Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Vowles, Professor of Political Science, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Winston Peters has long been described as a populist, both in New Zealand and internationally. At different times during his career he has embraced the label.

As he said recently, populism to him “means that you’re talking to the ordinary people and you’re placing their views far higher than the beltway and the paparazzi”.

But across much of the world, political analysts and commentators see the politics of populism as a menace. Parties described as populist are often associated with the radical right, authoritarianism, xenophobia and a rejection of pluralism and diversity.

While Peters and New Zealand First have sometimes leaned in those directions, it’s been inconsistent and intermittent. The party has retained a significant number of Māori among its MPs, members and voters — including, of course, Peters himself.

At this point in the election campaign, however, New Zealand First’s problem is not populism but popularity. Polls show its support significantly below the 5% it needs to stay in parliament. Where have those voters gone?

Populism of the left

In our recently launched book on the 2017 New Zealand general election, drawing on data from the New Zealand Election Study (NZES), we argue that populism has another side: in its origins as a social movement, populism was of the left, not the right.

Those who originally called themselves populists sought to mobilise and unite the vast majority of people to challenge the excessive economic and political power of a narrow elite. This form of democratic populism emerged in New Zealand in a wave of reforms that, by the 1890s, had made the young country one of the first fully fledged representative democracies in the world.

Populism flowered under the Liberal governments of the early 20th century, personified by the prime minister Richard Seddon (“King Dick”). His government championed the interests of the working class and small farmers by encouraging trade unionism and breaking up the big estates held by the colonial rich.

The Liberals were less successful at defending the interests of Māori. But New Zealand’s first Māori deputy prime minister and sometime acting prime minister was Liberal MP James Carroll (Ngāti Kahungunu) — not Winston Peters.

Read more: Populism from the Brexit and Trump playbooks enters the New Zealand election campaign – but it’s a risky strategy

Inclusion versus exclusion

We define populism in two senses: first, as a set of democratic norms that takes seriously the idea of “the sovereignty of the people”; second, as rhetoric that uses populist language to attract support, but not necessarily for populist ends.

We also argue that it is necessary to distinguish between authoritarian or exclusionary populism, which seeks to divide the people by ethnicity or national origins, and inclusive populism, which seeks to build majorities on the foundations of what most members of a society have in common.

We found that in 2017 New Zealand populists were located predominantly on the left, with few exhibiting authoritarian views. For the minority of voters who expressed preferences for both populism and authoritarianism, their party of choice tended to be New Zealand First — the party that in 2017 won just over 7% of the vote and is now polling at 2% or less.

So, does the decline in support for New Zealand First in 2020 represent a shift in populist sentiment?

Where have authoritarian populists gone?

New Zealand First’s brand of populism over the past three years has shifted between the exclusive and the inclusive. In the 2017 election campaign, the party’s rhetoric was true to form, focusing on reducing immigration and a desire to give more voice to the regions.

NZES data show the majority of New Zealand First voters wanted the party to form a coalition with National, but a sizeable minority also wanted to see political change. Indeed, New Zealand First’s campaign policies in 2017 were closely aligned with Labour’s, with a few exceptions: water quality and climate change mitigation being the two most clearly incompatible.

Our study shows that in 2017 New Zealand First appealed to voters who were older, Pākehā, male, on low incomes and lived outside the major cities.

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

In the end, New Zealand First entered into a government with Labour, led by Jacinda Ardern, a relatively young woman whose rhetoric, feminism and policy orientation aligned with a more inclusive version of populism. This challenged some New Zealand First voters but won over others.

More recently, the issue of immigration has all but disappeared from the political agenda, removing New Zealand First’s key populist plank. Peters has been championing various versions of border reopening over the past three months, suggesting he may be an internationalist at heart, at least when the economy is at stake.

It’s too early to be sure where New Zealand’s small percentage of authoritarian populists have gone. Are they the roughly 2% that remain committed to New Zealand First? Or has National Party leader Judith Collins’ aggressive labelling of Labour as anti-farmer and anti-aspirational been gaining traction?

Or has the resolve with which Labour closed the borders struck a chord with New Zealand First’s authoritarians? Some recent polling analysis suggests much of the 2017 New Zealand First vote has indeed shifted to Labour.

The rise of moderate populism

Our analysis of the 2017 election reveals Ardern’s inclusionary campaign rhetoric was appealing. Voters found her likeable, competent and trustworthy. She also struck a chord with the onset of COVID-19. Her phrase “a team of 5 million” clearly evoked the populist ethos.

Trust in Ardern’s leadership, despite the centralised nature of our political institutions, has remained high. At the same time, satisfaction with our political process has not declined as it has in the other democracies, making a spike in authoritarian populism even less likely.

Read more: With polls showing Labour could govern alone, is New Zealand returning to the days of ‘elected dictatorship’?

Those who fear and lament populism tend to see only the dark side of the phenomenon and often discount the idea that “the people” represent anything other than a threat. Liberal democratic critics of populism therefore admire or hanker after constitutional checks to insulate governments from public opinion.

While we concede that protection of human rights requires some limits on majorities, our analysis of contemporary New Zealand politics indicates that the best antidote to authoritarian populism is a democratic and inclusive form of moderate populism.

Certainly Ardern’s version of moderate populism has proved popular. With immigration not a focus this election, New Zealand First’s appeal to authoritarian populist voters appears to have all but disappeared. To know where these voters go next we will need to wait for the results of the 2020 New Zealand Election Study.

– ref. With the election looming and New Zealand First struggling in the polls, where have those populist votes gone? – https://theconversation.com/with-the-election-looming-and-new-zealand-first-struggling-in-the-polls-where-have-those-populist-votes-gone-147166

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

The royal commission into aged care has said government did not prepare the sector well enough for the pandemic.

In a damning report the commission rejected the government’s repeated claim it had a plan for aged care, which is a federal responsibility.

The commission said that now “is not the time for blame” for what happened in aged care, where most of the Australian deaths have occurred – as at September 19, 629 out of 844 total deaths. The latest number of deaths from residential aged care is 665.

But, the commission said, it was clear the measures implemented by the federal government on advice from the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee “were in some respects insufficient to ensure preparedness of the aged care sector”.

It called for immediate action on infection prevention and to ensure residents weren’t cut off from visitors.

In its special report into COVID, the commission said the government should establish a national aged care plan and a permanent aged care advisory body.

Under pressure from evidence to the commission, the government belatedly set up an advisory committee in August but made it clear it was temporary.

