Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julien Louys, ARC Future Fellow, Griffith University

Thinking of Southeast Asia today may conjure up images of dense tropical rainforests teeming with iconic jungle animals such as orangutans, tigers and monkeys.

Perhaps less well known, but just as important to these ecosystems, are a host of other large-bodied creatures: the goat-like serows and gorals, three species of Asian rhino and the only species of tapir still living in the “Old World”.

Together, these creatures comprise Southeast Asia’s megafauna, second only to Africa’s in diversity. These two continental ecosystems are the last vestiges of a world largely lost – one where giants roamed the Earth. But what caused so many megafauna species to go extinct?

Several theories have suggested either humans, climate change, or both drove Southeast Asia’s megafauna to extinction. However, our newest research published today in Nature indicates it was actually the rise and fall of savannah environments that drove this extinction event.

Southeast Asia’s megafauna extinctions

Southeast Asia has lost many large mammal species over the Quaternary period, the past 2.6 million years. They included the world’s largest ever ape, Gigantopithecus, elephant-like creatures known as stegodons and large water buffaloes.

These extinctions also include one of our closest relatives, Homo erectus, and two island offshoots of the human family tree – Homo floresiensis (the “Hobbit”) and Homo luzonensis. One final human species is also recorded in the genes of Southeast Asians today: the Denisovans, who were once likely widespread throughout the region.

According to previous research, the lead antagonist in the megafauna extinction story is humans. Some have suggested the arrival of people to new lands over the past 60,000 years or more – who then overhunted and altered this new habitat – is what led to the loss of giant mammals.

Read more: New analysis finds no evidence that climate wiped out Australia’s megafauna

Others researchers have contended changes in climate resulted in the extinction of the megafauna. While others suggest a combination of both human and climate influences.

Toothy insights into past environments

For our research, we examined environmental changes in Southeast Asia over the past 2.6 million years, to determine how they may have impacted extinctions.

We analysed the stable isotopes of the teeth of mammals found in the region today, as well as those from available published fossil records.

Read more: Meet the giant wombat relative that scratched out a living in Australia 25 million years ago

Stable isotopes are the non-radioactive forms of many elements. Stable isotopes of carbon and oxygen preserved in mammal teeth record important information on what kinds of plants those animals ate, and how wet their environments were, respectively.

Stable carbon isotopes are particularly helpful in recording whether animals predominantly ate leaves and fruits in shaded forests, or grasses in more open settings. This insight lets us identify shifts in environments over time.

The fluctuating presence of forests

During the first 1.5 million years or so of the Pleistocene (the geological epoch that lasted from about 2,580,000 to 11,700 years ago), the northern parts of Southeast Asia were largely forest, while the southern parts were woodlands or grasslands.

Later, from about one million years ago, forests retreated everywhere in the region and grasslands dominated. Coincident with these changes, large forest-adapted animals including Gigantopithecus and a giant panda relative disappeared from Southeast Asia’s northern parts.

Later still, around 400,000 years ago, the Southeast Asian Sunda Shelf began to submerge and climate cycles changed. Because of this, forest conditions returned.

At the same time, grassland-adapted creatures that had filled the region, including giant hyenas, stegodons, bovids and Homo erectus began to disappear – and largely went extinct by the end of the Pleistocene. The remainder were driven into the rainforests.

By the last few tens of thousands of years, we see the first evidence of stratified, closed-canopy rainforests in Southeast Asia. These have dominated the region for the past 20,000 years or so.

Rainforest-adapted species should have been advantaged by the return of the rainforests, but one interloper changed that. Homo sapiens appears to be the only species in our family tree that was able to successfully adapt to and exploit rainforest environments.

Read more: Old teeth from a rediscovered cave show humans were in Indonesia more than 63,000 years ago

And although humans lived in Southeast Asian rainforests as early as 73,000 years ago, it was probably only in the last 10,000 years that Homo sapiens began to fundamentally alter these habitats and exploit the mammals within.

A vanishing world

Southeast Asia continues to preserve some of the most critically endangered megafauna on the planet.

Megafauna grassland specialists were the greatest loss as a result of disappearing savannahs 400,000 years ago. Today, rainforest megafauna are also at great risk of extinction.

Luckily for us, our own species’ fortunes changed for the better with the emergence of typical Southeast Asian rainforests. But we’re now the very thing threatening to destroy them forever.

– ref. It was growing rainforests, not humans, that killed off Southeast Asia’s giant hyenas and other megafauna – https://theconversation.com/it-was-growing-rainforests-not-humans-that-killed-off-southeast-asias-giant-hyenas-and-other-megafauna-147656

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Stoljar, Professor, Australian National University

Social media algorithms, artificial intelligence, and our own genetics are among the factors influencing us beyond our awareness. This raises an ancient question: do we have control over our own lives? This article is part of The Conversation’s series on the science of free will.

Suppose you are thinking about doing something trivial, such as moving your index finger a little to the right. You are free to do it. You are free not to do it. You weigh up the pros and cons, and decide to do it. Lo and behold, your finger moves. Congratulations! You did it.

This is a case of free will. Clearly it’s not a momentous case. Nothing much depends on whether you move your finger.

But imagine if something did. Imagine someone would be executed if you did move that finger. Then you’d be morally responsible, because you did it freely.

It seems as obvious as anything that we have free will. But lots of philosophers and scientists will tell you free will doesn’t exist.

The starting point of this argument is that free will is incompatible with determinism, a worldview that dominated science in the past and remains influential today.

Is everything predetermined?

Determinism says everything that happens now is entirely determined by factors that were in place well before you were even born.

Maybe these factors concern your upbringing or culture. Or they concern the initial conditions of the Universe and the laws that govern how it unfolds. Either way, you had nothing to do with them. And if they determine what you do, you aren’t free.

US philosopher Peter van Inwagen provides a vivid illustration of this argument, in his book An Essay on Free Will. If determinism is true, the laws of nature and the past together guarantee you will move your finger. It therefore follows that if you have the power not to move your finger, you would also have the power to change the laws or the past.

But that’s ridiculous. You don’t have such powers.

An initial reaction is that, while determinism was important historically, it now seems false.

Quantum physics shows the occurrence of some events to be literally random. It’s a concept the Australian National University used to develop a random number generator.

Unfortunately, this only makes matters worse. If moving your finger were just a random act, you wouldn’t be responsible for it and so you still wouldn’t be free.

This gives us the full-blown argument against free will. Either determinism is true or it’s not; that’s just logic.

If determinism is true, your acts are a consequence of things that happened before you were born; so you have no free will. But suppose determinism is not true; then it’s easy to think everything would be random, including all your actions (such as raising your finger!). But in this instance, there would be no free will either.

You might side with British philosopher Galen Strawson who, in his book Things That Bother Me, argues free will is “provably impossible”.

Is there a middle ground?

Another option is to try to understand free will so it works with a limited form of determinism, that applies to your actions rather than to everything in the world.

One version of this view, developed by ANU’s Victoria McGeer, involves defining free will as whatever explains our social capacities to hold each other morally responsible. As a deterministic process could in principle do that, free will and determinism may coexist.

But while a deterministic process may explain these capacities, it would not in that case be free will, because free will is fundamentally incompatible with determinism.

At this point, things look bleak. But there is a small ray of light, pointed out by US linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky, who says:

We just can’t abandon believing it (free will); it’s our most immediate phenomenologically obvious impression, but we can’t explain it. […] If it’s something we know to be true and we don’t have any explanation for it, well, too bad for any explanatory possibilities.

Suppose again that determinism is incompatible with free will. If so, when you freely moved your finger, that event was not fully determined by the initial conditions of the Universe and the laws of nature.

Does it necessarily follow that it’s random? On the face of it, no. To be random is one thing; to be not fully determined is quite another. There’s a logical space between determinism and randomness, and perhaps free will lives in that space.

Chomsky goes on to say it may be impossible for humans to understand free will. In science, people develop models or theories of the systems they are interested in. He suggests in his book Language and Problems of Knowledge the only models we can understand are those in which our acts are either determined or random. If so, we will never develop scientific models of free will, for it is neither of these things.

I am not sure Chomsky is right about the limits of human understanding. But I think he’s right about free will. We are free to move our finger. That is neither determined nor random — it’s a choice we can feel in our bones.

– ref. We might not be able to understand free will with science. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/we-might-not-be-able-to-understand-free-will-with-science-heres-why-132898

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pep Canadell, Chief research scientist, Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere; and Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, CSIRO

Nitrous oxide from agriculture and other sources is accumulating in the atmosphere so quickly it puts Earth on track for a dangerous 3℃ warming this century, our new research has found.

Each year, more than 100 million tonnes of nitrogen are spread on crops in the form of synthetic fertiliser. The same amount again is put onto pastures and crops in manure from livestock.

This colossal amount of nitrogen makes crops and pastures grow more abundantly. But it also releases nitrous oxide (N₂O), a greenhouse gas.

Agriculture is the main cause of the increasing concentrations, and is likely to remain so this century. N₂O emissions from agriculture and industry can be reduced, and we must take urgent action if we hope to stabilise Earth’s climate.

Where does nitrous oxide come from?

We found that N₂O emissions from natural sources, such as soils and oceans, have not changed much in recent decades. But emissions from human sources have increased rapidly.

Atmospheric concentrations of N₂O reached 331 parts per billion in 2018, 22% above levels around the year 1750, before the industrial era began.

