narriearra Caryapundy Swamp National Park in northwest New South Wales, Dryandra Woodland National Park in Western Australia, and several Indigenous Protected Areas around Australia, which will ensure greater protection for some species.

But relying on reserves is simply not enough. From the air, Australia is a patchwork quilt of farms, suburbs and fragmented forests. For many species, it has become difficult to find food sources and mates.

Since European colonisation began, we have lost at least 100 species, including three species since 2009.

Almost 2,000 plant and animal species are threatened with extinction, with dozens of reptile, frog, butterfly, fish and bird and mammal species set to be lost forever without a step change in resourcing and conservation effort.

What we do on our properties matters to nature

Freehold land is home to almost half our threatened species. Species like the pygmy blue-tongue lizard (Tiliqua adelaidensis) and giant Gippsland earthworm (Megascolides australis) occur almost entirely on privately owned lands.

By contrast, leasehold land overlaps with only 6% of species’ distributions. Though that might sound low, species like the highly photogenic Carpentarian rock-rat (Zyzomys palatalis) rely entirely on leased land.

What about the 1.4% of Australia set aside for logging in state forests? These, too, provide the main habitat for threatened species such as Simson’s stag beetle (Hoplogonus simsoni), which has over two-thirds of its distribution in state forests in Tasmania’s northwest. Similarly, the Colquhoun Grevillea (Grevillea celata) is known only from a state forest in Victoria’s Gippsland region.

Even defence lands – covering less than 1% of Australia – are the only home some species have. Take the Cape Range remipede (Kumonga exleyi), known only from an air force bombing range near Exmouth, Western Australia, or the Byfield Matchstick shrub (Comesperma oblongatum), which survives in Queensland’s highly biodiverse Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area.

The Indigenous estate across Australia intersects with almost all of these tenure types, and also has critical importance for half of Australian threatened species distributions as shown by previous research.

We need all hands on deck to keep our threatened species persisting

It is late in the day to save Australia’s threatened species, as climate change multiplies the challenges they face. If we are to have any real chance at turning the tide, we must do much more.

To staunch the heartbreaking flow of species into extinction means we have to actively manage multiple threats to their existence across many different types of land tenure.

Logging of native forest and some methods of intensive farming continue to endanger many threatened species, particularly those which rely on these land types for their survival.

Over 380 threatened species have part of their range in land set aside for logging. It should be no surprise that logging is a key threat for 64 of these endangered species.

How can we achieve better conservation outside protected areas?

Many landholders are acutely aware of the species they share the land with, and are already taking action to protect them. One key method is the use of land partnerships, in which landowners and custodians work with conservationists.

Take Sue and Tom Shephard, who run a large cattle property on Cape York. Their station is home to some of the last remaining golden-shouldered parrots (Psephotus chrysopterygius). The Shephards are working to bring the species back from the brink through careful management of grazing, fire and feral animals.

Similarly, the work of hundreds of rice growers is helping save the endangered Australian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus). Every year, up to a third of the remaining population descends on New South Wales rice fields to breed. Rice farmers are accommodating these birds by ensuring there is early permanent water, reducing predator numbers and boosting their habitat.

We’re seeing successes even on defence force land. The Yampi Sound Training Area in the Kimberley is a biodiversity hotspot. A partnership between the Department of Defence and the Australian Wildlife Conservancy is helping protect these species alongside defence force use. This model could be rolled out across other areas of defence land.

What’s stopping more people taking action?

While many landowners may want to help, financial constraints, a lack of knowledge or concerns over implications for resale of the land can be barriers.

If we want to encourage more landowners to directly conserve species on their land, we must begin by understanding what they want. Only then can we design initiatives to help these species, as well as benefit and engage landowners.

What does this look like? Picture financial incentives to join conservation programs. Or workshops where landowners can see the very real benefit to their own land by reducing erosion, keeping rabbit numbers under control, protecting waterways from silt or water-sucking introduced trees, or reducing wind and dust through setting aside land for trees.

If a farmer or landowner can clearly see the benefit for wildlife and for their own use, they are much more likely to take part.

Incentives don’t have to be financially based, either. If landowners understand what works and feel capable of action after training, and have technical support and assistance to draw on, they’re more likely to start down the path of making their land more friendly to threatened species.

If we really want to protect our species, we must do more to bring in Australia’s farmers, landowners and other custodians of land. We cannot rely on protected areas alone. We need to make the land safer for our species most at risk, wherever they occur.

Stephen Kearney works for Bush Heritage Australia. He has received funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and the National Environmental Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub.

April Reside is the Chair of the Black-throated Finch Recovery Team and is on Birdlife Australia’s Research and Conservation Committee. April has received funding from the NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, and is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia.

James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council and National Environmental Science Program. He serves on scientific committees for Bush Heritage Australia and BirdLife Australia.

Rebecca Louise Nelson is a volunteer director of the Board of Bush Heritage Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council (#DE180101154).

Rebecca Spindler works for Bush Heritage Australia and collaborates with a range of the conservation agencies mentioned in this article. Rebecca has recieved funds from the Australian Research Council.

She is affiliated with University of Tasmania. Vanessa Adams has received funding from the National Environmental Science Program’s (NESP) Northern Australia Resources Hub and is currently affiliated with NESP2 Resilient Landscapes Hub.

– ref. National parks are not enough – we need landholders to protect threatened species on their property – https://theconversation.com/national-parks-are-not-enough-we-need-landholders-to-protect-threatened-species-on-their-property-176012

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Schuster, Senior Lecturer, School of Archaeology and Anthropology; Director, Australian National Centre for Latin American Studies, Australian National University

Scott Morrison recently announced a $2.2 billion Research Commercialisation Action Plan for the next ten years. The plan centres on a competitive grant scheme to promote start-ups and industry partnerships. The prime minister’s message to universities was clear:

“we need to find and develop a new breed of researcher entrepreneurs in Australia”.

The statement came on the heels of a letter of expectations from the acting minister for education and youth to the Australian Research Council in which he encouraged greater collaboration with industry, particularly the manufacturing sector.

Read more:
Latest government bid to dictate research directions builds on a decade of failure

What might we expect from the rise of researcher entrepreneurs in Australian universities? Who are likely to be seen as exemplars of this new breed?

Given the male-dominated makeup of the industry partners who are meant to lead the commercialisation of research, what we might realistically expect is a major step backward for gender equity in Australian universities.