As soon as the report was tabled on Thursday, Aged Care minister Richard Colbeck said the government was accepting all its recommendations.

But he continued to insist the government did have a plan for the sector.

“Never before has the aged care sector in Australia faced a challenge like COVID-19,” the report said.

It said the government should fund providers to ensure there were adequate staff available to deal with visits from family and friends.

The understandable restriction of visits “has had tragic, irreparable and lasting effects which must immediately be addressed as much as possible”.

“Maintaining the quality of life of those people living in residential aged care throughout the pandemic is just as important as preparing for and responding to outbreaks,” the report said.

“Funding to support increased visits is needed immediately.”

The commission recommended the Medicare schedule be changed to increase the provision of allied health and mental health services to residents during the pandemic, and the government should “arrange for the deployment of accredited infection prevention and control experts” into facilities.

Announcing $40.6 million as an initial response, Colbeck said the government was already well progressed in delivering some of the recommendations.

The commission said that “confused and inconsistent messaging” from providers, the federal government, state and territory governments had been themes in submissions to it.

“All too often, providers, care recipients and their families, and health workers did not have an answer to the critical question: who is in charge?

“At a time of crisis, such as this pandemic, clear leadership, direction and lines of communication are essential”.

The commission said much had been made during its hearing about whether there was an aged care specific plan for COVID.

“There was not a COVID-19 plan devoted solely to aged care. But there was a national COVID-19 plan that the Australian Government sought to adapt and apply to the aged care sector.”

However “there is a clear need for a defined, consolidated, national aged care COVID-19 plan”.

The commission said the recommended plan should establish federal-state protocols, maximise the ability for residents in facilities to have visitors, and establish a mechanism for consultation with the sector about the use of “Hospital in the Home” programs.

It should establish protocols on who would decide about transfers to hospitals of residents with COVID, and ensure significant outbreaks were investigated by an independent expert, with the results disseminated to the sector.

The commission said the government should report to parliament no later than December 1 on the implementation of the recommendations in its report.

– ref. Federal government did not prepare aged care sector adequately for COVID: royal commission – https://theconversation.com/federal-government-did-not-prepare-aged-care-sector-adequately-for-covid-royal-commission-147307

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

The pandemic is the worst of times to be governing but Scott Morrison is determined to make it the best of opportunities to be seen to be doing things.

It’s also the most difficult period to be an opposition. In contrast to Morrison, Anthony Albanese is struggling to find any political chances.

The government has used the last nearly three weeks to launch a tsunami of policies in the run up to Tuesday’s budget. We’re seeing a reform agenda, although it’s not big bang stuff.

Labor complains about particular measures and keeps calling for “a real plan” for recovery but it is not cutting through.

In theory, such an age of anxiety could play for the government, or for its critics. In practice, it has elevated Morrison (and premiers too) and swamped Albanese.

The recent policy announcements include a clutch of initiatives on fuel storage, energy and emissions reduction, upgrading the NBN, a digital business plan, relaxing restrictions on credit assessments, a revamped insolvency regime, and a manufacturing plan.

There are several takeouts from this hyper-activity. Morrison favours both intervention and deregulation. He’s big on “road maps” (in energy, manufacturing) but wary of tying himself to long term destinations. He’s untroubled by what was previously said and done by his own side.

Morrison isn’t called “Scotty from marketing” for nothing. Policy releases are carefully controlled. They’re given to the newspapers in the afternoon on an embargoed basis – no comment can be sought. They then dominate the morning headlines, surf through the news day, and usually are on that night’s TV.

The $1.5 billion manufacturing blueprint Morrison announced on Thursday selected six areas for special assistance. In terms of sectors, it is unashamedly picking winners.

The energy policy embraces one big controversial winner – gas. “If you’re not for gas, you’re not for jobs in our manufacturing and heavy industries,” Morrison says, in bold overstatement. Specific new and emerging emission-reduction technologies have also been nominated for encouragement.

The government’s preoccupation with removing what it sees as excessive regulation stretches from environmental approval processes to borrowing to buy a house.

Last week’s decision to free up access to credit by easing the checks banks have to make on borrowers aims to help stimulate the economy. The government brushes off fears it could lead to people financially over-extending.

The energy policy concentrates on the immediate and medium term; Morrison refuses to embrace a 2050 target of zero net emissions, despite this being accepted by a wide range of stakeholders and countries. One reason is he doesn’t want to stir dissent in his ranks.

In its commitment to an NBN upgrade, embracing fibre running past homes that will be able to connect for a price, the government argues it is following a course it had in mind from the start. Some commentators agree; the more common interpretation has been this is belatedly catching up with a version of what the Labor government planned.

There are more policy changes to come, notably in industrial relations although we don’t yet have a fix on how far the government will be willing to go in stirring that hornets’ nest. Morrison was bellicose about the waterfront dispute this week.

Much of the reform program needs legislation – for measures due to start early next year, this will require some parliamentary haste. The senate crossbench is easier for the government than it once was, but not a pushover.

An immediate test will be an earlier announced reform – the proposed (and contested) restructuring of higher education fees, due to start in 2021.

Aged care is looming as one of the most challenging reform areas the government must tackle, where it is hostage to a royal commission Morrison set up.

COVID is a “stress tester” – it locates systemic weaknesses. Morrison has highlighted this in relation to Australia’s supply chains. The PM promised “sovereign manufacturing capability plans” in vulnerable areas. They’re likely to be assisted through procurement and contracting arrangements.

The pandemic also exposed a very different sort of vulnerability, in the nation’s nursing homes. Here we saw the result of years of loose regulation, inadequate staffing requirements and poor oversight.

The aged care royal commission in a special report on COVID tabled on Thursday said the government should establish a national aged care plan for COVID and a permanent national aged care advisory body.

The report’s various recommendations have been quickly accepted but these stick in the government’s craw because it has insisted it had a plan and that the advisory group it (reluctantly) set up was temporary.

What’s happened in aged care is a disgrace – comprehensive reform is imperative after the commision’s final report early next year. It will require more money but that’s only part of it. Much better and tighter regulation is vital and there is a wider issue about the “for profit” industry.

Looking to the other side of politics, in textbook terms Albanese has done what an opposition leader should do in the first half of a term. He has outlined broad approaches to policy in so-called “vision statements”. Not unreasonably, he hasn’t wanted to be tied down to detail, especially in such quickly-changing times.

But he’s up against it. His party is split on energy/climate policy, and it’s increasingly hard to paper over the wide rift between resources spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon and climate change and energy spokesman Mark Butler.