Agriculture caused almost 70% of global N₂O emissions in the decade to 2016. The emissions are created through microbial processes in soils. The use of nitrogen in synthetic fertilisers and manure is a key driver of this process.

Other human sources of N₂O include the chemical industry, waste water and the burning of fossil fuels.

Read more: Intensive farming is eating up the Australian continent – but there’s another way

N₂O is destroyed in the upper atmosphere, primarily by solar radiation. But humans are emitting N₂O faster than it’s being destroyed, so it’s accumulating in the atmosphere.

N₂O both depletes the ozone layer and contributes to global warming.

As a greenhouse gas, N₂O has 300 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and stays in the atmosphere for an average 116 years. It’s the third most important greenhouse gas after CO₂ (which lasts up to thousands of years in the atmosphere) and methane.

N₂O depletes the ozone layer when it interacts with ozone gas in the stratosphere. Other ozone-depleting substances, such as chemicals containing chlorine and bromine, have been banned under the United Nations Montreal Protocol. N₂O is not banned under the protocol, although the Paris Agreement seeks to reduce its concentrations.

What we found

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has developed scenarios for the future, outlining the different pathways the world could take on emission reduction by 2100. Our research found N₂O concentrations have begun to exceed the levels predicted across all scenarios.

The current concentrations are in line with a global average temperature increase of well above 3℃ this century.

We found that global human-caused N₂O emissions have grown by 30% over the past three decades. Emissions from agriculture mostly came from synthetic nitrogen fertiliser used in East Asia, Europe, South Asia and North America. Emissions from Africa and South America are dominated by emissions from livestock manure.

In terms of emissions growth, the highest contributions come from emerging economies – particularly Brazil, China, and India – where crop production and livestock numbers have increased rapidly in recent decades.

N₂O emissions from Australia have been stable over the past decade. Increase in emissions from agriculture and waste have been offset by a decline in emissions from industry and fossil fuels.

What to do?

N₂O must be part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and there is already work being done. Since the late 1990s, for example, efforts to reduce emissions from the chemicals industry have been successful, particularly in the production of nylon, in the United States, Europe and Japan.

Reducing emissions from agriculture is more difficult – food production must be maintained and there is no simple alternative to nitrogen fertilisers. But some options do exist.

Read more: Emissions of methane – a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide – are rising dangerously

In Europe over the past two decades, N₂O emissions have fallen as agricultural productivity increased. This was largely achieved through government policies to reduce pollution in waterways and drinking water, which encouraged more efficient fertiliser use.

Other ways to reduce N₂O emissions from agriculture include:

• better management of animal manure

• applying fertiliser in a way that better matches the needs of growing plants

• alternating crops to include those that produce their own nitrogen, such as legumes, to reduce the need for fertiliser

• enhanced efficiency fertilisers that lower N₂O production.

Getting to net-zero emissions

Stopping the overuse of nitrogen fertilisers is not just good for the climate. It can also reduce water pollution and increase farm profitability.

Even with the right agricultural policies and actions, synthetic and manure fertilisers will be needed. To bring the sector to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, as needed to stabilise the climate, new technologies will be required.

Read more: Earth may temporarily pass dangerous 1.5℃ warming limit by 2024, major new report says

– ref. New research: nitrous oxide emissions 300 times more powerful than CO₂ are jeopardising Earth’s future – https://theconversation.com/new-research-nitrous-oxide-emissions-300-times-more-powerful-than-co-are-jeopardising-earths-future-147208

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

Anthony Albanese will highlight the potential of spending on social housing as a job creator in his Thursday night budget reply.

He says if Labor were in government now it would be investing $500 million to fast-track repairs to social housing, and urging state governments to match the funding.

While Albanese is not putting this as a commitment for the election, he promises he will later announce a comprehensive plan a Labor government would undertake for building and repairing social housing.

Albanese and housing spokesman Jason Clare said in a statement this immediate spending would be a win-win approach, fixing homes and creating work.

Some 25% of Australia’s social housing – 100,000 homes – needed urgent maintenance, they said.

“Repairs could start almost immediately, providing work for local plumbers, chippies, sparkies, plasterers and painters as well as companies that manufacture building supplies and materials. This would also provide opportunities for apprentices.”

Albanese frequently reprises his own “back story” of being brought up in public housing as he emphasises its importance. “As someone who grew up in public housing, I know the difference it can make when you’ve got a roof over your head and a comfortable home,” he said.

Economists in a recent survey pointed to social housing as a high priority for what should be in the budget, but it did not feature.

Albanese’s budget reply, expected to contain a number of initiatives, is being keenly watched by colleagues who are frustrated at Labor’s difficulty in cutting through during COVID.

Even the budget, with its big spending, has not left the opposition a great deal of scope for major attacks.

Labor has written to the Tax Commissioner to formally indicate its support for the budget’s bringing forward and backdating to July 1 of tax cuts that were due to start in 2022.

The acceleration requires legislation but Labor’s guarantee of its passage clears the way for the Tax Office to prepare new Pay As You Go tables.

This means the tax cut will flow to workers as soon as later this month. But the backdated part will not be paid to them until the end of the financial year.

It has been pointed out the budget made the tax cuts people will get appear larger than they actually are by benchmarking them against 2017-18, so including some tax relief that has already been received.

The Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, has taken a “wraparound” advertisement in the right-leaning Australian newspaper on Thursday declaring “TAX IS GOOD”. The wraparound will be in the edition that appears in Canberra and parts of NSW.

– ref. We’d be spending $500 million on social housing repairs: Albanese’s alternative budget – https://theconversation.com/wed-be-spending-500-million-on-social-housing-repairs-albaneses-alternative-budget-147685

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ken Murray, Associate Professor in Guitar, Melbourne Conservatorium of Music, University of Melbourne

The legendary guitarist Eddie Van Halen has died aged 65. One of the most influential guitarists of the modern age, Van Halen was known for his mastery of the two-handed tapping technique and for bringing the virtuosic rock guitar solo back into the popular music mainstream in the late 70s and 1980s.

One of the great innovators, Van Halen formed a bridge between 1970s rock styles and heavy metal sounds of the 1980s. He delivered his best work with a nonchalance that belied the training and dedication driving him and his band to succeed.

Born in the Netherlands in 1955, Van Halen came from a musical family. His father played saxophone and clarinet professionally and ensured Van Halen and his older brother, Alex, started piano lessons from a young age.

The boys’ training in classical music and theory would influence Van Halen’s guitar playing, particularly the famous two-handed, finger tapping technique, where harmonic ideas derived from the keyboard found new expression on the electric guitar.

Read more: Redefining the rock god – the new breed of electric guitar heroes

Young tour de force

The family immigrated to the US in 1962 and the young Van Halen brothers later discovered rock music, with Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton as early heroes.

In his first Guitar Player magazine interview in 1978, Van Halen mentioned Clapton as a formative influence, having learnt his solos note for note.

In 1972, while still in high school, the brothers formed the band Mammoth, hiring a public address system from David Lee Roth. Van Halen originally sang as well as playing guitar, but he tired of combining duties so Roth (and his PA) joined the band.

Mammoth caught the attention of Kiss’s Gene Simmons, who financed an early demo tape, and then producer Ted Templeman who signed the group to a record deal. Their first album, Van Halen (1978), was recorded quickly, drawing on their live sound and set list.

It was the album’s second track, Eruption, that captured the attention of guitarists.

This tour de force shows Van Halen had already developed his signature style by his early 20s. Opening power chords signal a call to attention while licks based on blues and rock phrases are transformed through sheer speed and intensity. The tone has a power, presence and clarity rarely heard in rock guitar recordings of the time.

The climax of the piece is the famous two-handed tapping section. With a concluding dive bomb – a pitch descent courtesy of subtle manipulation of the whammy bar, Van Halen ushered in a new era in electric guitar playing.

True innovation

The sounds and techniques used in Eruption seemed to be only possible on the electric guitar, exploiting the instrument’s responsiveness and tactile immediacy.

But Van Halen continued to seek new means of musical expression and on Van Halen II (1979), he gave us an example of what was possible when his virtuosic approach was adapted to the acoustic guitar.

Van Halen was always modifying his guitars. Early experiments led to him creating his “Frankenstein guitar” in 1974, fusing the neck and humbucker pickup from a Gibson guitar onto a Fender Stratocaster body. He added the stripes that became his signature.

He remained involved in designing new instruments throughout his career, collaborating with makers such as Music Man, Charvel and Fender.

‘The brown sound’

Van Halen’s sound was loud and distorted but also clear and focused. Often referred to as the “brown” sound for its feeling of organic warmth, this sound has gone on to inspire generations of guitarists.

The band’s biggest commercial success was the album 1984, where Van Halen turned to keyboards in both writing and recording.

On the single Jump, keyboard chords ground the song but an improvised, high energy electric guitar solo reminds the listener of Van Halen’s virtuosity as he leads the band into a Bach-inspired, keyboard fantasy.

From 1978 to 1998, the band released 11 studio albums, with their 12th and final album, A Different Kind of Truth (2012), appearing 13 years later. But it is the searing lead break on Michael Jackson’s Beat It (1983) that bought Van Halen to global attention.

Jammed into 32 seconds, Van Halen’s solo is a masterpiece of construction, featuring pitch manipulation with the whammy bar, squealing harmonics, rapid-fire two-handed tapping, scurrying scalar licks (or quick scales) and a final ascending tremolo line that soars to the upper reaches of the fretboard and makes you wonder what just happened.