Industry stakeholders’ gender gap

Workplace Gender Equity Agency data paint a grim picture. Women hold only 14.6% of chair positions and 28.1% of directorships in Australia. A mere 18.3% of CEOs and 32.5% of key management personnel are women. Gender equity in leadership roles has even gone backwards in recent years.

Nearly a third of boards and governing bodies have no female directors. By contrast, less than 1% of boards have no male directors.

Sociological research on business culture can shed light on why these statistics at the highest reaches of industry are so skewed. By understanding how the social networks that support business financing operate, we can begin to appreciate how industry partnerships are likely to be funded.

Read more:
Will the government’s $2.2bn, 10-year plan get a better return on Australian research? It all depends on changing the culture

An investment culture of patronage

A recent insider account of investment culture in one of the largest hedge funds on Wall Street focuses on the analysts and traders who manage large financial portfolios. In her book Hedged Out: Inequality and Insecurity on Wall Street, Megan Tobian Neely offers a peek into the highly competitive world of corporate power brokers who make up the financial elite.

Neely’s ethnography follows those connections through what she calls a system of patronage. That is, using one’s own status and power to invest in, support or promote another person. For financial elite at hedge funds, she writes:

“patronage is how a select group of white men groom and transfer capital to other elite white men”.

So, entrepreneurship is not a gender-neutral term. The tight-knit networks that are the source of investment capital create a system of patronage that has redefined the capacity to manage risk and insecurity as a masculine attribute.

It’s not that women are pushed out of the boardroom on purpose. Instead, it’s about cultivating insiders. Protecting one’s investment means relying on investors who are like them, think alike, have the same values, who can help them get ahead, and who are overwhelmingly male.

Research on the professional managerial class in Australia suggests these patterns of patronage are not unique to the rarefied heights of Wall Street investing. Owen McNamara’s Canberra-based study of workplace culture in the Australian Public Service underscored the importance of what one of his research participants dubbed “making coin” from the industry network.

The integration of the public service with consultancy firms relies on a business culture suffused with male bonding. It’s not just locker-room talk. Networkers operate through the easy friendships, banter and camaraderie that comes from shared experience.

Women and gender-diverse people, as well as workers from different socioeconomic backgrounds, struggle to be included. And often they are the butt of the joke.

What about women’s networks?

These industry networks are the waters in which academic researcher entrepreneurs are expected to swim. These are the invisible social channels and patronage relationships that open the tap of investment.

Patronage relationships convince stakeholders in business to take a risk on unproven ideas. No matter how promising the research, it will be difficult to secure funding for researchers – particularly women and gender-diverse scholars – relegated to the outer edges of the network.

My research on women who start small businesses in Latin America indicates these are global challenges. There, women face barriers when trying to leverage their informal interdependencies and social ties, which often fail to convert into individual success and wealth.

Within universities, women’s informal networks and support mechanisms often translate into higher internal service burdens. This inward-facing networking includes undervalued work such as serving on university committees, program supervision, student recruitment and so on. Women, LGBTQIA+ and faculty of colour also do most of the extra invisible labour of making universities better and more equitable places to work.

Read more:
Forget the ideal worker myth. Unis need to become more inclusive for all women (men will benefit too)

These are not the advantageous external patronage connections that propel investments and business partnerships.

Can research commercialisation support gender equity?

We can’t simply add gender diversity and stir. Even once we recognise the problem of an insular network through which investment opportunities flow, the solutions aren’t easy.

How can we counter the troubling gender equity effects of pushing researcher entrepreneurs in universities? We can do this via two mutually reinforcing pathways.

First, we can strive for feminist organisational structures that more evenly distribute opportunities and decision-making power. This is an alternative to promoting academic #gurlbosses.

Read more:
Why mentoring for women risks propping up patriarchal structures instead of changing them

Second, we might rethink the value of interdisciplinary scholarship in tackling wicked problems like gender injustice. This perspective is key to successful commercialisation and should not be deemed inferior to patents and inventions.

What good is a recovery plan for “building national resilience”, after all, if the benefits only flow to a select few?

Caroline Schuster receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. The push for ‘researcher entrepreneurs’ could be a step backward for gender equity – https://theconversation.com/the-push-for-researcher-entrepreneurs-could-be-a-step-backward-for-gender-equity-176536

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

The “shadow lockdown” accompanying the Omicron outbreak should have come as no surprise to Australia’s policy makers. But the type of government support that helped so many individuals and businesses survive the official lockdowns of 2020 and 2021 is absent.

In the face of large case counts, hospitalisations and deaths from Omicron, people voluntarily cut back on economic activity. Why risk going out for a meal or sitting in a theatre while infections are raging?

This effect was quantified as early as mid-2020 by two University of Chicago economists, who calculated (using data from 2.25 million businesses across 110 industries) that nearly 90% of the reduction in economic activity in the United States stemmed from voluntary “self-lockdowns”, rather than government-imposed restrictions.

In Australia, we can see the effect in consumer confidence plummeting in January 2022 to its lowest level since October 2020 (and the worst January result since 1992).

For many small business owners, the past month has felt like the most difficult period of the pandemic. The single biggest government support measure, the A$90 billion JobKeeper wage subsidy scheme, was phased out in March 2021, with most other support winding up by the end of the year.

Given small businesses employ more than 5 million Australians – more than 40% of private-sector jobs – how we can help them survive this pandemic now, and if more COVID variants emerge?

Read more:
Vital Signs: the cost of lockdowns is nowhere near as big as we have been told

The current patchwork of state and federal COVID payments

The following tables summarise the COVID-specific support programs that are still available today.

For individuals, the main support is the federal government’s Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment, which provides up to $1,500 for two weeks for individuals who cannot work because of having to isolate, quarantine or care for someone with COVID-19.

Most states and territories also provide a lesser one-off payment to support those who have to isolate but who can’t access the Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment.

On the business side, the federal government has its SME Recovery Loan Scheme, which guarantees 50% of loan amounts for eligible businesses with turnovers up to $250 million. This scheme is scheduled to run until June 30, 2022.

The states and territories have wound up most of their general business support programs, with what remains targeted at particular interest groups or sectors.

Most generous are the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory governments, which have “business hardship” packages offering rebates to reduce or waive payments such as payroll tax, utilities bills and rates.

New South Wales has a more limited rebate scheme, offering up to $2,000 to sole traders, small businesses and not-for-profit organisations to offset costs such as food licences, liquor licences, tradesperson licences, event fees, outdoor seating fees, council rates and road user tolls. It also has (my personal favourite) the Alfresco Restart Rebate, giving up $5,000 for restaurants to create or expand their outdoor dining area.