Butler is seen much less than he used to be. Fitzgibbon is bluntly outspoken.

This clash has the potential to become dangerously destructive for the opposition. Climate is one of Labor’s core issues. If compromises that accommodate both Butler and Fitzgibbon can’t be found, the falling out could be extremely serious for the party. Fitzgibbon has floated the threat of leaving the frontbench.

Labor’s critiques of the government encounter two hurdles. Firstly, with so much happening, and Morrison occupying such a huge political space, people aren’t listening to the opposition.

Secondly, the public are still not in a mood for partisanship. The opposition has felt it necessary to dial up the conflict metre but that does not match where people are at.

Of course the dynamics will change when the election gets close.

The poll (due early 2022) could be late next year. That is still a long way off. Politicians tend to be in-the-moment sort of people and Labor MPs are frustrated their attacks are having little impact.

On the other hand, from Albanese’s point of view, a possible late 2021 election is frighteningly close, given he has yet even to begin to establish himself as a strong alternative.

All this makes Albanese’s budget reply next Thursday more than usually important for Labor. The speech is being talked up as policy-rich. Budget week is the government’s, but Albanese knows his performance is also crucial, to show he’s still in the game.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Next week will belong to the government, but Albanese needs to make an impression too – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-next-week-will-belong-to-the-government-but-albanese-needs-to-make-an-impression-too-147287

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Tregear, Principal Fellow, University of Melbourne

There’s a telling scene in Peter Bogdanovich’s 1972 screwball comedy What’s Up, Doc? in which a judge asks an academic to tell the court what kind of doctor he is. When he responds “music”, the judge then demands to know whether he can “fix a hi-fi”? The answer is, unsurprisingly, “No”.

The scene works as comedy, one imagines, because few people outside schools of music or humanities departments have much of an idea what a practising doctor of music (or “musicologist”) actually does.

It is no joke, however, when a university the size and stature of Monash contemplates the abolition of its musicology and ethnomusicology specialisations.

Monash University’s move, part of a bigger plan to shed jobs due to a loss of revenue, has prompted international music academics to express their concern, but should it concern the rest of us? Yes, is the short answer.

One of the original fields of study

As it happens, music is one of the original fields of study for a university. It formed part of a group of four of liberal arts subjects (known as a quadrivum) along with arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy.

This is because, according to Ancient Greek natural philosophy, music had an especially deep connection to the natural world.

It was believed the production of consonant harmonies (combinations of sounds that are agreeable to the ear) involved simple numerical ratios that were mirrored in the motion of the planets.

By the time universities were founded in Australia, the Copernican Revolution had long consigned such esoteric speculation to history. Music was reduced to having a much more marginal place in a typical university curriculum, if it appeared at all. Instead, a new institution, the “conservatorium”, arose, focused on elite performance training, not music scholarship.

In 1895, the founder of Melbourne’s first conservatorium, Professor George W. L. Marshall-Hall, nevertheless recognised that an ideal higher education in music needed to be more than just about producing graduates who could perform to a high standard.

He argued musicians needed also to be able to understand their art form in its broader historical and cultural context. Music graduates should not just be performers, but also historians, analysers, critics, and explorers of the musical culture they inhabited.

This is what the discipline of musicology, broadly conceived, aims to do.

Marshall-Hall’s vision owed more than a little to the ideas of the Prussian scientist and educational reformer, Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835). Humboldt argued the transmission of technical knowledge alone was not a sufficient foundation for a fully rounded higher educational system.

He believed a modern university needed to include the study of the “speculative sciences”: disciplines such as fine art, music, and philosophy. Equally as crucially, all these fields should be advanced through research.

The rise of ethnomusicology

Ethnomusicology arose as a separate disciplinary area towards the end of the 19th century. Concerned principally with the study of music in its social context, it is especially (but not exclusively) interested in popular, folk, indigenous, and non-Western musical cultures.

Monash’s Professor Margaret Kartomi is widely acknowledged as Australia’s leading ethnomusicologist. Her work centres on the diverse music cultures of Australia’s most populous neighbour, Indonesia.

Only last year, Kartomi was awarded the Guido Adler Prize – a prestigious international prize named after one of the pioneers of modern musicology – for her outstanding contribution to research and teaching in this field.

That her entire scholarly area might now be forced to “shut up shop” should be a matter of considerable concern.

A spokeswoman for Monash said this week the university’s musicology and theatre degree subjects were being closed “due to consistently low unit enrolments”. The staffing union, however, disputes this, saying musicology had healthy enrolments.

Whatever the truth of the matter, we know the impact of COVID-19 on Australian university finances – caused by the loss of revenue from international students – is profound. But must it serve to dictate what universities teach our students for what might be generations to come?

‘The big issues’

Sure, musicologists and ethnomusicologists might not be able to repair a hi-fi, but what they can do, as Monash’s own website trumpets, is engage with “big issues” such as:

Why does music matter? How do understandings of music differ across time, place and culture? How can we help facilitate the sustainability of diverse musical knowledge and practice across the planet for future generations?

Last week, a joint letter signed by over 70 music academics from across the UK, Ireland, Europe, USA, India, Japan, and Australia, was sent to Monash Vice-Chancellor Professor Margaret Gardner.

It asked if there were compelling scholarly and educational reasons for the abolition of these specialisations, and if so, urged the university to make those reasons known. Otherwise, Monash should reconsider its decision.

In fact, the Monash proposal should give us all pause to consider just what kinds of knowledge, ultimately, we still want our public universities to preserve, discover, and teach.

– ref. Monash University plans to cut its musicology subjects. Why does this matter? – https://theconversation.com/monash-university-plans-to-cut-its-musicology-subjects-why-does-this-matter-147172

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Balanzategui, Lecturer in Cinema and Screen Studies, Swinburne University of Technology

Today ABC, BBC Studios and Screen Australia announced series three of the award-winning animation series Bluey will commence production in Brisbane later this year.

But despite Bluey’s global success, policy changes announced yesterday mean that we may see fewer Australian-made children’s shows on broadcast TV in the future.

The federal government has scrapped quotas for minimum hours of local children’s content for commercial television networks. Foxtel’s obligation to Australian content has also been halved.

These changes represent a rapid unravelling of regulatory infrastructure established in the 1970s — and refined over decades — to support production and broadcast of quality Australian children’s content.

Responding to the policy changes, Australian Children’s Television Foundation (ACTF) CEO Jenny Buckland explained:

The argument about children’s content quotas has been going ever since they were introduced nearly 40 years ago. The broadcasters never wanted to do it and they didn’t treat the shows well.