It is one of the most famous rock guitar solos around.

Van Halen was diagnosed with tongue cancer in 2000, and declared cancer free in 2002. In 2019, it was first reported he had been battling throat cancer for five years.

In 2015, Rolling Stone named Van Halen as number eight on a list of the world’s greatest guitarists of all time. But as his career shows, his talent wasn’t simply in his musical virtuosity, but in his innovation: creating a brand new sound for rock music, but also in the design of the guitar itself.

– ref. With his signature guitar style, Eddie Van Halen changed rock music – https://theconversation.com/with-his-signature-guitar-style-eddie-van-halen-changed-rock-music-147652

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

When it comes to action on climate change, Tuesday’s federal budget delivered by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg was a real – though not unexpected – disappointment which favoured polluting technologies over a clean energy future.

It included money to upgrade a coal-fired power station in New South Wales, and confirmed A$50 million previously announced to develop carbon capture and storage. The government will also spend A$52.9 million expanding Australia’s gas industry.

But investment in renewable energy was largely shunned. Notably, the government allocated just A$5 million for electric vehicles. It confirmed funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for another decade, but the money is far less than what’s needed.

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen the Morrison government abandon long-held dogma on debt and deficits. However, the federal budget shows when it comes to climate and energy, the government is singing from the same old songbook.

A techno-fix

The budget doubled down on the Morrison government’s rhetoric of “technology, not taxes”, by choosing preferred technologies for investment.

This “picking winners” approach would have some chance of addressing climate change if it were based on a comprehensive analysis of the best path to zero emissions. But instead, the government has largely made offerings at the altars of technologies worshipped by the conservative side of politics.

The government will spend an as-yet undisclosed sum, possibly A$11 million, to refurbish the Vales Point coal-fired power station. The commitment to this coal infrastructure, co-owned by prominent Liberal party donor Trevor St Baker, is a disgraceful misuse of public money. It will also do little to halt the steady decline of coal-fired power generation.

Read more: ‘The good, the bad and the ugly’: here’s the lowdown on Australia’s low-emissions roadmap

As previously announced, the government will spend A$52.9 million to support the gas industry, which Frydenberg says will lower prices and support more manufacturing jobs. It includes money for gas infrastructure planning and to open up five gas basins, starting with Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory.

The budget confirms A$50 million for carbon capture and storage (CCS) to fund projects to cut emissions from industry. But proving the viability of large-scale CCS projects is extremely difficult, as experience in the United States and Canada has shown. In this context, allocating just A$50 million to get the technology off the ground is simply laughable.

History suggests the spending offers little return on investment. Research by the Australia Institute in 2017 revealed federal governments have spent A$1.3 billion in taxpayers’ money on CCS projects, with very little to show for it.

Renewables snubbed

Meanwhile, last night’s budget largely shunned investment in renewable energy.

The budget confirmed A$1.4 billion in ARENA funding for a further ten years, including a pretty paltry A$223.9 million over the next four years. Separately, the government will also seek to pass legislation to change ARENA’s investment mandate, enabling it to fund gas and carbon capture projects.

The government has allocated a tiny A$5 million towards electric vehicle development, including money towards a manufacturing facility in South Australia. It’s good to see electric vehicles on the government’s radar. But the commitment is dwarfed by investment overseas, including a reported US$300 billion set aside by global car makers over the next decade to bring electric vehicles to mass production.

Read more: Budget 2020 at a glance: the cuts, the spends, and that big deficit in 7 charts

The measly spending on clean energy technology does not make economic sense. The renewable energy sector is standing by to slash emissions and deliver lower energy prices – if only the right policy environment existed.

The budget was also an opportunity for the government to ditch its irrational opposition to carbon pricing. Recent research has comprehensively shown carbon pricing slows growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

Vehement carbon pricing critics, such as conservatives Tony Abbott, Craig Kelly and Barnaby Joyce, are now either discredited or out of parliament altogether. And scores of countries around the world have implemented some form of price on carbon.

A global outlier

Most obviously, the budget was an opportunity to commit to net-zero emissions by 2050, as many developed countries have done.

The Morrison government has already used dodgy accounting tricks to meet Australia’s Paris Agreement commitment – reducing emissions by 26% on 2005 levels. The absence of a net-zero target suggests the government intends to allow emissions to grow indefinitely after 2030.

This approach is out of step with many of Australia’s international peers. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, now the clear favourite to win the US election in November, is campaigning on what has been described as “the most aggressive climate platform” ever put forward by a presidential nominee.

Read more: South Korea’s Green New Deal shows the world what a smart economic recovery looks like

Biden wants the US to produce net-zero emissions by 2050. His US$2 trillion plan includes huge investments in clean energy research and development, and low-emissions infrastructure such as public transport and energy-efficient buildings. He has also promised a border tax levied on imports from countries without a carbon price.

Europe is well on the way to phasing out coal, and forging ahead with new carbon-free technologies to produce steel, cement and ammonia. The European Union has also said any free trade deal with Australia is contingent on our commitment to deep emissions abatement.

And in China, President Xi Jinping recently announced his nation will reach net-zero emissions by 2060.

We have no choice

The budget was a chance to reset Australia’s failed climate policy – an opportunity enhanced by the stimulus spending brought on by COVID-19.

Instead, we got a string of backward-looking gestures including subsidies for coal, another go at the failed technology of carbon capture storage and a continued push for gas.

Sooner or later, Australia will have to join the rest of the world in ending our reliance on carbon-based energy. The catastrophic bushfires of last summer proved this. And if we refuse to move, the rest of the world will force our hand.

– ref. ‘Backwards’ federal budget: Morrison government never fails to disappoint on climate action – https://theconversation.com/backwards-federal-budget-morrison-government-never-fails-to-disappoint-on-climate-action-147659

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Hamilton, Visiting Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

In putting together his unprecedented pandemic budget, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg had two big tasks: to support the economy now, and to kick-start the next boom.

Many commentators seem to be enamoured by the size of the spend. But once you dig into the details, it’s a mixed bag.

The 2020 budget certainly delivers on boosting business investment and hiring, and the tax cuts will help lift employment and activity.

But overall it’s a bit light on direct stimulus – spending to support those who have lost their incomes and boost consumer demand. It doesn’t do enough for the economy now, when a boost is needed most. And it lacks a coherent reform narrative around driving the economy out of this crisis better than it went in.

Read more: Budget 2020 at a glance: the cuts, the spends, and that big deficit in 7 charts

Employment and business incentives

Let’s start with the good.

Bringing forward scheduled income tax cuts and increasing the tax offset for low-income earners is good news, despite misgivings among some economists.

They will provide some stimulus via increased spending over the next two years. They will also make it cheaper for businesses to take on workers, and more worthwhile for workers to take on more hours. Research backs this up.

Read more: The budget’s tax cuts have their critics, but this year they make fiscal sense

Encouraging business investment is another good priority. There is strong evidence from schemes in the US that the A$27 billion allocated to enable businesses to deduct the full cost of new assets installed up to June 2022 will boost investment, driving jobs and higher wages over the next few years. Other business incentives, around hiring and R&D, are also welcome.

The budget also contains many worthy smaller measures. For example, it is great to see the government commit an extra A$101 million to double the number of Medicare-subsidised therapy sessions from 10 to 20 per year. Hopefully there will be more support to come for mental health and suicide prevention as the government delivers reviews into these areas.

Investment sleight of hand

Now on to the not-so-good.

First, the A$27 billion for instant asset write-offs is a bit of a sleight of hand. The measure allows businesses to write off investments up front instead of depreciating them over time. So businesses will pay less tax now but more later.

This is why the budget shows a reduction in tax receipts over the first three years, but an increase in year four. Expenses are brought forward to year one even for investments they were going to undertake anyway. The economic benefit – which is real, to be clear – is purely in businesses not having to wait for those tax benefits.

And it is not an investment allowance, as some have called it, which would provide a subsidy on top of allowing a business to expense the assets up front. Research suggests a true investment allowance such as the GFC Investment Tax Break given to Australian business during the Global Financial Crisis, would have boosted investment even more.

This budget just isn’t very stimulating

Now on to the not good at all.

Though the tax cuts provide some stimulus to the economy, it will not be as much as direct cash payments. And you only receive the tax cuts – more than A$2,000 a year for many taxpayers – if you work.

The government’s main instruments for direct stimulus – the JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments – are already being wound back (with JobKeeper ending in March 2021), which will pull a massive amount of demand out of the economy.

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

US research on the effect of the US government’s US$2.2 trillion stimulus package shows government payments to households significantly boosted spending in a matter of weeks, with 25 to 40 cents in every dollar of stimulus being spent.

But this budget offers little in the way of direct cash payments. The government has committed to two modest $250 payments to certain welfare recipients, but the second won’t arrive for another five months.

The direct stimulus that is on offer will provide some support, but not nearly the volume required.

Green waste

By far the budget’s biggest snub is the almost complete absence of green stimulus – specifically, investment in carbon-reduction efforts. This spending is all the more critical in the absence of an economy-wide carbon price.

Green stimulus offers the prospect of a triple economic dividend: it generates activity and jobs today, it prevents an impending environmental calamity, and it creates the industries and jobs of the future.

Other countries are seizing COVID-19 as an opportunity to make inroads towards their emissions-reduction targets. France, for example, has devoted a third of its stimulus to green measures.

Read more: Creative destruction: the COVID-19 economic crisis is accelerating the demise of fossil fuels

Using the most generous possible definition, only about 1% of new Australian government spending over the next four years will go to environmental initiatives. This is a tremendous missed opportunity.