Queensland has a cleaning rebate for businesses and not-for-profit organisations designated exposure sites by Queensland Health. Victoria has a scheme to help commercial tenants cover rent.

Paying to save jobs across NSW

But given how tough small businesses are doing it, many people think these measures aren’t enough.

One of those people is the NSW treasurer, Matt Kean.

On January 30 he announced $1 billion in support for businesses with “JobSaver 2.0”, resurrecting the JobSaver program that had subsidised up to 40% of payroll expenses for businesses suffering a 30% fall in turnover due to official lockdowns.

JobSaver 2.0 reimburses businesses (of less than $50 million turnover) 20% of their weekly payroll, up to a cap of $5,000, if they have lost 40% of turnover during January.

JobSaver had been half funded by the federal government. Kean did not disguise his unhappiness about the federal government refusing to help with JobSaver 2.0, saying:

I was hoping to make this announcement standing beside the Prime Minister today and the Treasurer [Josh] Frydenberg, but they’re not to be found

Frydenberg, reportedly, did take Kean’s proposal to the prime minister, who in March 2020 had approved A$320 billion of fiscal support (equivalent to 16.4% of GDP). But this time, Scott Morrison apparently rejected the idea.

Read more:
Post-pandemic, ‘small business fetishism’ could cost us jobs, wages

The case for a national plan

This is more than just a question of who pays – the Commonwealth or the states and territories. It’s about what is going to be required to get small businesses, who often have fragile balance sheets, through this stage of the pandemic.

One view is the Omicron cases are falling and consumer confidence should pick up, so there’s no need for extra support now.

But it would be rather brave to predict there won’t be further COVID-19 variants and outbreaks. If and when there are, consumers will go back into self-lockdown.

Do we really want more argy-bargy between states and the feds in the future, while consumer confidence plummets and with it small business revenues?

Read more:
Things look worse for casual workers than at any time during the pandemic

A far better solution would be to have an Australia-wide, federally funded support plan triggered by case numbers.

This would provide predictable support for business, including those working across state borders, by allowing them to plan, invest and keep hiring workers. And it would deliver a shot of confidence for consumers for the remainder of the pandemic – however long that may be.

The alternative is to stay in a constant crouch, waiting for the next outbreak and hoping some form of government support will arrive in time.

We should be able to do better by our small businesses and the many Australians who work for them.

Richard Holden is President of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.

– ref. Vital Signs: small businesses need a national support plan to survive shadow lockdowns – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-small-businesses-need-a-national-support-plan-to-survive-shadow-lockdowns-176665

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

Scott Morrison made three foolish and arrogant assumptions this week when he embarked on trying to push his controversial religious discrimination legislation through parliament.

As a result, he failed in the mission and emerged from Wednesday’s all-night sitting with his authority diminished. With time almost out before the election, this legislation, which he claimed was “very important”, has reached a dead end.

First, Morrison thought he could tactically outplay Anthony Albanese, wedging Labor on an electorally sensitive issue. This smacked of hubris – it is safer to think your opponent just might be smarter than you are.

Second, he underestimated the spine of the moderates in his own party. He was not properly tapped into his backbench, especially those in the leafy suburbs who are under pressure from independent candidates. The moderates have been acquiring a louder voice recently, which became obvious in last year’s climate change debate.

Third, Morrison believed he could rush a complex issue – which he’s had years to deal with – in the high-pressured dying days of the electoral term. The “I am PM – therefore I can” principle doesn’t always work in a close parliament.

This has been another political shambles for Morrison, already beset by bad polling, a crisis in aged care, and leaked texts.

NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet – incidentally, a dedicated Catholic – had some prescient words on Wednesday as the federal government prepared for votes on the religious discrimination and associated legislation.

“I’ve made it very clear that I don’t believe legislation in this space is necessary and I think it can end up creating more problems than it solves,” Perrottet said.

As well as arguing it is needed, Morrison said he was committed to the legislation because he promised it before the last election.

In reality, he has been substantially driven by a quest to keep or win faith-based conservative voters, particularly in ethnic areas in western Sydney. Some Coalition sources believe these votes were an essential component in his 2019 victory.

Albanese desperately requires these votes too – Labor identified after the 2019 election that it had a problem with them – and he certainly can’t afford to lose those already in the ALP’s camp.

So although many in Labor and its base didn’t want a bar of the religious discrimination legislation – Bill Shorten told Parliament “We will rue the day if this legislation passes the Senate” – the opposition leader wrangled a divided frontbench and caucus into supporting it, while pressing amendments.

The government’s package included an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act to prevent gay students being expelled from religious schools.

But that was narrower than an earlier undertaking Morrison gave and it didn’t cover transgender students. The government said it wanted a report from the Law Reform Commission before acting on them, because of what it insisted were the complexities of religious schools dealing with trans students.

The exclusion of transgender children turned out to be a serious flaw in the eyes of some in Liberal ranks.

The moderates asserted themselves, in negotiations on the package before the parliamentary debate, and in the chamber. They were driven by principle but also by their own political imperatives.

Some moderate critics of the bill share Perrottet’s view about the unwisdom of stirring up the religious discrimination issue. They were even more exercised about transgender students being left in limbo.

Morrison twisted arms and gave some sops to try to corral his followers.
Perhaps he thought when push came to shove, his authority would get him through.

Read more:
Liberal revolt removes all discrimination against gay and transgender children

It didn’t. Two Liberal defectors, Bridget Archer and Trent Zimmerman, raised their heads in votes on the main bill, although it eventually passed the House of Representatives unamended.

It was a much worse story for the government on the bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act. Three more Liberal rebels – Katie Allen, Fiona Martin and Dave Sharma – joined Archer and Zimmerman. The five supported a successful amendment for all students – including transgender – to be protected.

Morrison was left flummoxed and no doubt furious. The government was uncertain how votes would go if the legislation went immediately to the Senate. For hours on Thursday it mulled over its next step.

It was consulting stakeholders, according to Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General Amanda Stoker. And counting its numbers, obviously, in this hostile chamber. One of its senators, Andrew Bragg, would have crossed the floor. But in fact, non-government Senate leaders had already decided late Wednesday there wouldn’t be enough time to deal with the legislation on Thursday.

Meanwhile the Australian Christian Lobby declared the government should withdraw the package, saying: “Taking away protections for Christian schools is a price too high to pay for the passage of the Religious Discrimination Bill.”

After a few hours the government shelved the package, and lashed out. Attorney-General Michaelia Cash argued in a letter to her Labor counterpart, Mark Dreyfus, and crossbencher Rebekha Sharkie, who moved the successful amendment, that the change could in fact allow – rather than prohibit – discrimination in religious schools.