Read more: Save our screens: 3 things government must do now to keep Australian content alive

Changes to TV content regulation

Under the existing system, commercial networks must abide by strict requirements to broadcast a certain amount of children’s content each year: 130 hours for pre-school children, and 260 hours for children under 14, including at least 25 hours of new drama.

From 2021, commercial networks will have no such obligation.

Children’s content quotas were suspended in April 2020, a decision Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts Paul Fletcher said was in response to COVID-19.

Now a decision initially described as “an emergency red tape reduction measure” has been enshrined into policy.

Read more: Coronavirus TV ‘support’ package leaves screen writers and directors even less certain than before

Strength in numbers

The government’s decision to remove children’s quotas responds to intense lobbying from commercial networks. In February 2020, Seven declared it planned to halt the production of Australian children’s content, a decision that would likely have resulted in a breach of children’s content quotas in 2021 if the current system was sustained. Seven’s Chief Executive explained he wanted the government to take “immediate action” to remove the quotas.

In 2017, the chief executives of Seven, Nine and Ten advocated together at a parliamentary inquiry for the removal of children’s content quotas.

They argued children weren’t watching their children’s programming. Indeed, many children’s programs on commercial networks don’t rate well. This may relate to the cheaply produced, culturally non-specific animated programs made to meet the quotas.

ACTF CEO Jenny Buckland notes that over the past decade, commercial broadcasters have halved their spending on children’s drama. International co-productions also count towards the quotas, resulting in a surfeit of “co-produced animated series based on international concepts”.

The networks also argue the rising popularity of streaming services has made the quota system outdated. Indeed, an increasing number of Australian children are turning to streaming services such as Netflix and YouTube, however the Australian Communication and Media Authority’s research has found that children still watch broadcast TV programs made specifically for them.

Read more: TV has changed, so must the way we support local content

Where the ABC fits in

Bluey is the most popular show in the history of the ABC’s streaming app ABC iView, demonstrating there is demand for quality local children’s content.

But rather than seeing this as an endorsement, commercial broadcasters claim the popularity of children’s content on the ABC diminishes the need for quotas.

However, public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, are not obligated to produce or broadcast a certain amount of local children’s content (rather than quotas, they have internal targets underpinned by their charters). This means the ABC can pull funding from the children’s television budget as it sees fit. Local content targets on children’s channel ABC ME were reduced to 25% (from 50%) in 2015.

Budget restrictions make the ABC’s track record of quality local children’s content difficult to sustain. Government analysis in 2017 raised concerns that the ABC may have “reduced its commitment to producing children’s content”.

Despite the ABC’s role in broadcasting quality Australian content, and even directly helping with remote education during the pandemic, the government has pressed pause on the indexation of ABC funding until July 2022. This means by end of the financial year (2020–21), the ABC’s operational funding base will have reduced by 10% since 2013.

Children’s content was a key target of a recent round of redundancies at the ABC. June saw the closure of Melbourne children’s division ME TV and the cancellation of kids’ show Definitely Not News. The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance warns changes to production quotas could “mean the demise of children’s content on commercial TV, leaving a cash-strapped ABC to pick up the slack”.

Defending local children’s TV

The government has announced a welcome A$20 million in funding for the ACTF for children’s content, supplemented by $30 million in funding for Screen Australia.

Jenny Buckland notes,

we’ll be working very hard with producers to try and open those commissioning doors to new content, and tracking what happens to production over the 2-year period.

Perhaps this funding will stave off the end of local children’s content for now. Though the policy and budgetary ecosystem that supports a robust domestic children’s content sector is in flux, Buckland is still hopeful:

… there needs to be Australian children’s content on all the places that children go to watch content — that includes having well-resourced public broadcasters with a major commitment to kids, as well as content on commercial video-on-demand platforms and other destinations. We were hoping there would be Australian content expenditure requirements on these platforms, and the door might still be open for that.

– ref. Cheese ‘n’ crackers! Concerns deepen for the future of Australian children’s television – https://theconversation.com/cheese-n-crackers-concerns-deepen-for-the-future-of-australian-childrens-television-147183

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Lim, Senior Lecturer, Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University

There’s no shortage of scientific studies projecting a bleak future for the planet and her people, but none have led to real change. It’s clear we need better ways to envisage the futures we want.

Take, for example, the current review of Australia’s federal environment law. Among its recommendations are that developers consider the effect of their project on “specified climate change scenarios” — essentially computer-generated models of the future. These models are important. But achieving a radically different tomorrow will require more than a purely technocratic approach.

As we argue in our recent paper, our imaginations allow us to engage with emotions that motivate action, such as hope, fear and grief. Can we imagine a future with no koalas or orange-bellied parrots or wollemi pines? Or of bushfires that destroy the natural wonders of our childhoods?

Storytelling can help in this task. In the following vignettes, we’ve imagined three possible futures for Australia. They involve different challenges, trade-offs and worldviews. We hope these stories stimulate new ways to consider the consequences of our current decisions and actions. So now, imagine you are in the year 2050 …

1. Basic needs

You sit in a communal kitchen as you sip your low-food-mile oat latte. You watch the news through a holographic vid-cast floating beside you.

Governments and societies have prioritised equality and social welfare over consumerism and industrialisation. The myth of trickle-down economics has been exposed. Countries have turned to localised food production. Reduced consumption, trade and travel have caused carbon emissions to flatline, but it may be too little too late.

Read more: The Morrison government wants to suck CO₂ out of the atmosphere. Here are 7 ways to do it

Your vid-cast tells of winter bushfires in Tasmania and water shortages in all Australian capital cities. You wonder if more spending on technological innovation might have averted these crises.

Nature considered “useful” is doing well. Brisbane’s restored mangroves are flourishing; the city no longer floods, even with sea-level rise. But there is little funding to protect wildlife, and iconic species such as mountain pygmy possums are extinct.

2. Wildlife rules

You wake up with lab-engineered coffee, then eat breakfast cereal grown at an indoor climate-controlled farm.

You log onto the annual Australasian Conservation Summit. A virtual reality tour takes you to the Great Western Sydney Reserve. There, koalas shipped from Kangaroo Island brought local populations back from the brink. Data from their geo-location tags confirm they now occur across their historic range.

You welcome preservation of this iconic species. But the region’s traditional Dharug clans were not consulted in setting up the reserve. You wonder why they continue to be excluded from walking the Country of their ancestors.