So, overall, the budget is a mixed bag. There are some welcome stimulus measures, but some critical ones missing. The government has a lot more work to do to kick start a new golden era of economic growth.

Let’s hope the Treasurer delivers on that in his next budget, due in just seven months.

– ref. It’s not the size of the budget deficit that counts; it’s how you use it – https://theconversation.com/its-not-the-size-of-the-budget-deficit-that-counts-its-how-you-use-it-147603

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

In many ways, a vice president’s most important constitutional duty is simply to stay alive. Beyond breaking ties in the US Senate, the vice president essentially has no real constitutional duties beyond replacing a deceased or incapacitated president.

Such matters of life or death could not weigh heavier in the upcoming presidential election, which features the oldest candidates of all time — President Donald Trump is 74 and his opponent, Joe Biden, is 77.

And Trump, as we all know, was hospitalised in recent days after contracting COVID-19 — and, according to his doctor, is still not “out of the woods” when it comes to making a full recovery.

With the health of Trump (and Biden, who has so far tested negative for COVID) at the forefront, it’s even more vital for Americans and the world to learn more about Vice President Mike Pence and his fellow vice presidential candidate, Senator Kamala Harris, as they meet in their only debate this week (Thursday AEST).

How vice presidents differ from their presidents

A vice president becoming president outside of an election is by no means a remote possibility. It has happened nine times in US history and includes some of America’s most well-known presidents – Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman and Theodore Roosevelt.

One of the chief reasons these former vice presidents are so well-known is that, on taking office, they diverged in key areas from the presidents they served under, from Johnson’s doubling down on the US presence in Vietnam to Truman’s more confrontational approach to the Soviet Union.

In the case of Andrew Johnson, who became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865, the divergence was essentially a reversal: the Southern-born Johnson largely sought to obstruct Reconstruction efforts following the end of the Civil War.

Read more: Who is Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s pick for vice president?

Most vice presidents, however, serve their presidents faithfully until it’s their turn to run for the higher office. In modern times, they are often given considerable responsibilities, too.

Dick Cheney came to the office with much more experience in Washington than his running mate, George W. Bush, and assumed more duties than most — if not all — vice presidents in modern history, particularly with the administration’s “War on Terror” after the September 11 attacks.

Biden, who also came into office with more Washington experience than his running mate, Barack Obama, was entrusted with specific responsibilities, such as overseeing the US troop withdrawal from Iraq and securing votes in Congress for key legislation like the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Why the vice president debate matters

This week’s debate will be a rare opportunity for Pence and Harris to show the nation who they are without Trump and Biden in the room — and, potentially, how they differ from their running mates.

Harris is already familiar to some Democrats, having participated in nearly half a dozen debates as a presidential candidate herself last year in the lead-up to the Democratic primaries.

Many will be watching to see just how much daylight she allows between herself and Biden. Though Harris and Biden are allies now, she fiercely criticised him in the Democratic debates for his close relationships with pro-segregationist US senators and his stance on the bussing of Black students to white schools in the 1970s.

Pence, meanwhile, will likely stick closely to the Trump campaign script, despite the fact he has diverged with Trump on many issues in the past.

Before the two were running mates in 2016, for example, Pence called Trump’s pledge to ban Muslim immigration to America “offensive and unconstitutional”. And while Trump railed against illegal immigration, Pence endorsed pathways to citizenship for undocumented migrants.

These days, however, Pence is very much a Trump loyalist and fully supportive of the administration’s agenda – even when talking off the record with journalists. He will no doubt offer a full-throated defence to any attacks Harris makes against the president or their administration’s policies in the debate.

Pence offers a predictable counterpart to Trump

Pence’s role in the Trump administration has less to do with a specific portfolio and is more tied to his personality.

An evangelical Christian and former governor of Indiana, Pence is conventional, predictable and methodical – a helpful counterweight to Trump’s unconventional, unpredictable and instinctual manner.

Read more: The first US presidential debate was pure chaos. Here’s what our experts thought

The public spat in the White House between the president and Democratic lawmakers in 2018 perhaps most clearly illustrated the differences between Pence and Trump. While Trump and the Democrats tried to score points against one another, Pence sat silent and almost motionless, giving the president the limelight.

But Pence’s differences with Trump go beyond just demeanour.

While Trump has had a troubled history with women that includes at least 18 allegations of sexual misconduct, Pence refuses to meet alone with women other than his wife of 35 years.

And while Trump has mastered the art of insulting political opponents, Pence pledged not to engage in negative campaigning after an election loss in 1990.

Pence is clearly a politician from an earlier era, but it works for the Trump administration.

He has been deployed when the administration has needed careful and deliberate nuance on everything from clarifying its policy toward China to reassuring concerned allies after Trump’s surprise election win.

Looking ahead to 2024

Pence and Harris will likely be significantly more disciplined and restrained in this week’s debate than Trump and Biden were in theirs — a spectacle that featured countless interruptions and personal attacks.

Neither Pence nor Harris will likely diverge too far from their running mates on key issues, either, regardless of their personal views.

It’s not hard to understand why they would be so supportive of candidates they have explicitly criticised in the past — both are likely favourites to be their respective party’s nominees for president in 2024. This week’s debate offers a short preview of what might be to come.

Read more: The US presidential election might be closer than the polls suggest (if we can trust them this time)

– ref. Why the US vice presidential debate matters more now than ever before – https://theconversation.com/why-the-us-vice-presidential-debate-matters-more-now-than-ever-before-147449

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Wille, Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award Fellow, University of Sydney

As we navigate a global human pandemic, avian influenza (or “bird flu”) has been detected in domestic poultry across Victoria.

When scientists discuss avian influenza, we’re usually referring to the diverse subtypes of influenza that primarily infect birds. Avian influenza viruses are commonly found in healthy wild birds and can also cause illness and death among domestic poultry including chickens, turkeys and ducks.

Humans can contract it if they come into close contact with infected birds (not from eating cooked chicken or eggs). But these viruses don’t easily infect us and their health risk is considered low.

Between 2003-2019, there have been about 2,500 human cases of avian influenza globally (mainly caused by the influenza subtypes H7N9 and H5N1).

There’s also no evidence of people becoming infected as a result of the current outbreaks in Victoria. Nonetheless, avian influenza viruses can mutate, so we must carefully monitor and deal with them as they arise.

Read more: Bird flu: learning lessons from traditional human-animal relations

How we classify avian influenza

These viruses are classified in two ways. The first is based on the HA-NA subtype system. On the surface of the virus are two proteins: haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA). Of these, there are 16 and 9 types respectively.

So when we talk about the subtype H5N1, for example, we’re referring to type 5 of the HA and type 1 of the NA. Due to their mix-and-match nature, there are 144 potential HA-NA subtype combinations. The vast majority of these never cause disease in birds.

Avian influenza viruses are also classified by how “pathogenic” they are, which refers to their ability to cause disease in domestic poultry. Low pathogenic viruses are common in wild birds and may cause limited disease in poultry, but highly pathogenic viruses cause high mortality in poultry.

Occasionally, when an H5 or H7 low pathogenic avian influenza virus crosses from wild birds to poultry, changes in the virus genome can occur, transforming it into a highly pathogenic virus.

Avian influenza outbreaks in Victoria

In Victoria, there have been three outbreaks of avian influenza since July this year: two low pathogenic avian influenza viruses, H5N2 and H7N6, in domestic turkeys and emus, respectively, as well as a high pathogenic H7N7 virus in chickens.

The simultaneous detection of different virus subtypes in chickens, emus and turkeys is unusual. In the past, outbreaks in domestic birds have mostly been caused by a single subtype. This highlights the importance of stringent biosecurity practices, to prevent the introduction of avian influenza into farmed poultry.

Victoria’s current outbreaks are causing substantial economic loss and are considered emergency animal diseases. They have resulted in:

• the deaths of about 450,000 domestic birds across six farms, of which the vast majority are egg-laying chickens
• a potential loss of export markets for poultry products
• significant response costs and loss of income for affected producers, requiring permits to move eggs, equipment and birds from affected areas.

The good news is Australia has successfully eradicated high pathogenic avian influenza viruses in the past. We will almost certainly eradicate these too.

Agriculture Victoria, the lead agency for emergency animal diseases in the state, is responding to the outbreaks in a number of ways.

Firstly, a housing order requires all bird owners in the affected areas to keep their birds inside. This measure, along with other movement controls, helps limit spread to other farms.

Second, infected birds on the farms are destroyed, with the farms thoroughly decontaminated. These procedures are key to preventing the continued spread of avian influenza.

How we’re tracking the spread of the viruses

Outbreaks of avian influenza in Australian poultry are infrequent. The last outbreak of high pathogenic avian influenza in Victoria’s poultry (before this year) was in 1992. Low pathogenic avian influenza, however, is detected in our wild birds regularly.

Past testing has found different groups of wild birds can have infection rates ranging between 0.1-40%. The variation depends on which species make up the group, the group’s predominant location and also what season it is. The most common virus subtypes found in wild birds are H1, H3 and H6.

Data used to understand and monitor avian influenza in the wild is generated by the National Avian Influenza Wild Bird Surveillance program, which screens samples directly from captured birds, or indirectly through their faeces.

Not an ‘imported’ virus

Unlike contact tracing with people, birds can’t tell you who they have been socialising with. That’s why genomic sequencing is crucial in tracking, tracing and monitoring avian influenza viruses.