The government said this was based on advice from the government solicitor, although the letter did not reference the advice.

Sharkie was unimpressed, describing Cash’s letter as a “ruse”. “Let’s see what’s behind it,” she said, challenging Cash to table the legal advice.

Sharkie smells the same game as the government played years ago when the crossbench rolled it to pass the Medevac law to facilitate the transfer of offshore asylum seekers and refugees to Australia for treatment.

The consensus is the religious discrimination package won’t get through this term. There are only a couple of Senate sitting days left (in budget week), the government doesn’t have the numbers, and the political caravan will have moved on.

As for now, Morrison might argue he tried but was thwarted by Labor. But that can be countered with a question and a proposition.

The question is: “Why did you leave it so late?” The proposition is that, regardless of the legal argy-bargy, when you are promoting anti-discrimination it is difficult to complain you have been stymied by the House of Representatives insisting on removing discrimination against trans kids.

This botched bid to legislate against religious discrimination has been a textbook example of poor policymaking. And that’s leaving aside the problematic nature of the case for the policy in the first place.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Morrison’s religious discrimination package couldn’t fly on a wing and a prayer – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-morrisons-religious-discrimination-package-couldnt-fly-on-a-wing-and-a-prayer-176892

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clarice Tang, Senior lecturer in Physiotherapy, Western Sydney University

Shortness of breath, persistent cough and fatigue are common COVID signs and symptoms. And the vast majority of people will be managing their symptoms at home.

As a cardiorespiratory physiotherapist, I help people with heart and breathing problems manage and recover from a range of illnesses.

Here are some simple exercises to help you navigate COVID at home.

Read more:
I’ve tested positive to COVID. What should I do now?

Why should I exercise when I have COVID?

Your body does need some rest when you are sick. However, doing simple, gentle exercises while convalescing with COVID can help improve your symptoms.

People who are older, overweight, or have a chronic condition, such as diabetes, or cardiovascular (heart/circulation) and respiratory (lung) disease, are more likely to have COVID symptoms.

So these groups are among those who would particularly benefit from simple, gentle exercise at home.

1. Relaxed breathing

This exercise is particularly useful if you feel short of breath:

• get into a stable and comfortable position. Drop your shoulders and breathe in slowly

• purse your lips (as if you’re blowing through a straw)

• breathe out slowly and steadily through your mouth

• repeat the exercise for a minute.

You can perform this exercise as often as you like. But stop if you feel dizzy as taking too many breaths in a row will cause light headiness.

Perform the exercise in a room with windows open. If you are feeling hot, you can cool your face with a damp towel while doing it.

Adopting a comfortable position is key to this exercise. Sitting in a supportive chair may be the easiest for most people.

However, for some people with COVID, sitting in a chair is too strenuous. In these instances, try this exercise in other positions such as lying on your side, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

2. Deep breathing

This can improve oxygen intake and calm your nerves:

• get into an upright position. Relax your shoulders

• breathe in deeply through your nose for two to three seconds. Hold your breath for three seconds, if able

• breathe out through your nose or mouth, whichever is more comfortable

• repeat the exercise for a minute.

Again, stop if you feel dizzy. You may cough and bring up some phelgm after this exercise. If you do have to cough, cover your mouth with a tissue and dispose of the tissue immediately in a sealed bag after each use. Wash your hands thoroughly after.

Read more:
How to look after your mental health if you’re at home with COVID

3. Lie on your tummy (if you can)

You may have heard from others, such as Harry Potter author JK Rowling, about the benefits of lying on your stomach (proning) during breathing exercises to improve oxygenation.

Proning is common in hospital for people who need extra oxygen. However, the evidence for proning at home is unclear and it is not for everyone.

As you need to stay on your stomach for at least 30 minutes, some people may find this extremely uncomfortable, especially if they have neck and lower back pain. For these people, sitting upright or lying on their side while doing breathing exercises may be better alternatives.

Nonetheless, if you would like to try proning, here are some tips:

• do not try proning after a meal

• choose a firm surface to lie on. Soft beds can make lying on your stomach even more uncomfortable for your back

• turn your head to the side. Place a pillow under your stomach, feet, arms and head for comfort

• ensure you have someone with you at all times, especially when trying this for the first time. Both you and your helper should wear a mask to minimise cross-infection

• do not attempt proning with children under one year old.

4. Move regularly

Even people with relatively mild COVID symptoms may continue to be fatigued after other symptoms have resolved.

Doing simple exercises regularly throughout the day while in isolation can help minimise the effects of reduced mobility during COVID.

You can try sitting on a chair and standing, then repeating that for a minute. Or you could march on the spot for two minutes.

Pacing and prioritising your activities to ensure you do regular activities throughout the day can also help manage your fatigue.

Read more:
What’s a pulse oximeter? Should I buy one to monitor COVID at home?

5. Know when to seek further medical attention

If you or a family member experience chest pain, difficulty breathing despite home management, dizziness, new weakness in your face, arm or leg, increased confusion, difficulty staying awake, or have thoughts of self-harm, you will need to seek urgent medical attention.

You can also use online symptom checkers for advice on your next immediate action, including when to call an ambulance.

If your COVID symptoms last longer than two weeks, see your local doctor. They be may be able to refer you to a pulmonary (lung) rehabilitation service or physiotherapist who specialises in lung conditions.

Read more:
COVID can worsen quickly at home. Here’s when to call an ambulance

Clarice Tang receives funding from Multicultural NSW, Department of Health and Maridulu Budyari Gumal. She is affiliated with Western Sydney University and is a member of the Australian Physiotherapy Association, Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand and the American Thoracic Society.

– ref. At home with COVID? 5 easy tips to help you breathe more easily – https://theconversation.com/at-home-with-covid-5-easy-tips-to-help-you-breathe-more-easily-176249

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Netto, Associate Professor, Curtin School of Allied Health and Curtin enAble Institute, Curtin University

There have been some incredible acrobatics on display in Beijing, with Australia’s Jakara Anthony scoring gold in the women’s moguls this week.

How do these athletes pull off such incredible feats of manoeuvrability, and land them (mostly)?

The mechanics of freestyle acrobatics

Freestyle skiers and snowboarders have to produce as much lift-off force as they can before they leave the ground, as it’s impossible to generate lift once airborne.

They do this by optimising their take-off speed before the ramp and extending their knees and hips when they jump. They can also initiate rotation just before take-off, by leaning forwards, backwards, or even slightly sideways.