Australia has a significant wildlife-conservation sector, supported by the military, which has created many “green” jobs. But society as a whole is disconnected from nature: most people now experience it via zoos and tree museums.

Some wildlife species may be thriving, but the Great Barrier Reef is not. Global heating is worsening and the burning of fossil fuels continues. Successive years of extreme bleaching has left the reef all but decimated.

3. Climate first

You munch breakfast from locally farmed oats. As you inject your carbon-neutral caffeine hit into an arm vein, you feel a wave of nostalgia for a good ‘ol long black in a mug.

Thanks to radical technological solutions, the most catastrophic climate impacts have been averted. Global governance is now dominated by the ideologies of the Radical Climate Action Alliance. In 2021, environmental and human rights treaties were revoked in favour of the Climate First Charter.

Your Unity BCI (Brain Computer Implant) receives drone footage from the alliance. It shows Australia’s red centre covered in solar farms, agricultural lands swamped by biofuel crops and South Australia’s Flinders Ranges dotted with nuclear reactors.

The clip closes with images of carbon-capturing radiata pines dominating vast landscapes of the Adani and Rocky Hill carbon sanctuaries. You wonder what it’s like inside — carbon sanctuaries are closed to all except the Carbon Rangers. Even Traditional Owners are excluded from the Country they sustained for millennia. Meanwhile, corporations benefit from green energy ventures while social inequality rises.

The Great Barrier Reef no longer suffers from summer bleaching events. But indiscriminately placed wind farms have brought the swift parrot and grey-headed flying fox almost to extinction.

Read more: Renewable energy can save the natural world – but if we’re not careful, it will also hurt it

Imagination is key

None of these futures are inevitable. But exploring the logical conclusions of present-day attitudes and decisions can prompt us to ask: what futures do we want?

Together, the three scenarios raise questions such as whether:

• revolutionary economic interventions should be used to address social inequality

• local biodiversity should be valued only to the extent that it is useful to humans

• iconic species and landscapes should be protected through fortress-style conservation, at the expense of local and Indigenous communities and direct climate change action

• governments should prioritise climate action above all else, particularly via technological solutions

• biodiversity matters only to the extent it can mitigate climate impacts.

All this matters. Research shows projections of the future shape how problems are understood and communicated, and which strategies are developed to address them.

So how might this apply to the review of Australia’s environment laws? Further reform should involve a range of groups coming together to discuss questions such as: what do we value? What do we want to change? What trade-offs are we willing to make? By collectively deploying our imaginations, we may create better futures for all.

– ref. ‘You wake up with lab-engineered coffee’: how our imaginations can help decide Earth’s future – https://theconversation.com/you-wake-up-with-lab-engineered-coffee-how-our-imaginations-can-help-decide-earths-future-145167

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Haslam, Professor of Psychology, University of Melbourne

The pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges. Many of us have lost work, gained carer responsibilities and grappled with social isolation. Experts have warned of a looming wave of mental illness as a result.

Research suggests they’re largely correct. Surveys in Australia, the UK and the USA point to rates of depression, anxiety and suicidal thinking substantially higher than in previous years.

But over time, people have changed how they have responded to the threat of COVID-19. Google searches have shifted from the harm of the pandemic itself to ways of dealing with it, such as exercising and learning new skills.

This pivot points to a new focus on coping with COVID-19.

Many ways of coping

Coping is the process of responding effectively to problems and challenges. To cope well is to respond to the threat in ways that minimise its damaging impact.

Coping can involve many different strategies and it’s likely you have your own preferred ones. These strategies can be classified in many ways, but a key distinction is between problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies.

What’s the difference?

Problem-focused coping involves actively engaging with the outside world. This might mean making action plans, seeking further information about a threat, or confronting an adversary.

Emotion-focused coping, in contrast, is directed inward, attempting to change how we respond emotionally to stressful events and conditions, rather than to change them at their source.

Effective emotion-focused strategies include meditation, humour and reappraising difficulties to find benefits.

Less effective emotion-focused strategies include seeking distractions, denial and substance use. Although these tactics may stave off distress in the short term, they neither address its causes nor prevent its longer term effects.

Which is best?

Neither of these coping strategies is intrinsically more or less effective than the other. Both can be effective for different kinds of challenges.

Problem-focused strategies are said to work best when we can control the problem.

However, when we face an immovable challenge, it can be better to adjust our response to it using emotion-focused strategies, rather than battling fruitlessly against it.

Coping strategies during the pandemic

Physical activity and experiencing nature can offer some protection from depression during the pandemic. One study even points to the benefits of birdwatching.

But there’s more evidence around coping strategies to avoid. Rising levels of substance use during the pandemic are associated with greater distress.

Eating too many snacks and accessing too much COVID-related media have also been linked to higher levels of stress and depression. So these should be consumed in moderation.

How can I tell if I’m not coping well?

We should be able to assess how well we are coping with the pandemic by judging how we’re going compared to our previous normal.

Think of yourself this time last year. Are you drinking more, sleeping poorly or experiencing fewer positive emotions and more negative emotions now?

If the answer to any of these questions is “yes”, then compared to your previous normal, your coping may not been as good as it could be. But before you judge your coping critically, it’s worth considering a few things.

Your coping is relative to your challenge

The pandemic may be shared, but its impacts have been unequal.

If you live alone, are a caregiver or have lost work, the pandemic has been a larger threat for you than for many others. If you’ve suffered more distress than others, or more than you did last year, it doesn’t mean you have coped less well — you may have just had more to cope with.

Read more: Your coping and resilience strategies might need to shift as the COVID-19 crisis continues

Negative emotions can be appropriate

Experiencing some anxiety in the face of a threat like COVID-19 is justified. Experiencing sadness at separation from loved ones under lockdown is also inevitable. Suffering does not mean maladjustment.

In fact, unpleasant emotions draw our attention to problems and motivate us to tackle them, rather than just being signs of mental fragility or not coping.

We should, of course, be vigilant for serious problems, such as thoughts of self-harm, but we should also avoid pathologising ordinary distress. Not all distress is a symptom of a mental health problem.

Read more: 7 mental health coping tips for life in the time of COVID-19

Coping isn’t just about emotions anyway

Coping isn’t all about how we feel. It’s also about action and finding a sense of meaning and purpose in life, despite our distress. Perhaps if we’ve sustained our relationships and done our jobs passably during the pandemic, we have coped well enough, even if we have sometimes been miserable.