Each virus has a unique genomic sequence, like a genetic fingerprint. Using genetic analysis, the different genomes can be compared. This offers insight into how closely related certain viruses are and how wild birds may be spreading them across the country.

This method helped us to discover Victoria currently has three distinct outbreaks – and to connect the farms within each outbreak.

Also, a critical component of our response is the collection of virus genomes already available to us from past surveillance efforts. These data have revealed the viruses currently in Victoria are not imported from Asia, or elsewhere.

Rather, they’re similar to low pathogenic avian influenza viruses currently circulating in wild Australian waterbirds, as well as viruses that have caused past outbreaks in poultry.

Read more: Avian influenza – why it’s not going away

We would like to acknowledge Agriculture Victoria, AgriBio, the Centre for AgriBioscience (a joint initiative between Agriculture Victoria and La Trobe University), the CSIRO Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness and the WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza in collaboration with Deakin University, for their ongoing avian influenza surveillance under the National Avian Influenza Wild Bird Surveillance program.

– ref. Nearly half a million poultry deaths: there are 3 avian influenza outbreaks in Victoria. Should we be worried? – https://theconversation.com/nearly-half-a-million-poultry-deaths-there-are-3-avian-influenza-outbreaks-in-victoria-should-we-be-worried-145325

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Griffith University

If a week is a long time in politics, a year’s an eon. The 2019-20 budget announced a regal return to surplus, with a “fundamentally sound” Australian economy at 2.75% growth and unemployment under 5%. Low interest rates and continuing flat wages left the Coalition free to pursue its beloved trifecta of smaller government, reduced public expenditure and deregulation.

The pandemic has knocked these goals out of the ballpark. It’s not just the numbers that have changed, it’s the narrative. At the time of the GFC, the Coalition castigated deficit budgeting as the acme of financial imprudence. Now they are proposing a 2020-21 deficit of A$213 billion. How to square that?

You can’t. All you can do is blow and bluster and hope no one notices you are saying the opposite of what you once proclaimed.

The business of Australia is business, it seems, rather than Australia more broadly. Which is perhaps why anyone listening to the ABC’s PM Budget Special would not have heard the words “arts and culture” mentioned once.

For the cultural sector, this is a budget with no big surprises. Such feelings as exist around already announced measures will continue. In the budget papers they are laid out as a job lot.

The broad view

Budget Paper No. 1 provides the broad view for “the recreation and culture function”. (Treasury have their usual poetic way with words). Broadcasting funding for 2020-21 is $1,497 million (up from the 2019-20 estimate of $1,482 million) while the “arts and cultural heritage subfunction” gets $1,647 million (up from the 2019-20 estimate of $1,379 millon).

Read more: Remember the arts? Departments and budgets disappear as politics backs culture into a dead end

Amazingly, given its visibility over the COVID period, ABC operational funding continues to decline in real terms (-0.7% in 2020-21, then -3.7% by 2023-24). This “indexation pause” is partially offset by “additional program measures” (though there is some inconsistency here, as the Portfolio Budget Statement tells a more positive story.)

Arts and cultural heritage increases by 13.9% in 2020-21 then decreases by -8.9% by 2023-24 (this includes the Location Incentive Program, without which the decrease would be larger).

Total expenditure on recreation and culture thus resembles a plane landing at an oblique angle: from $4,364 million this year, to $4,000 million in 2021-22, to $3,836 million in 2022-23, to $3,900 million in 2023-24.

There’s also $90 million of loan guarantees issued under the Arts and Entertainment Guarantee Scheme, to help cultural businesses facing immediate cash flow problems.

The detail

There is $22.9 million in COVID-19 response packages for a range of institutions from the National Portrait Gallery ($1.2 million) to the National Library of Australia ($5.4 million).

From 2019-20 to 2020-21, estimated funding falls to the National Gallery of Australia by $10 million and the National Museum by $23 million. It increases to the National Library by $9 million and holds steady-ish for Screen Australia, the National Film and Sound Archive and the National Portrait Gallery. The ABC gets $43.7 million for enhanced news services and SBS $7.6 million for enhanced language services.

The Media Reform Package includes $30 million to Screen Australia, $20.2 million to the Children’s Television Foundation and $3 million to the Screen Writing and Script Development Fund — a total of $53.2 million.

Read more: Cheese ‘n’ crackers! Concerns deepen for the future of Australian children’s television

By contrast, the government is giving “$400M over seven years to extend the Location Incentive Program to attract international investment in the screen industry and provide local employment and training opportunities”.

My colleague Jo Caust has written on the paradox of this. Two comments can be made about it here. First, any Australian government should think very carefully before using taxpayer’s money to subsidise another nation’s culture.

Read more: $400 million in government funding for Hollywood, but only scraps for Australian film

Second, if it is, for non-cultural reasons, determined to do so, it must ensure the incentives for Australian filmmakers are at least commensurate. Otherwise, it is offering up the workforce of its highly trained industry as drone labour.

The centrepiece of this part of the budget are the Restart Investment to Sustain and Expand Fund of $75 million, and the Arts Sustainability Fund of $35 million for “Commonwealth-funded arts and culture organisations facing threats to their viability” due to the pandemic (hint, it’ll be most of them).

Together with the Temporary Interruption Fund of $50 million for COVID-affected screen productions, new support for Regional Arts Australia of $10 million, for Indigenous Visual Arts of $7 million, and crisis counselling for cultural workers of $10 million (they need it), these are useful expressions of support — albeit ones that have been slow to arrive — for a sector that’s experienced the economic equivalent of having its head blown off with a bazooka.

Read more: Too little, too late, too confusing? The funding criteria for the arts COVID package is a mess

Is it enough?

Not really. It’s welcome, but the amount going to arts and culture is a pimple to a pumpkin compared to what’s going into the economy as a whole. There are interesting touches – a Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, for example ($16 million). And it’s a relief to see the Australia Council’s allocation bump up by $1 million. But based on these numbers alone, you wouldn’t think anything bad had happened to Australian culture at all.

The issue of an effective balance of support between the major and smaller organisations remains outstanding. This will present the government’s new Cultural Economy Taskforce with a headache almost as throbbing as the one the Treasurer will nurse into the new year.

Then there is the question of how to ensure the money goes to the right people for the right (economy restarting) reasons? This is a budget weighted towards the private sector, based on the expectation tax cuts and asset write-offs will be reinvested and not used to retire debt or, worse, plopped on the short-term money market.

Cultural workers often complain the government is deaf to their needs. It’s not entirely true. But they are part of the public sector. As such, they are a target for governments wanting to use fiscal instruments in a controlled way, dialling down the narrative of leadership and entrepreneurship, dialling up the one on nation building and public works.

Like the care economy, arts and culture are an opportunity missed in the 2020-21 budget. What’s there is helpful. What isn’t remains significant. PM’s Melissa Clarke described the Coalition as adopting a “tried and tested policy approach to economic recovery”.

But in the face of catastrophic disaster, nothing is tried and tested. The truth is Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is taking a risk. Arts and culture are not part of his bet, not this time at any rate.

– ref. Like the care economy, arts and culture are an opportunity missed in the 2020-21 budget – https://theconversation.com/like-the-care-economy-arts-and-culture-are-an-opportunity-missed-in-the-2020-21-budget-147558

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

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety last week released a special report looking at the sector’s response to COVID-19.

Finding the federal government did not adequately prepare residential aged care to deal with a pandemic, the commission made several recommendations designed to safeguard residents moving forward.

One was that the federal government should arrange with states and territories to deploy “accredited infection prevention and control experts” into aged-care facilities to better prepare for, and assist with, management of outbreaks.

But who are these accredited infection prevention and control experts, and what will they actually do?

First, why do aged-care facilites need this?

Infection prevention and control is well established in hospitals and acute care facilities. In Australian hospitals, there’s an average of one full-time infection prevention nurse for every 152 beds. Hospitals typically have an infection control committee, which is ultimately accountable to the hospital board.

By definition, aged-care facilities are not considered to be health-care facilities. Rather, they are social-care settings designed to mimic a home environment as much as possible.

While this is important for residents, this difference can present a range of challenges from an infection control perspective. Unlike hospitals, aged-care facilities typically have various communal areas for socialising, dining and activities, where groups can gather and come into close contact.

Recent research found while Australian hospitals are guided by different national and state-based standards and guidelines, aged-care facilities generally manage infection control arrangements themselves.

Only 23% of Australian aged-care facilities surveyed had a dedicated infection control committee. More than half reported a lack of staff with specialised qualifications and experience in infection prevention and control.

Read more: Federal government did not prepare aged care sector adequately for COVID: royal commission

Enter infection prevention and control experts

The royal commission report noted high-level infection control expertise was needed:

• to assist with the preparation and implementation of outbreak management plans

• to provide training to staff on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection prevention and control

• to provide assistance on day one of an outbreak.

Besides the accredited infection prevention and control experts, the commission recommended all aged-care facilities should have one or more trained infection control officers as a condition of accreditation.

This could be a registered nurse who has specific training in infection prevention and control. Importantly, they should have access to expert resources and be capable of implementing infection prevention programs.

Employers would be required to support these nurses to take the infection prevention “champion” role, and under the close supervision and guidance of the accredited experts, they could prepare plans for outbreaks like COVID-19.

These plans would include ongoing education around the use of PPE, procedures regarding how to manage residents who become infected, and trigger points for escalating responses.