You’ll have some sense of how this works if you’ve ever tried a somersault or backflip on on a trampoline. But the goal for professional skiers is to control the rotation with acute precision.

The more they lean, the greater the rotational force and the faster their spin will become. This rotational momentum, created just before lift-off, is all the athlete has to execute their aerial trick.

Many trampolines have nets to protect jumpers from the consequences of this going awry. But out on the snow, and with the world watching, there’s little room for error. Perfect posture is very important.

Once they’re in the air, they can start to tune their body to complete the desired manoeuvre. This often involves changing their posture mid-flight, such as by tucking their limbs in tight to increase the rate of spin, as needed for a somersault.

Part of athletes’ training is learning exactly what sort of posture causes what sort of rotation in the air – and how they need to tuck, extend or position their limbs to optimise the rotation. Add skis and poles or a snowboard to the picture, and this exercise becomes much more complex.

Read more:
How snowboarding became a marquee event at the Winter Olympics – but lost some of its cool factor in the process

Twisting and turning

It doesn’t stop there though. Sometimes a somersault will also incorporate twisting – rotation along the long axis of the body. This is where things get even more challenging.

Remember how athletes can’t really create external force in the air? How do they change their rotation if they can’t push or pull against something solid?

Well, this process also begins just as they’re leaving the ground. They will try to set up a second rotation axis before they take-off, leaning slightly to the right or left, or pushing off harder with one foot than the other, to initiate the twist.

If they’re already in mid-air, they may strategically manipulate their arms and hips to change somersault rotation into twisting, or vice versa.

You may have seen an athlete moving their arms and hips in an asymmetrical fashion at the top of their run. That’s not them practising their latest dance move – they’re rehearsing the movements required to change rotation after take-off.

Cats can rotate their torsos incredibly well while in the air. That’s how they land on their feet!

The final step

Now the most important bit: landing safely.

While a freestyle athlete is upside down, in the midst of their trick, they need to simultaneously look for a spot on the ground to plant their feet. You may have noticed them grab their skis or snowboard while looking at the landing.

To slow their twisting, they can spread our their arms. Similarly, to slow down a somersault they’ll spread out their arms and legs to slow the rotation. This is called increasing the moment of inertia.

Once they’re in an extended posture, instinct and gravity do the rest, bringing them safely (mostly) back to earth. Their knees and hips work as natural shock absorbers to help slow their fall. Touch down!

Read more:
Your guide to the best figure skating at the Beijing Winter Olympics – through the eyes of a dancer

Kevin Netto receives funding from industry and government to support his work. He is affiliated with Exercise and Sports Science Australia as a member of their research committee.

– ref. How do Olympic freestyle skiers produce their amazing tricks? A biomechanics expert explains – https://theconversation.com/how-do-olympic-freestyle-skiers-produce-their-amazing-tricks-a-biomechanics-expert-explains-176544

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Clarke, Visiting Fellow, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney

Many issues have cast a shadow over the Beijing Winter Olympics in recent weeks, from China’s controversial “zero-COVID” approach to the looming possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

One issue should be getting more attention: what I and other scholars are calling the “Xinjiang emergency” – the mass detention of between one million and two million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities in China’s western Xinjiang region.

To many observers, China attempted to sportwash its human rights abuses in Xinjiang by selecting a cross-country skier of Uyghur origin to take part in the lighting of the Olympic cauldron during the opening ceremonies of the games.

Although the move attracted criticism from human rights activists, there’s been virtual silence from governments and corporate sponsors on the Uyghur issue since the Olympics began. Without any real action to put pressure on Beijing, China’s propaganda machine will continue to deflect accountability, instead touting the false narrative that Uyghurs enjoy a “peaceful, harmonious and happy life”.

How China is persecuting the Uyghurs

In a recently published book I edited, The Xinjiang Emergency, some of the world’s top scholars on Uyghur history, culture, politics and identity provide a detailed examination of the long-term causes and consequences of China’s repression in Xinjiang.

Since the mass detention of Uyghurs began in 2016, it has become clear the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has embarked on a systematic and coordinated effort to erase Uyghur culture and remake the Uyghurs into pliable and “productive” citizens through “reeducation”.

As part of this process, children have been separated from their parents to be placed in state care, Uyghur women subjected to invasive birth control and sexual abuse, and detainees “graduated” into a system of forced labor.

Read more:
How an independent tribunal came to rule that China is guilty of genocide against the Uyghurs

The state has also prohibited the use of the Uyghur language, script and signage, imposed new legal restrictions on religious practice, razed mosques and other religious sites, used financial inducements to encourage intermarriage with the dominant Han ethnic group, and persecuted the Uyghur intelligentsia.

A high-tech surveillance apparatus has also been erected across Xinjiang to monitor everyday life.

A genocide is taking place

Our group of scholars has concluded the Chinese state’s actions are consistent with the attempted cultural genocide of Uyghurs.

Only a few governments around the world have gone as far as to label it a “genocide”. The French parliament was the latest to do so on the eve of the Olympics, following in the footsteps of the US government and parliaments in Canada, the Netherlands and the UK.

But what has the international community done about it? So far, it has been long on hand-wringing and rhetorical “concern” for Uyghurs, but short on practical measures beyond the sanctions imposed on Chinese individuals and entities responsible for the repression.

A small group of countries also took part in a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics, but this was largely seen as a symbolic gesture. These countries still sent teams to compete in an event that Chinese President Xi Jinping has declared will

help present China as a positive, prosperous and open nation committed to building a community with a shared future for mankind.

Not since the 1936 Berlin Olympics in Nazi Germany have the games been held amid such a wanton violation of basic human rights. And the CCP’s actions against the Uyghurs have been well-documented for nearly five years.

Read more:
Despite China’s denials, its treatment of the Uyghurs should be called what it is: cultural genocide

Although there is evidence some Uyghurs have been killed in detention, genocides aren’t just defined by mass killings. The CCP’s actions in Xinjiang do meet the criteria for genocide under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

This document deems a range of acts to constitute “genocide” if the intent is to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including:

• causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

• deliberately inflicting “conditions of life” intended to bring about a group’s physical destruction (such as withholding food, medical care, shelter or clothing)

• imposing measures intended to prevent births

• forcibly transferring children to another group.

Moral platitudes or real action?

The failure of the international community to respond to the Uyghurs’ plight speaks to the self interest of governments, multinational corporations and organisations like the International Olympic Committee to retain profitable relations with Beijing. It also shows the hollowness of many governments’ commitments to the much touted “rules-based order”.