Read more: 7 science-based strategies to cope with coronavirus anxiety

Coping with COVID-19 has been an uneven contest

Social distancing and lockdowns have left us with a reduced coping repertoire. Seeking emotional and practical support from others, also known as “social coping”, is made more difficult by pandemic restrictions. Without our usual supports, many of us have had to cope with one arm tied behind our backs.

So remember to cut yourself some slack. For most people, the pandemic has been a unique challenge. When judging how well we’ve coped we should practise self-compassion. Let’s not make things worse by criticising ourselves for failing to cope better.

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

– ref. Am I coping well during the pandemic? – https://theconversation.com/am-i-coping-well-during-the-pandemic-146570

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick van Esch, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, AUT Business School, Auckland University of Technology

The latest poll shows a drop in support by New Zealanders for the recreational use of cannabis ahead of next month’s referendum on the issue.

The 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton Poll found only 35% of people polled said they supported the bill, down from 40% in June’s poll. Those who said they did not support the bill were at 53%, up from 49% in June. Another 11% either did not know or refused to answer.

Other polls had earlier shown a close vote, neck and neck, too close to call.

National leader Judith Collins says the party caucus will vote no in the referendum. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has maintained a strict “no comment” on her voting intentions, despite admitting she once smoked cannabis “a long time ago”.

So with less than a month to go to the vote, if you’re undecided, here’s a list of the pros and cons of what the consequences could be.

Pros: taking control

1. Economic growth

Establishing a legal cannabis industry creates a range of skilled and unskilled jobs. It could generate more than NZ$640 million in tax revenue for the NZ government.

The cannabis industry is one of the fastest-growing job markets in the United States. In one year, cannabis retailers netted the state of Massachusetts US$393 million in gross sales.

Two years after launching a legal cannabis market, California has surpassed US$1 billion in tax revenue.

Read more: If reducing harm to society is the goal, a cost-benefit analysis shows cannabis prohibition has failed

2. Health not handcuffs

Prohibition has not stopped New Zealanders from using cannabis. Research shows 15% of men and 8% of women in NZ used cannabis over a 12-month period in 2012-13.

Legalising cannabis could save the NZ justice system a staggering NZ$11.4 million a year. Not to mention the social benefit of no longer incarcerating non-violent, otherwise law-abiding citizens who then have to cope with a life-long criminal record.

Māori have higher rates of cannabis use than non-Māori. Even accounting for higher usage rates, research found Māori are more likely to be convicted on cannabis charges then non-Māori.

By legalising cannabis, use becomes an issue of health and social welfare rather than a criminal one.

3. Improves access for health patients

Cannabis is used as therapy for a number of health applications. It has been legally available for medical use in NZ since April 2020.

Cannabis is used to treat nausea and vomiting, the common side effects of cancer treatment. It may be a therapy to treat epileptic seizures.

It has been used to treat muscle spasms among those with multiple sclerosis. It has also helped people alleviate chronic pain, headaches and anxiety.

If cannabis is legalised for recreational use, those using it for medical purposes will have greater access at a more affordable price.

4. Regulated for consumer safety

A standard requirement for legalised cannabis markets includes product testing, which means consumers know more about the products they are using.

Cannabis bought off the street can contain fungus, harmful substances, mould and pesticides. Mandatory testing ensures the cannabis is free of toxins.

To protect children in the United States from exposure to cannabis, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington all passed child-resistant packaging regulations.

Under New Zealand’s referendum, any retailers who sell cannabis to people aged under 20 would face serious penalties. To further deter youth, the NZ Drug Foundation, which is leading a yes vote, unequivocally supports the referendum’s inclusion of advertising bans.

5. Takes money away from street gangs

Over the past two-and-half years, street gangs in New Zealand have grown by more than 30%. The illegal cannabis market, estimated to be worth NZ$1–3 billion, potentially funds these gangs to some extent.

In Colorado in the US, 90% of the cannabis market is supplied under regulation. Over the past decade there, cannabis seizures by border control are at their lowest levels and their value has reduced by millions of dollars.

Legalising cannabis places control of the market in the hands of the government rather then criminals.

Read more: The missing question from New Zealand’s cannabis debate: what about personal freedom and individual rights?

Cons: social and fiscal

1. Unknown costs for society and taxpayers

The long-term health effects are not fully understood. Similar to tobacco, the negative health consequences of cannabis might not be realised for decades. Again, in Colorado, for every cannabis tax dollar raised, its citizens spend US$4.50 to offset the negative effects of legalisation.

2. It will turn NZ’s youth to other drugs

A Christchurch Health and Development study shows adolescent weekly users of cannabis were 100 times more likely to use other illicit drugs.

Read more: Why NZ’s cannabis bill needs to stop industry from influencing policy

Concerns have been raised about the level of influence the cannabis industry has over the drafting of legislation since its motivation is profit maximisation, not public health.

3. Workplace safety and productivity

A 25-year study in Norway shows workers who use cannabis are less dedicated to their work than those who don’t.

In the US, cannabis use by employees leads to increases in absenteeism, accidents, job turnover and worker compensation claims.

4. Bad for the environment

Cannabis plants require double the water needed to grow grapes for wine. Growing cannabis may cause deforestation, habitat destruction, river diversion and soil erosion.

When grown hydroponically, yearly greenhouse gas emissions in the US equal that of 3 million cars.

5. Property prices could rise, or fall

Once again in Colorado in the US, legalising cannabis was found to increase the value of property prices by up to 6%.

A separate study in Colorado found house prices could increase by up to 8.4% if they were within 160m of a retail outlet selling cannabis.

But 42% of Canadians believe a cannabis retailer will negatively affect their home values.

The median housing market price in NZ recently rose by 12% in one year. Further sharp growth could price many out of the market.

Still undecided?

There are just over two weeks to go now before New Zealanders vote on the cannabis referendum. If you still can’t decide, then head to the Prime Minister’s Science Adviser website for more information, or watch the video below.

Read more: Reforming cannabis laws is a complex challenge, but New Zealand’s history of drug reform holds important lessons

– ref. Undecided on the cannabis referendum: 10 pros and cons of legalising the drug – https://theconversation.com/undecided-on-the-cannabis-referendum-10-pros-and-cons-of-legalising-the-drug-146399

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Director, Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre; Associate Professor of Criminology, Faculty of Arts, Monash University

There are increasing calls to making coercive control a criminal offence across Australia.

The NSW Labor opposition has proposed a bill to criminalise coercive control, with a ten year maximum penalty. This follows increased advocacy after the killing of Hannah Clark and her three children and the murder of Preethi Reddy.