The COVID-19 crisis in residential aged-care facilities, particularly in Victoria, has shown us how important it will be to have strong and experienced leaders overseeing these plans, and the management of any ongoing and future outbreaks.

Read more: Poor ventilation may be adding to nursing homes’ COVID-19 risks

So how are the experts accredited?

The Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control (ACIPC) is the peak body for infection prevention and control in the Australasian region. It provides “credentialing” for professionals who want to become accredited infection prevention and control experts.

There are three levels of credentialing: primary, advanced and expert. Qualifications and experience determine the level a person attains, but the system is designed so those commencing at the “primary” level can progress to “expert”.

A panel of existing accredited infection prevention and control experts reviews all applications.

They evaluate whether the applicant meets several criteria across five domains: relevant vocation, prerequisites, knowledge, attitude and practice. Criteria include professional qualifications, awards, experience, continuing education, professional activities, and research.

Once credentialed, each member must apply for their accreditation again every three years.

Right now, there aren’t enough

The relationship between certification status of health professionals and the quality of patient care they provide is clear.

In particular, hospitals with infection control programs led by certified or credentialed infection control practitioners have fewer health care-associated infections when compared to those led by non-certified infection control practitioners.

Read more: Older Australians deserve more than the aged care royal commission’s COVID-19 report delivers

According to the ACIPC database, there are currently around 62 accredited infection prevention and control experts in Australia, of whom 42 are at expert level. All are nurses.

The royal commission acknowledged this small number as a limitation. It reflects the fact employers so far haven’t generally required their staff to attain this accreditation — so there’s been little incentive.

But COVID-19 has necessarily changed this. In the short term, facilities must establish a relationship with a local accredited infection prevention and control expert who can support their staff.

Looking forward, employers and providers should be incentivised to support staff to seek higher infection prevention training, and ultimately undergo credentialing.

– ref. Aged-care facilities need accredited infection control experts. Who are they, and what will they do? – https://theconversation.com/aged-care-facilities-need-accredited-infection-control-experts-who-are-they-and-what-will-they-do-147460

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Wood, Chief executive officer, Grattan Institute

The Morrison government seems to think economic stimulus is all about high-viz vests and hard hats. It’s a narrow and dated view of the world of work.

Tuesday night’s budget included several broad measures to support business and jobs, such as its tax write-off for business investments and wage subsidy for employing young people.

These look like sensible measures, albeit ones that bet heavily on business to lead the recovery.

But when it comes to targeted policies for job creation, the 2020 budget is a sea of hard hats.

The three sectors with the most targeted support are all bloke-heavy: construction (more than A$10 billion so far through the crisis), energy (A$4 billion), and manufacturing (A$3 billion). There is also an extra A$10 billion for transport projects, another boost to construction jobs in the building phase.

The problem? That doesn’t fit the story of this crisis. Unlike past recessions, the worst fallout in the COVID-19 recession has been in services sectors.

Read more: Budget 2020 at a glance: the cuts, the spends, and that big deficit in 7 charts

Hospitality, the arts and administrative services have all been hit hard. These sectors are dominated by women, which is one reason women’s employment has taken a bigger hit this year.

Yet these sectors received next to nothing in the budget. They are also less likely to benefit from economy-wide supports such as instant asset write-offs because they are the least capital-intensive sectors.

There are many ways the federal government could have helped these sectors.

Overseas governments, and some state and local governments, have funded vouchers and discounts to encourage people back to restaurants, cafes and regional tourist destinations.

Grants or direct support to help the arts sector revive could provide a desperately needed boost to our creative recovery.

The government could have created many more jobs by directly investing in government services. Services create more jobs than infrastructure per dollar spent, and they have especially high economic multipliers right now.

The budget initiatives in education, aged care and mental health are welcome, but very small in the scheme of new spending.

Major investments in aged care and education would be a jobs boon and could have provided a more rounded vision for the recovery.

A missed opportunity for women

This week, just before the budget, the federal Minister for Women, Marise Payne, issued a statement saying:

This government recognises that women have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and it is critical that we focus on rebuilding their economic security as a priority.

Yet the government has left the biggest opportunity on the table. Making child care more affordable is the most effective way to reduce the gender gap in working life and retirement – directly supporting jobs and the economic recovery.

Read more: Permanently raising the Child Care Subsidy is an economic opportunity too good to miss

The Grattan Institute has recommended a A$5-billion-a-year package that would make child care significantly cheaper and improve the workforce participation incentives for primary carers (still mainly women).

Instead, women seem to have been relegated in this budget to an afterthought in the form of a A$240 million “support package”, which offers no meaningful economic support.

Poorly targeted stimulus

All of these omissions are even more glaring given the spending on other areas and groups with far less need for support.

Sizeable measures are targeted towards energy, agriculture and defence. Yet all of these sectors have increased their total work hours since March.

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

Another A$3 billion is slated for manufacturing. While that sector has shed jobs during the crisis, it should bounce back more quickly than “social consumption” businesses such as hospitality, retail and personal services.

Construction spending is needed, because a future crunch in the sector is expected as housing construction slows.

But the focus on major transport infrastructure for job creation does not make so much sense. These projects are less jobs-intensive.

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

Also, states such as Victoria already have a big pipeline of large projects, so have little capacity to deliver more.

The A$3 billion for shovel-ready projects focusing on road safety and local roads are better targeted to create jobs. But it has missed the opportunity to deliver a major social housing spend, providing something desperately needed that would also help mitigate the downturn in housing construction.

To achieve its stated objective of getting unemployment well below 6% as quickly as possible, the government should be focusing on stimulating sectors where activity has fallen the most – especially services sectors.

But this budget overlooks the hard hit in favour of the hard hat. The government should check this blind spot quickly. A broad-based recovery depends on it.

– ref. High-viz, narrow vision: the budget overlooks the hardest hit in favour of the hardest hats – https://theconversation.com/high-viz-narrow-vision-the-budget-overlooks-the-hardest-hit-in-favour-of-the-hardest-hats-147601

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Director, Health Program, Grattan Institute

The pandemic – and developments in health care – have forced the Commonwealth government to commit to a massive increase in spending on health care this year.

In the 2019-20 budget, the Commonwealth promised an increase of A$540 million in health spending in 2020-21. In this year’s version, delivered by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg last night, the promise is an order of magnitude greater: an uplift of $5.347 billion since the last economic statement.

During 2020-21 and 2021-22, likely to be the biggest years for the COVID-19 response, the Commonwealth is promising almost $10 billion of extra spending. Never before has the federal government opened the health purse strings to this extent.

Although there are 35 items in the health budget measures table – all detailed in a 163-page “Stakeholder Pack” – just five of them account for 94% of the increase in spending.

1. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)

The government has committed to listing on the PBS all new drugs recommended as cost-effective. Even though each new drug must meet a cost-effectiveness threshold, the PBS spend is the biggest item in the health budget: $4.3 billion over the next two years, and more in the years beyond.

Although drug listings have been politicised recently, they are in fact technocratic decisions based on clinical, epidemiological and economic analysis.

The difference this year is the government is committing funds in advance for new listings, with a “PBS New Medicines Funding Guarantee”. In essence, this means Treasury has given up trying to extract savings from the health portfolio to offset the cost of new drugs. The cost of this new guarantee may be partly reduced by a price drop for medications approaching the end of their patent, with an increased price cut after 15 years.

Read more: How to slash half a billion dollars a year from Australia’s drugs bill

2. COVID-19 vaccines

No one knows if or when a COVID-19 vaccine will be proven to work, which one of the hundreds of candidate vaccines it will be, when it can be manufactured at scale, or how it will be distributed across the world. The government seems to be banking on mid-2021 for a vaccine, with population vaccination programs to follow shortly after that.

However, the government has also made contingency plans, allocating almost $2 billion over the next two years for licensing, production and distribution of a successful vaccine. There is no allocation for 2022-23 and beyond, so the government is either hoping the coronavirus will pack its bags and go, or waiting to see whether future budget allocations will be necessary.

Read more: The budget assumes a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available next year. Is this feasible?

3. Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS)

The pandemic brought forward implementation of new ideas into the MBS — most notably telehealth. The government has allocated $1 billion for extending some MBS items in 2020-21.

The optimistic interpretation is that the government is already planning to extend this extra MBS funding 2020-21, and is spacing out the announcements to maximise positive publicity. The stark reality, though, is there is no budget provision for these needed items beyond this financial year.

Read more: How the old-fashioned telephone could become a new way for some to see their doctor

4 and 5. Aged care

The budget has two large aged care items: a one-off COVID response of $733 million, and a longer-term aged-care reform package worth more than $1 billion over the next two years, which will fund additional “home care packages”, assistance to older Australians to help them stay at home rather than be admitted to residential aged care. The assistance might include nursing care, allied health, personal care or help with house cleaning.

Although 23,000 more packages are funded in the budget, that is woefully inadequate. About 75,000 older Australians are waiting for a home care package, and a further 25,000 are waiting for a higher-level package which they have been independently assessed as needing. The home care budget allocation is welcome, but doesn’t meet the enormous need.

The government has kicked into the long grass the challenge of addressing the litany of failures in residential aged care identified by the Royal Commission on Aged Care Quality and Safety. Any such decisions are deferred until the royal commission reports its findings next year – meanwhile condemning thousands of older Australians to live in facilities with demonstrably substandard staffing.