Australia’s foreign minister, Marise Payne, for example, made this a priority when she said in June 2020 that Australia was committed to the “norms that underpin universal human rights, gender equality and the rule of law”.

Read more:
Why the Winter Olympics are so vital to the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy

This is a sentiment shared by many of the states that have condemned China’s actions in Xinjiang. Yet, it has not been translated into real action likely to increase pressure on Beijing.

Is this trumpeting of a commitment to “universal human rights” little more than a moral platitude? If not, then the international community must ask itself why there has not been stronger action against the largest and most systematic repression of an ethnic or religious minority in the world today.

Michael Clarke has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Political Studies Association, Australian Centre on China in the World (ANU), and the US State Department.

– ref. Can China use the Beijing Olympics to ‘sportwash’ its abuses against the Uyghurs? Only if the world remains silent – https://theconversation.com/can-china-use-the-beijing-olympics-to-sportwash-its-abuses-against-the-uyghurs-only-if-the-world-remains-silent-175922

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giles Dodson, Senior Lecturer, Humanities and Social Sciences, Massey University

Recently, conservation minister Kiritapu Allan described existing legislation as not fit for purpose, and she’s right. The government’s announcement to overhaul conservation policy is welcome news.

There are too many outdated, confusing and inconsistent rules. The system they create is out of step with current values and priorities.

The way we use and view the conservation estate has changed. Different forms of recreation are growing in popularity. Tourism operations have expanded. Community partnerships have flourished. But the potential for conflict has increased, too.

Māori have demanded a greater say, yet there are only weak provisions for Treaty-based iwi co-governance within existing rules. Key pieces of legislation, such as the Marine Reserves Act 1971, are completely out of date.

The government has emphasised our conservation tools need to be updated in light of developments in science to address threats to biodiversity and challenges such as climate change.

In New Zealand, we often equate conservation with sciences such as ecology, wildlife and marine biology. Science is held to be the method for achieving conservation outcomes: protected animals and habitats, the preservation of special areas and correct levels of public access and usage.

Science has certainly moved on since many of our conservation laws were put in place. But so, too, has our knowledge about how to improve decision making through public involvement.

Read more:
Conservation works better when local communities lead it, new evidence shows

Communities, stakeholders and tangata whenua now expect a greater role in shaping how conservation gets done. But under our existing rules, public involvement in conservation policy development is limited to “consultation”.

Conservation is about people and values

The main issues in conservation aren’t animals, plants and places – or biodiversity and environmental stewardship. Conservation is really about people. It is about our values in relation to natural and historic resources.

One way to get a conservation system that can handle the challenge of different values is to build a greater degree of public participation into the new rules, beyond mere consultation.

Public participation is a catch-all term for citizens having a say in shaping the development of conservation policy.

So far, this mainly happens either in the form of written submissions or by attending public meetings. The requirement for this form of participation is baked into key laws, including the Conservation Act 1987. That law requires that conservation plans and strategies, which shape how the Department of Conservation (DOC) works, are publicly notified and the Director-General receives public submissions.

Those who study environmental politics have criticised this as a limited kind of public participation.

Such consultation processes are difficult for people to engage with and frequently dominated by special interests. They can result in people having relatively little impact on the process and can be disempowering and frustrating. Stakeholders often take adversarial positions, especially where issues are complex and uncertain.

Dealing with controversy and complexity

Sometimes the science is incomplete or uncertain. In such cases, policy decisions can result in controversy and reputational damage to DOC.

Even where the scientific support for policy is sound, we see conflicts again and again: in game animal management, endangered species protection, the use of 1080 and the expansion of marine reserves. On occasion, the intensity of opposition to DOC policy has threatened to turn violent.

Stakeholders can feel ignored. Local and traditional knowledge can be valued less than science. And expensive litigation can become the last resort for frustrated stakeholders, as happened recently with tahr management in the South Island.

Indigenous conservation values

Māori, as tāngata whenua, can be strong voices for conservation. They have a special relationship with ancestral lands and waters, taonga species and wāhi tapu in the conservation estate.

But Māori ideas of kaitiakitanga differ from western notions of perpetual protection. Kaitiakitanga is fundamentally about relationships between environments and people, structured around sustainable use.

Locking away resources, being unable to exercise customary rights, or being excluded from decision making can be barriers to Māori support.

The current regime provides only weak mechanisms for Māori to be real partners in the governance of conservation areas. In cases where Māori have secured a greater say in conservation management, it has generally been through special legislation rather than the conservation framework.

Read more:
Ancient knowledge is lost when a species disappears. It’s time to let Indigenous people care for their country, their way

Collaboration with iwi and communities

There are examples of effective conservation collaborations throughout New Zealand. They tend to be operational. Some have been controversial, including corporate sponsorships and community volunteers taking up the slack left by budget cuts.

But DOC has also demonstrated willingness to take a more collaborative, adaptive and Treaty-based approach.

The Fiordland Wapiti Foundation is a stand-out example of community-led game management. Other hunter-led groups have also adopted a collaborative mindset.

In the contested area of marine protection, a multi-stakeholder approach has been implemented in Otago and the West Coast. However, this process has been criticised as narrowly focused on biodiversity and economic values.

Co-designed projects like Raukūmara Pae Maunga offer a new model for DOC, iwi and community collaboration.

Where to from here

The upcoming review presents an opportunity to do things differently, but this will require a willingness to continue to experiment with participatory processes and move beyond mere consultation.

Research suggests effective participation can improve outcomes, if done well, but it’s not a panacea for conflict resolution.

Deepening public participation requires commitment, skills and resourcing. It means DOC investing more in facilitating participatory processes and the public getting involved. Statutory processes will need to be flexible and relevant to communities.

There is no rule book for this, but there are best practices we can learn from. The new rules must require DOC and its partners to experiment and innovate in engaging the public in decision making.

But the foundation for effective and durable conservation policy is a better understanding of the values people hold and our capacity to engage on difficult issues.

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

– ref. New Zealand is reviewing its outdated conservation laws. Here’s why we must find better ways of getting people on board – https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-is-reviewing-its-outdated-conservation-laws-heres-why-we-must-find-better-ways-of-getting-people-on-board-174055

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jared Mondschein, Senior Research Fellow, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Over the past few years, the Morrison government has made A$2 billion funding commitments to everything from the critical minerals and rare earths industry to bushfire recovery. Now the government has made yet another $2 billion announcement of an “action plan to supercharge research commercialisation”. It’s a longstanding challenge, one that many said should have been acted on long ago.