It is important to recognise the serious impact of non-physical forms of domestic violence.

But this does not mean Australia is ready for a stand-alone offence of coercive control. In fact, it would be risky to introduce one at this stage.

What is coercive control?

The term, “coercive control” is used to capture the ongoing nature of domestic violence, where the abuse is not always physical but pervades a victim’s daily life.

It refers to a wide variety of abusive behaviours including social, financial, psychological and technology-facilitated abuse.

It can include isolating a partner from their friends and family, restricting their movements, using tracking devices on their phone and controlling their appearance and access to money.

It has a devastating impact on victims’ independence, well-being and safety. It is the most common risk factor leading up to an intimate partner homicide.

Coercive control in Australia

In Australia, there is significant evidence about the nature and extent of coercive control. However, outside the specialist family violence sector, there is limited understanding of what it is and how best to respond to it.

While some states and territories recognise coercive control under civil law, Tasmania is the only Australian jurisdiction that has introduced specific criminal offences covering elements of coercive control. Research has found the use of these offences (of economic abuse, and emotional abuse and intimidation) has been limited.

Why the push for a criminal offence?

Coercive control has gained significant public attention since the killing of Hannah Clarke and her three children earlier this year.

Oversees, law reforms have been underway for a number of years. For example, new offences of coercive control have been introduced in England and Wales and Scotland .

Read more: Coercive control is a key part of domestic violence. So why isn’t it a crime across Australia?

Australian advocates in favour of criminalisation argue such an offence will help change our legal response — focusing on domestic violence as a pattern of abuse, rather than an isolated incident. They also say it will improve community awareness and enhance women’s safety and perpetrator accountability.

Yet, neither the 2015 Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence and 2015 Queensland Special Taskforce recommended the introduction of a stand-alone offence of coercive control.

The limits and risks of criminalisation

We must be cautious about criminalising coercive control.

In the first instance, successful law reform would rely on victims’ willingness and ability to involve police. But there are many reasons why victims are hesitant to report abuse.

This includes fears they will not be believed, the abuse will escalate if police intervene, or they will be blamed for the abuse committed against them.

Read more: ‘If you call 000 … I will send you back to your country’: how COVID-19 has trapped temporary visa holders

Police officers also need to know what to look for — they need to be able to identify the coercive and controlling behaviours and get the right information from the victim.

For cases proceeding to court, a key issue is how to prove coercion. An offence of coercive control focuses on a pattern of abusive behaviour. This may involve unremarkable acts — such as undermining relationships with family and friends or monitoring spending — that when viewed in isolation, are not criminal and rarely leave physical evidence.

The behaviours may also not have been witnessed by any third party who can corroborate their occurrence.

Read more: Why it’s so hard to prosecute cases of coercive or controlling behaviour

Any new legislation would need to address these challenges, as victims will have to prove their accounts of abuse to the requisite legal standard.

Without careful consideration, a new law may give victims a false sense of security that in turn, adversely affects their safety.

We need more evidence

As yet, there is limited evidence about the impact of criminalising coercive control. The number of charges, prosecutions and convictions in the United Kingdom is often cited as evidence of effectiveness. But the use of the offence in and of itself cannot be assumed as evidence of better outcomes for victims.

We do not know, for example, what proportion of women seeking help for coercive control succeed in court. We also do not know if women feel safer following their partner’s conviction — and whether the justice process validates their experience and achieves perpetrator accountability.

In many cases, the legislated punishment for coercive control is significantly lower than that permitted for assault and other related offences. We do not yet know to what extent “coercive control” has been used to downgrade behaviours attracting a higher penalty — for example, attempted murder.

Read more: How do we keep family violence perpetrators ‘in view’ during the COVID-19 lockdown?

There is also limited understanding of how coercive control laws would impact First Nations women, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and women with disabilities. This is a serious concern given these groups traditionally experience further harm and disempowerment when seeking help from the criminal justice system.

Research has shown how adversarial court proceedings can be used by perpetrators to extend their coercive control, in what is called “systems abuse”. Careful consideration must be given to ensuring any reforms do not make this form of abuse easier to perpetrate.

What action is needed now

In Australia, the first, critical step forward is a national definition of domestic and family violence that includes coercive control, along with consistency in all risk assessment and management frameworks.

This requires consistent and mandatory training to identify and respond to coercive and controlling behaviours for police, lawyers, judicial officers, frontline health workers, child protection workers as well as other child and family service workers.

An extensive consultation process on how to best respond to coercive control is essential.

Looking beyond a quick fix

We urge Australian jurisdictions to be cautious.

There may be a place for coercive control in criminal law, but until Australia has undertaken a thorough consultation and set up a rigorous evidence base for change, we need to press pause.

If your well-being is threatened by staying home and you are in Melbourne, you can travel more than 5km to find safety. Contact Safe Steps on 1800 015 188 or visit safesteps.org.au for specialist help.

If you believe a friend, family member, neighbour or work colleague is at risk of family violence or you have concerns for their safety contact 1800 RESPECT to speak to a counsellor. If you believe you are in immediate danger call 000.

– ref. Australia is not ready to criminalise coercive control — here’s why – https://theconversation.com/australia-is-not-ready-to-criminalise-coercive-control-heres-why-146929

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tess Newton Cain, Adjunct Associate Professor, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

On October 4, the people of New Caledonia will go to the polls. For the second time in the past two years, they will be asked if they wish to remain a part of France or become an independent country.

In the first vote in November 2018, 57% voted in favour of maintaining the status quo — remaining a French territory. This was a much narrower margin than had been anticipated, with some pre-referendum polls suggesting up to 75% would support staying with France.

These referendums take place under the Noumea Accord, an agreement signed by France in 1998 allowing New Caledonians three referendums on independence. If there is another “Non” vote this year, a third referendum will be held, most likely in 2022.

Why independence might be likely

Even in the short time since the last referendum, a number of relevant things have changed. Most significantly, local elections were held last year, which deepened the polarisation in the territory between those favouring independence and those opposed.

In the “Non” camp, an alliance of six political groupings has come together under the umbrella of the “loyalists”. On the “Oui” side, advocates are working harder to get young people politically involved.

Read more: New Caledonia votes to stay with France this time, but independence supporters take heart

There is some sense the independence “struggle” is an issue for the older generation of indigenous Kanaks and not embraced fully by those who were born after the violence of the 1980s when Kanaks revolted against French rule. This is what led to the Noumea Accord being signed.