Read more: Federal government did not prepare aged care sector adequately for COVID: royal commission

Hospitals

Outside the health portfolio, the government has allocated an extra $1.1 billion to the states as part of the 50-50 cost-sharing deal for the COVID-19 response. This pays for additional ventilators, “fever clinics” and other costs associated with meeting needs during and after the pandemic.

Read more: ‘Fever clinics’ are opening in Australia for people who think they’re infected with the coronavirus. Why?

The rest: ‘rats and mice’

There are 30 other items in the health budget measures table — many worthy, many important, too many simply the result of special pleading and successful lobbying. Each will be very welcome to the recipients. Some will yield measurable benefits and improvements in health care; and some will not.

The 2020-21 budget rightly includes a huge increase in spending responding to the pandemic. But even in these COVID-19 times, it should have also signalled the government’s commitment to fix the aged care mess with a down payment towards residential care reform, and given GPs — and their patients — more certainty about the future of telehealth.

– ref. Budget 2020: big health problems lead to big health spending – https://theconversation.com/budget-2020-big-health-problems-lead-to-big-health-spending-147580

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sheena G. Sullivan, Epidemiologist, WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza

When we get a test result for a disease like COVID-19, we naturally expect it to be either positive or negative. But the results of these tests are not so black and white.

Polymerase chain reaction, or “PCR”, is the most common test to detect the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Recently, a “weak positive” case of COVID-19 was reported in the Northern Territory.

Let’s take a look at why someone might get a weak positive result.

Shouldn’t you just be ‘positive’ or ‘negative’?

PCR tests are used to detect a range of viruses and pathogens. They look for viral genetic material in a respiratory sample, such as a nose or throat swab or a saliva sample.

We identify a sample to be positive or negative based on the number of times we need to amplify the small segments of genetic material to detect the virus — and whether this number falls below or above a certain threshold.

When there’s a lot of virus present, we only need a few cycles of amplification to detect it. When there isn’t much virus, or there’s none, we need to amplify the sample several more times until finally we cross the threshold and deem the sample negative.

Read more: The new 15-minute test has potential, but standard tests are still the best way to track COVID-19

So in this process we can see the potential for a weak positive result. It would generally be a reading at or just above the threshold. And that threshold varies depending on the test used.

Importantly, thresholds are just the point at which we believe we’ve detected something. They’re not 100% precise. Sometimes results just above or below the threshold might be false negatives or false positives.

When might you have a weak positive result?

In most cases, the genetic material of a virus is only detectable when we’re infected and the virus is still replicating and shedding into our respiratory passages.

But sometimes, even when the virus is no longer alive and replicating, it can hang around and be detectable by PCR. In these cases, it’s unclear whether the virus is infectious.

In the case of the NT man, he had earlier tested positive for COVID-19 in Victoria and recovered. Although he recorded a negative test before travelling to the NT, it’s likely he was still just shedding small amounts of the virus.

This may be more common among people with weaker immune systems, as it takes them longer to clear the virus from their system.

How do we handle weak positives?

A weak positive is treated as a “presumptive positive” result — we presume it to be positive, and generally classify it as such, until we have information to suggest otherwise.

National testing guidelines for COVID-19 recommend weak positive results be checked by testing the same sample again. They also recommend collecting another sample.

In some cases, retesting the original sample may give more confidence of an infection with SARS-CoV-2. But collecting and testing another sample can offer further confirmation.

The subsequent test might target a different region of the virus’ genetic material, or use a different type of test. Alternatively, the sample could be referred to a reference laboratory to verify the result using specialised tests.

Read more: Goodbye, brain scrapers. COVID-19 tests now use gentler nose swabs

We don’t know of any publicly available data which indicate how common weak positive results are. But we don’t think they’re unusual.

It’s one of the reasons the publicly reported case numbers for COVID-19 are sometimes revised downwards, as weak positives are later confirmed to be negative after retesting.

It’s also not unique to COVID-19 or PCR — many different tests, for a variety of diseases, can produce weak positives.

But the phenomenon has a unique impact when the infection is part of a pandemic.

The danger of assumption

During a pandemic, there are implications not just for the person being tested, but for their contacts, their workplace, and the whole population.

Incorrectly assuming a weak positive result isn’t COVID-19 could lead to a person continuing to transmit the disease to others. It could also prevent them receiving the proper monitoring and, if necessary, treatment.

Conversely, assuming a weak positive result is COVID-19 when it’s actually negative could lead to the person being unnecessarily quarantined, which has potential personal, psychological and financial effects.

In the case in the NT, classifying this indeterminate result as a positive case would have meant the first COVID-19 infection in two months in that state.

While the man was isolated, NT authorities didn’t count him as a case based on advice from the health department that the result was likely due to residual virus from his previous infection. They said he didn’t have any symptoms and it was highly unlikely he was infectious.

When the elimination of community transmission is being used as a criteria for border closures, individual cases can have significant flow-on effects to the whole population.

For these reasons, it’s important to appreciate the complexities of COVID-19 testing. It’s not always as simple as “positive” or “negative”.

Read more: Worried you might test positive and put a spanner in Victoria’s COVID roadmap? Here’s why you should get tested anyway

– ref. Why do some COVID-19 tests come back with a ‘weak positive’, and why does it matter? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-some-covid-19-tests-come-back-with-a-weak-positive-and-why-does-it-matter-147258

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma Sharp, NHMRC Early Career Senior Research Fellow, Monash University

Cosmetic genital procedures are becoming increasingly popular in women. The most common is labiaplasty, which involves the surgical reduction of the inner lips of the vulva — the labia minora.

Most women who undergo labiaplasty in Australia do so through the private sector, which does not require reporting of statistics. But in the United States procedure numbers have increased 30% in the past five years alone.

Of the labiaplasty procedures performed in 2018 in the United States, 4% were on girls aged under 18. At this age, genital development is not yet complete and there is significant risk of harm such as scarring, loss of sensation and painful sexual intercourse.

We showed teenage girls an educational video on genital self-image. After the video, girls felt better about their genital appearance and could more accurately name anatomical structures than before.

Genital concerns start early

To have a chance of making a positive impact on how adult women feel about their genital appearance, we have to reach them as adolescents.

Like appearance concerns focused on other parts of the body, our research suggests genital appearance concerns in girls start at a young age, particularly around 13. Most women undergo cosmetic genital surgeries in their 20s and 30s as they have the finances to do so by this age, but they have often struggled with their concerns for a number of years.

During puberty, the labia minora become more prominent after having been more hidden behind the labia majora (the outer genital lips) in childhood. One side of the labia minora may grow faster than the other, producing an “uneven” appearance.

Read more: Women don’t always get what they want from labiaplasty

Labia minora are typically airbrushed out of sexualised media images so girls may think their protruding or uneven labia minora are unsightly. This is particularly the case if they remove their pubic hair, which many teenage girls do.

This is also a time when girls may think about becoming sexually active, which means they may be showing their genitals to a sexual partner for the first time. If this sexual partner has a negative reaction to their genitals, it can lead to genital concerns and pursuing surgery.

How to educate teenage girls about their genitals

To educate teenage girls on such a sensitive topic as genital self-image, we designed a two-minute animated video. The video was age-appropriate as it did not include any explicit images. It discussed genital anatomical features and their function, as well as the diversity of genital appearance, and challenged the airbrushed “ideal” for genital appearance.

The video also showed examples of the different types of genitalia through artistic representations and medical illustrations.

Our study involved 343 girls, aged 16-18, living in Australia via social media. It was published recently in the journal Body Image.

We conducted the study through an online survey. All girls completed short questionnaires about how satisfied they were with their genital appearance, how likely they were to undergo labiaplasty in the future, as well as their ability to match up genital anatomy terms (such as vulva, clitoris and labia minora) with the correct anatomical structure on a diagram.

Read more: What’s normal, anyway? GPs should discourage women from unnecessary genital surgery

We then showed half the girls our video and the other half a control video. The girls then completed the same questionnaires on genital appearance satisfaction, consideration of labiaplasty and genital anatomy knowledge so we could compare their pre- and post-video answers.

What we found

The video improved girls’ genital anatomy knowledge from around 75% to almost 100% correct on average.

Compared to previous research in adult women, the teenage girls were considerably more concerned about their genital appearance and likely to undergo labiaplasty prior to watching the video.

However, the girls were about 7% more satisfied with their genital appearance and 8% less likely to undergo labiaplasty in the future after watching the video. These improvements were on the smaller side, but impressive given the video was only two minutes long.

We also asked girls for recommendations for teaching other young people about genital self-image. Along with the common recommendation to show our video, the girls talked about reaching people at a young age, and teaching it to all genders.

One girl told us:

Get in as early as possible. Girls begin to worry and be confused about the changes in their bodies long before sex education is usually taught at schools. It would also help to normalise talking about female genitalia at a younger age because there is such a shame and stigma attached to it.

Another girl said:

Showing young people images of all types of female genitals to show them that what is seen in popular culture and in particular porn is not how all female genitals look. Explaining to females that they should not be concerned with their genital appearance and educating boys and girls not to comment on women’s genitals.

We need to start talking with people as young as possible in an accurate way, including information about the diversity in genital appearances.

Part of this discussion involves the need to challenge the messages young people are receiving in wider media by improving their critical media-engagement skills. This has the capacity to change people’s perspectives about what bodies are considered normal and desirable, increasing their body confidence and sexual self-esteem.