This announcement may appear like the many others that came before it, particularly given it’s so close to an election. Nonetheless, this effort may ultimately have an impact on one of the most vexing aspects of Australia’s economy: the lack of research commercialisation.

Read more:
Our unis are far behind the world’s best at commercialising research. Here are 3 ways to catch up

What is the plan?

Most of the money under the plan, some $1.6 billion, will go to a ten-year competitive funding program, “Australia’s Economic Accelerator”. The aim is to help university projects bridge the so-called “valley of death” between early-stage research and commercialisation.

The remaining parts of the plan include:

• $296 million for 1,800 industry-linked PhDs and 800 industry fellows over the next decade
• $243.5 million for the previously announced Trailblazer Universities program to create four university-based research and industry hubs around the country – eight universities have been shortlisted
• $150 million to expand CSIRO’s Main Sequence venture capital firm, which focuses on commercialising Australian research
• a new standardised intellectual property (IP) framework – providing more uniform IP licensing terms, clauses and agreements – to support more seamless university-industry collaboration.

Is this just another band-aid policy?

On the whole, Australian universities, businesses and science bodies have largely praised the announcement. That’s a fairly uncommon outcome in this increasingly contentious space where finger-pointing is ubiquitous.

If anything, the chief criticism thus far is that the effort is too little and too late for such a sizeable and consequential problem. After all, Australia’s record of research commercialisation remains one of the worst in the developed world. Yet we have world-class research facilities.

Facing a halving of international student numbers in Australia and a Commonwealth government that seemingly went out of its way to exclude the higher education sector from pandemic-related assistance, some may think universities should simply appreciate any help they can get. After all, this is the same government that cut $1.47 billion from the Australian Research Council over the past nine years.

Read more:
Hit hard by the pandemic, researchers expect its impacts to linger for years

Yet, in reality, the $2.2 billion effort is unique not only for the size of the funding but also for its culture-focused reforms.

What’s different about this plan?

At the heart of the plan are steps to bridge the cultural chasm between two exceedingly different institutions: industry and the university sector. It’s perhaps the most important aspect of tackling lacklustre commercialisation.

The research culture of many Australian universities revolves around a mindset of publish or perish. This culture motivates the pursuit of PhDs to further academic knowledge. The focus ultimately prioritises publishing research over producing products and services that solve real-world problems.

The various global rankings of universities and the role of research in those rankings plays a key part in this mentality. A high global ranking enhances prestige, which in turn attracts students, so the logic goes. As a result, academics are encouraged to pursue both quality (highly ranked journals) and quantity (number of papers) in research.

Read more:
Australian universities may be at a turning point in the rankings chase. So what next?

The most consequential impact of the Morrison plan may simply be the disruption of the publish-or-perish culture. The industry-linked PhDs, for example, would force often unwilling partners – industry and academia – to overcome cultural differences and work together on tackling problems.

Of course, there should always be room for blue sky research. However, more links with industry can make both the universities and individual researchers more oriented to practical solutions and commercial realities.

The Trailblazer scheme will create common ground for different stakeholders to work on mutually agreed goals. This process can nurture faith and confidence in each other’s abilities, leading to more productive practice-driven research.

The creation of a standardised IP framework may also help universities, particularly smaller ones with less administrative resources. The challenges of navigating the complex process of commercialisation can stymie collaboration with industry.

Read more:
Who cares about university research? The answer depends on its impacts

Will this plan work?

The Morrison government plan’s proposal to change academic culture is an important step. But its success will depend on how effectively it tackles a mindset that underlies the publish-or-perish culture in Australian universities, and the intentions of the researchers themselves.

It would be a blunder to treat the diverse academic fraternity as one homogeneous group. Academics can have varying levels of motivation, some intrinsic and others extrinsic, that could drive them to become either a pure researcher or research-based entrepreneur.

The increased funding should be appreciated and will surely create incentives for universities to join hands to produce commercial products. But bringing about a change of heart is perhaps the first and more difficult step. The success of the government’s plan depends on it.

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

– ref. Will the government’s $2.2bn, 10-year plan get a better return on Australian research? It all depends on changing the culture – https://theconversation.com/will-the-governments-2-2bn-10-year-plan-get-a-better-return-on-australian-research-it-all-depends-on-changing-the-culture-176358

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

Four state byelections will occur in NSW on Saturday, with polls closing at 6pm AEDT.

The byelections are in the seats of Bega (Lib, 6.9% margin at the 2019 election), Monaro (Nat, 11.6%), Strathfield (Labor, 5.0%) and Willoughby (Lib, 21.0%). Labor and the Coalition have nominated candidates in all seats except Willoughby, which Labor won’t contest. Willoughby independent candidate Larissa Penn won 9.9% at the 2019 state election.

These byelections are being held owing to resignations. Former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian resigned as member for Willoughby, as did former Nationals leader John Barilaro (Monaro) and former Labor leader Jodi McKay (Strathfield). Andrew Constance (Bega) resigned to contest the federal Labor-held Gilmore at the federal election.

ABC election analyst Antony Green says that, owing to COVID, all voters in these four seats will be sent a postal pack, though they can still vote in-person, early or on election day.

Checks that someone who voted in person did not also vote by post will be required, so counting of postal votes will not begin until next Wednesday February 16. If the on-the-night result is at all close, we’ll have to wait until at least then to know the winner.

Most Australian elections use compulsory preferential voting, in which full numbering is required for a formal vote. NSW uses optional preferential, with only a “1” required. Primary votes are more important as about half of preferences exhaust.

I have seen no polls for these byelections, but the Essential poll below suggests that both the federal and NSW governments are recovering from their COVID-inspired nadirs in mid- to late January.

I do not believe these byelections have implications for either the federal election or the next NSW election in March 2023. Byelection swings have little relationship to general election swings. The national and NSW polls will be a far better guide to the results of these elections than byelections.

Green said the Coalition won 48 of the 93 NSW lower house seats in 2019, to 36 Labor, and three each for the Greens, Shooters and independents. Since then, two Coalition MPs have moved to the crossbench owing to accusations of wrongdoing, so the government is technically in minority.

Even if the Coalition lost the three seats they are defending, they would still have a 43-38 seat lead over Labor. It is unlikely they would be forced out of office before the next scheduled election.

Federal Essential poll: Coalition trails by just one point

Essential released voting intentions for their four federal polls conducted in December, January and February. On Essential’s “2PP+” measure that includes undecided, Labor led the Coalition by just 47-46 in this week’s poll, down from 50-43 last fortnight. In the lead-up to the election, Essential will release voting intentions each fortnight, rather than back-releasing after every few months.

The federal government also recovered from its first negative rating on COVID last fortnight, as 40% gave it a good rating for COVID response (up five), and 34% a poor rating (down four).

Other than Victoria and WA, state governments also rebounded, with NSW’s good rating up seven to 44%, SA’s up ten to 53% and Queensland’s up ten to 56%. Victoria’s good rating dropped five points to 42% good and WA’s dropped two to 64%.

57% thought three doses, including a booster, should be required for people to be considered fully vaccinated, while 31% thought two doses were adequate. By 66-17, voters thought social media companies are not doing enough to ensure a safe online environment.

This poll was conducted before Tuesday from a sample of 1,069. Analyst Kevin Bonham said that Essential has been better for the Coalition than Newspoll or Morgan since late 2021. This implies that a Newspoll conducted now would have Labor further ahead than Essential.

However, given this poll, it’s likely the next Newspoll will have Labor’s lead down from their 56-44 last week. And Newspoll could be wrong, as it was in 2019.

COVID has eased rapidly in Australia, with the 7-day rolling average of cases falling from a mid-January peak over 100,000 to about 30,000 now. Daily death rates have also begun dropping. This poll suggests that is much more important to swing voters than what Gladys Berejiklian or Barnaby Joyce texted about Scott Morrison in the last year.

Morgan poll: 56.5-43.5 to Labor

A federal Morgan poll, conducted January 17-30 from a sample of almost 2,800, gave Labor a 56.5-43.5 lead, a 0.5-point gain for Labor since early January. Primary votes were 37.5% Labor (up 0.5), 33% Coalition (down 1.5), 11.5% Greens (down 0.5), 3.5% One Nation (up 0.5), 2% UAP (up 1.5), 8% independents (down 0.5) and 4.5% others (steady).

This poll was taken in mid- to late January, while the Essential poll was conducted in early February. If the Coalition has recovered from its COVID nadir, as Essential suggests, it will show up in the next polls.

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

– ref. NSW byelections preview; federal Coalition rebounds in Essential poll – https://theconversation.com/nsw-byelections-preview-federal-coalition-rebounds-in-essential-poll-176348

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

Many of us have taken a rapid antigen test (RAT) or have administered them to our school-aged children.

But how many of us are using them correctly?

Here are 15 pitfalls to avoid if you want to get the most out of your RAT.

Read more:
Taking your first rapid antigen test? 7 tips for an accurate result

1. Storing at the wrong temperature

RATs should be kept at 2-30℃ for them to work as intended.

Storing at higher temperatures means proteins in the tests can be denatured – permanent changes to protein structure, just like when you cook an egg.

Don’t let the kit freeze. This can also damage the kit components.

2. Using straight from the fridge

The reagents (essential test kit ingredients) will not work properly at cold temperatures. Let the kit sit out of the fridge for about 30 minutes before using it.

3. Using an out-of-date test

Always check the use-by date before using, which you’ll find on the carton. Expired tests can contain biological or chemical reagents that have gone off or are denatured.

4. Opening too early

Do NOT open the test items until you are ready to start. Storing the test open can lead to false positives (you can test positive without really having COVID).

5. Taking the test too soon or too late after exposure

A study, which has yet to be reviewed by experts, suggests RATs cannot detect SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) until at least day two after exposure. It takes a median of three days to test positive.

RATs also cannot detect the virus later than about seven or eight days after exposure. So don’t wait too long to get tested.

RAT sensitivity (ability to detect a positive case) improves if you take a daily test, over several days.

6. Assuming all tests work the same

Some RATs need nasal swabs, others use saliva. The way virus is extracted from the sample, the number of drops to add to the testing device, and the timeframe to read the results differ between brands.

Familiarise yourself with the instructions, especially if it’s a new brand, or it’s been some time since your last RAT.

7. Contaminating the test

Do NOT touch the tip of the swab (the soft bit that goes in your nose) with your fingers or allow it to come into contact with other surfaces.

8. Sampling snot

Blow your nose before doing a nasal swab as you don’t want to sample snot. You want to swab the tissue that lines the nasal passages, using the technique below.

9. Swabbing at the wrong angle and depth

When inserting the nasal swab, you are not trying to swab the inside of your nostril but the tissue further back in the nasal passages.

So rather than going directly upwards with the swab, try to go horizontally and about 2-3 centimetres back. Then rotate the swab gently against the walls of the nasal passage the exact number of times your test recommends. Repeat on the other side.

Because it’s easy to get the angle/depth wrong, it’s best for parents or caregivers to take children’s samples. Most RATs shouldn’t be used on children under two years old, so check the instructions if you’re not sure.

Read more:
Go low, go slow: how to rapid antigen test your kid for COVID as school returns

10. Continuing with a bloody swab

Blood on the nasal swab will give you an inaccurate result. Discard the test and do another when bleeding has stopped, or swab only on the side that is not bleeding.

Don’t use a test that requires nasal swabbing if you are prone to nose bleeds. Use a saliva test instead (see below).

11. Eating, drinking, chewing gum, brushing your teeth or smoking before a saliva test

These can give an inaccurate result. So wait 30 minutes before taking a saliva sample.

12. Adding too many or too few drops to the indicator device

Adding the right number of drops will ensure the liquid moves across the test surface in a specific time. If you add extra drops, or too few, you will mess up the timeline and the test will not work properly.

13. Reading the result too early or too late

Read the result at the time listed in the instructions.

Read the test too early and it is likely to give you a false negative result (the test reads negative but you are really positive). Too late and it might indicate you are positive when you are not.

Read more:
How accurate is your RAT? 3 scenarios show it’s about more than looking for lines

14. Misreading the result

When you read your results (at the correct time):

• two lines means you have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2

• a line at C (for control) ONLY means the test has worked and you have tested negative

• a line at T (for test) (or A for antigen, depending on the kit) but NOT C means your test is faulty. Do another one

• no lines also means your test is faulty and you need to repeat it.

15. Disposing of the kit incorrectly

Seal any components of the kit that have come into contact with your nasal or saliva sample (swab, containers, reagents, test device etc) in the plastic bag provided and dispose in the garbage.

Only place the cardboard carton and paper instructions in recycling.

Thea van de Mortel teaches into the infection prevention and control program at Griffith University.

– ref. 15 things not to do when using a rapid antigen test, from storing in the freezer to sampling snot – https://theconversation.com/15-things-not-to-do-when-using-a-rapid-antigen-test-from-storing-in-the-freezer-to-sampling-snot-176364