– ref. Is my vulva normal? Not all genitalia look the same, and we’re trying to teach teenagers that – https://theconversation.com/is-my-vulva-normal-not-all-genitalia-look-the-same-and-were-trying-to-teach-teenagers-that-147438

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Hobbins, Honorary Associate, Department of History, University of Sydney

Review: Design for Life, the Powerhouse Museum, Sydney.

Life is messy, yet on the surface it comes neatly packaged. Our skin both enfolds and conceals internal systems that are almost infinite in their complexity. No wonder it’s our largest organ. It also mediates the way we interact with the world, from expressive facial gestures to fine hairs bristling in a cool breeze.

So it is with the technologies that sustain, renovate or enhance our bodies. Their unique shapes and sequences are traced through Design for Life, the latest biomedical exhibition at Sydney’s Powerhouse Museum.

It was a delight to return to the resuscitated Powerhouse. Its collections are extraordinary and this exhibition has drawn thoughtfully on the museum’s diverse artefacts.

The thematic arrangement spans our bodily functions from blood to breathing, as well as the capabilities embodied in therapeutic devices.

Whimsy in minutiae

Within the “modification and augmentation” display, visitors can appreciate the extraordinarily delicate stitchwork that underwear manufacturers applied to crafting surgical corsets. Painstakingly laced, these garments both embraced and reshaped the healing bodies beneath.

Design for Life is a very Powerhouse exhibition. Its objects are exquisitely organised, but minimally captioned. We don’t hear the voices of practitioners or patients, nor do we see human bodies or the technology at work.

The atmosphere is archetypically clinical. The staging and lighting are serene and austere, striking in their starkness. Display cases echo the functional, stainless-steel chic of the operating theatre.

This sparseness draws attention to whimsical details.

Cochlear’s first prototype bionic ear from 1979 allowed users to optimise what they heard by flicking a switch to choose between “speech” or “music”.

Read more: Here’s what music sounds like through an auditory implant

We can see that Telectronics upgraded their ventricular synchronised pacemaker Model PX2-B, because the code “PX2-C” has been crudely scratched onto the face plate of a prototype. Redolent of 70s-era graffiti, the date “1 – 2 – 75” is also carved roughly into its burnished and stencilled surface.

Such is the untidiness of innovation.

These minutiae matter. In 2020, the display devoted to “breath and resuscitation” is particularly pertinent.

I relished the opportunity to inspect a 1940s civilian respirator. Mass manufactured during the second world war, this rubber mask was intended to protect our domestic populace from a feared gas attack by air.

In theory, its harness could be adjusted to provide an air-tight seal against inhaled poisons. In reality, the straps on the displayed respirator are secured with three homely safety pins.

Advertising’s hidden messages

No matter their clinical utility, therapeutic products also require marketing. The cabinet on “medicine and drugs” presents pharmaceutical packaging from the 1940s onwards.

Most cartons are Spartan, comprising neatly lettered information enlivened by the occasional splash of colour. Within this boxy assemblage, a 1967 packet of Bronkephrine stands out. Featuring a cartoonish illustration of a doctor’s bag and syringe, what struck me most was its bold claim.

When used to treat asthma, promised Winthrop Laboratories, Bronkephrine would deliver “rapid, exceptionally safe bronchodilatation without tachycardia”. Clearly tachycardia – an excessively fast heart rate – had proven problematic with previous asthma remedies.

Reassuring phrases such as “exceptionally safe” have since been banned from pharmaceutical promotions. The more widely we use medical technologies, the more we accept that humans respond to them in idiosyncratic and unanticipated ways, and broad claims about safety are no longer allowed.

Read more: Pivot to pandemic: how advertisers are using (and abusing) the coronavirus to sell

This is the fundamental tension undercutting the exhibition: life is not designed. Even in rude health, humans behave in erratic or capricious ways. Our unruly fluids seep onto operating tables and we push the wrong button. We change and adapt devices, and we lose or break objects.

While the emergent design of medical artefacts may represent new technological possibilities, it can also reflect the impact of ignorance, accidents or whimsy.

The medical utility of the hardware store

This is why my favourite object in Design for Life is a carbon surgical laser, introduced by Laser Industries in 1979. The battleship-grey device looks more like an assembly-line robot than a precision incision tool.

Yet it is entirely humanised. Printed operating instructions have been slipped into a cheap plastic sleeve and sticky-taped to its top surface. “If you are uncertain how to look after [the] machine”, they conclude, “please leave it for someone who does”.

The back of the laser unit reminds me of a patient who forgot to lace up their hospital gown, exposing their posterior to an unappreciative ward.

Here we find a chipped gas cylinder plastered with inspection certificates and stickers; a stencilled filter unit; yellowed tubing and electrical leads. Seemingly critical to the laser’s operation is a coiled length of garden hose, complete with an orange Nylex connector as found in backyards across Australia. Struggling to discipline these writhing and disorderly attachments is a length of hardware-store galvanised chain.

This is the reality of healthcare design: much as we might aim for purity of form, function, communication or operation, medical devices are never merely objects. They live with us – or within us – in all of our chaotic unpredictability. Life eludes our designs.

Yet this exhibition confirms the touching endurance of our belief one day – just maybe – we will actually be in control.

Design for Life is on at the Powerhouse Museum until January 31, 2021.

– ref. Surgical corsets, respirators: a new exhibition showcases the art hidden in medical devices – https://theconversation.com/surgical-corsets-respirators-a-new-exhibition-showcases-the-art-hidden-in-medical-devices-147087

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leslie Roberson, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland

Many exotic animals are banned from import into Australia because they’re threatened with extinction, and trading them is illegal under environment laws. Yet boatloads of threatened marine species are legally brought into Australia, and may end up on your plate.

Our research examined global seafood data and found 92 threatened species reported in industrial catch records. This includes 11 critically endangered species, such as Nassau grouper and Southern bluefin tuna.

On average, Norway and Russia catch the largest number of threatened species, while UK and Germany import the most. China, the US and Thailand also rank high on the list of importers.

Australia is not at the top of the list. But our research found it’s been recorded catching 15 threatened species, and importing eight. This is shameful and unnecessary. Australia has many sustainable seafood options, well-managed fisheries, and the resources to improve both — if only we could muster the political will.

Our laws fail marine wildlife

Australia has one of the highest extinction rates of any country in the world. The main legislation meant to reverse the declines in Australia’s threatened species, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, is under review, with the final report due this month.

The EPBC Act regulates illegal wildlife trade, but animals such as cod, lobsters and sea cucumbers receive far less protection.

The act regulates some threatened marine species under a “no take” rule that bans their sale or export, but allows “accidental” catch. But some species are instead categorised as “conservation dependent”, which bypasses the no-take restrictions. These include the critically endangered school sharks and scalloped hammerheads.

Under Australian law, these species can be caught in Australian waters and exported or sold domestically because there are conservation measures in place to protect them – even if there’s no evidence those management actions have stabilised or increased their populations.

Read more: Here’s the seafood Australians eat (and what we should be eating)

Both school sharks and scalloped hammerheads appear in Australia’s reported catch and import data, along with several other threatened sharks (including dusky, shortfin mako and porbeagle sharks) and the three species of threatened tunas (Southern bluefin, Pacific bluefin and bigeye tuna).

Tracking threatened species: a logistical nightmare

The plight of charismatic seafood species such as sharks and tuna is starting to get some public attention.

But what about less charismatic species – such as those that are slimy or don’t have eyeballs, like scallops or monkfish? These species get very little attention from the public, or even from conservationists.

In larger industrial fisheries, target species (what the fishers are meant to be going for) are generally recorded to the species level (for example, bigeye or yellowfin tuna).

But species not listed as targets (or not endearing enough to have a conservation following) may get recorded in vague groups like “tunas and billfishes” or “sharks and rays”.

Even worse, almost 10% of the global catch volumes in our data were reported under the group “miscellaneous marine fishes”. Because it’s legal to sell seafood with murky labels like “whitefish”, the industry doesn’t need to identify all the poorly known, strange-looking critters coming up in their nets.

Read more: What’s on your plate? How certification can prevent seafood fraud

Our research considered only species-level records from industrial fisheries. This means our estimates were conservative — many more threatened species could be slipping through the cracks.

What’s more, much of our seafood travels through complex processing loops before arriving at a restaurant or distributor. A vessel fishing in Country A’s waters might be registered in Country B, owned by someone from Country C, with crew from Country D, catching fish processed and sold in many other countries.

Part of that fish might even be imported back into Country A. This adds to the difficulty of tracing seafood around the world.

What must be done?

Improving the tangled web of our seafood production will require national and international policy action. But awareness from seafood consumers, which has led to positive industry change in the past, will be critical to further improvements.

To make sure we’re not potentially eating an endangered Nassau grouper or hammerhead shark in our fish and chips, seafood needs to be (accurately) labelled with:

1. the species — bigeye tuna, not “tuna”
2. where it was caught — Queensland, not just “wild caught”
3. how it was caught — pole-and-line, not just “dolphin-safe”
4. the company responsible for the fishing.

It’s also vital to tighten loopholes and increase enforcement of national biodiversity protections, such as in the EPBC Act, and in food labelling laws, such as the Australian Fish Names Standard and country of origin labelling.

These key reforms will help bring sustainable and traceable seafood onto your plate.

Read more: How to keep slave-caught seafood off your plate

– ref. What are you really eating? How threatened ‘seafood’ species slip through the law and onto your plate – https://theconversation.com/what-are-you-really-eating-how-threatened-seafood-species-slip-through-the-law-and-onto-your-plate-147108