There will be 6,000 new voters eligible to take part in this year’s referendum who weren’t old enough to vote in 2018.

In France, a new prime minister, Jean Castex, has also recently been appointed, as well as a new overseas minister. Neither has engaged significantly with New Caledonia, nor do they have much experience with self-determination issues.

There are some in New Caledonia who simply feel the issue isn’t high on France’s list of priorities at the moment.

However, just days out from the vote, some on the right of French politics have spoken out strongly against New Caledonia becoming independent. National Rally leader Marine Le Pen warned a vote for independence would lead to uncertainty and danger.

And Castex has said in recent days he will meet with New Caledonia’s political leaders after the referendum.

A key aspect of the debate around independence is what the economic future would hold. Magalie Tingal, a member in the Northern Provincial Congress, was recently at pains to point out that France currently provides only 10% of the territory’s budget.

However, French rule has certainly led to a higher level of development than in the neighbouring countries of Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands — at least in and around the capital, Noumea.

One of the major concerns of the pro-independence movement is the lack of equitable development in New Caledonia. The lack of services in predominantly Kanak areas is a source of significant discontent.

Read more: Rebel music: the protest songs of New Caledonia’s independence referendum

Will COVID-19 cause voters to stay home?

The COVID-19 pandemic will also likely affect the level of scrutiny on the forthcoming vote.

In 2018, there were numerous delegations of international observers in New Caledonia for the vote, but that presence will be significantly reduced this time around. The same goes for the amount of international reporting we can expect, with only French journalists likely to be present.

Election observers, as well as officials coming from France to administer the vote, have been required to undergo 14 days of quarantine on arrival.

Perhaps more significantly, there is the question of whether COVID-19 will significantly reduce voter turnout, despite the fact New Caledonia has had no cases of community transmission.

In 2018, turnout was exceptionally high, at more than 80%, which no doubt caused the vote to be closer than expected.

Would a new nation drift toward China?

Officials in Australia and New Zealand have not taken a position on the referendum. However, in security and strategy circles, there is no doubt concern that an independent New Caledonia (also known as Kanaky by the Kanak people) may become a target for Chinese influence.

In a recent webinar hosted by Griffith University, those in favour of independence said it would give the Kanak people more choices when it came to foreign policy.

China is already New Caledonia’s number one trading partner and it is reasonable to expect this would be one of several relationships an independent Kanaky/New Caledonia would focus on as it built an international presence as a new country.

As Patricia Goa, a member of New Caledonia’s Congress said in the webinar, independence would offer a choice.

What’s wrong with having cooperation with China and others?

The unfinished business of decolonisation

New Caledonia’s trajectory towards possible independence is also part of a wider discussion taking place in the Pacific on decolonisation and sovereignty.

Just last year, we saw the people of Bougainville vote for independence from Papua New Guinea by an overwhelming majority.

There are ongoing calls for the people of French Polynesia to be given an opportunity to vote on independence from France.

And in West Papua, the struggle for self-determination has gained renewed attention, with Vanuatu’s prime minister calling out Indonesia for “human rights abuses” at the UN General Assembly.

All of these movements are significant not only for the people who live in these territories, but for the stability of the region more generally. With increased geo-strategic focus on this part of the world, these are important shifts to watch and understand, whether from near or far.

Read more: Bougainville has voted to become a new country, but the journey to independence is not yet over

– ref. New Caledonians will vote again on independence. Will the answer this time be ‘Oui’? – https://theconversation.com/new-caledonians-will-vote-again-on-independence-will-the-answer-this-time-be-oui-146101

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

In 2018 a team of Italian scientists announced to the world that there was a lake on Mars. Using satellite radar data, the team detected a very bright area approximately 20 kilometres across located about 1.5 kilometres deep under the ice and dust of the south polar cap.

After analysis, they concluded that the bright area was a subglacial lake filled with liquid water. The discovery raised some fundamental questions.

Was this the only lake hidden beneath the ice on Mars? How could liquid water exist in the extreme cold of the Martian south polar region, where the average surface temperatures are lower than -100 °C?

After acquiring additional satellite data, my colleagues and I have discovered three more distinct “lakes” near the one found in 2018 and confirmed that all four bodies contain liquid water.

Read more: Mars: mounting evidence for subglacial lakes, but could they really host life?

How can we see lakes under the ice on Mars?

The radar sounder MARSIS (Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionosphere Sounding) is one of eight instruments on board the European Space Agency orbiter Mars Express. This scientific spacecraft has been circling the red planet since December 2003.

The orbiting radar directs radio “chirps” toward the planetary surface. These signals are partly reflected back by the surface, and partly penetrate deeper, where they may be absorbed, scattered, or reflected back to the radar. Liquid water reflects radar signals better than many other materials, so the surface of a body of liquid water shines brightly in a radar image.

Radar sounders are used on Earth to detect subglacial lakes in Antarctica, Greenland and Canada. Here, a technique called radio-echo sounding (RES) is commonly used to analyse the signals.

There are some obvious differences between how radar sounding is used on Earth and on Mars. For a start, MARSIS operates from altitudes between 250 km and 900 km above the surface, it has a 40-metre long antenna, and it operates at much lower frequencies (1.8-5 MHz) than Earth-based radar sounders.

These differences meant we had to do some work to adapt standard radio-echo sounding techniques for use with signals from MARSIS. However, we were able to analyse data from 134 MARSIS tracks acquired between 2010 and 2019 over an area 250 km wide and 300 km long near the south pole of Mars.

In this area, we identified three distinct bright patches around the lake already “seen” in 2018. We then used an unconventional probabilistic method to confirm that the bright patches really do represent bodies of liquid water.

We also obtained a much clearer picture of the shape and extent of the lake discovered in 2018. It is still the largest of the bodies of water, measuring 20 km across on its shortest axis and 30 km on its longest.

How could liquid water exist beneath the Martian ice?

The surface temperatures in our study area are around -110 °C on average. The temperatures at the base of the ice cap may be slightly warmer, but still way below the freezing point of pure water.

So how can bodies of liquid water exist here, let alone persist for periods of time long enough for us to detect them?

After the first lake was found in 2018, other groups had suggested the area might be warmed from below by magma within the planet crust. However, there is to date no evidence this is the case, so we think extremely high salt levels in the water are a more likely explanation.

Read more: What on Earth could live in a salt water lake on Mars? An expert explains

Perchlorate salts, which contain chlorine, oxygen, and another element, such as magnesium or calcium, are everywhere in the Martian soil. These salts absorb moisture from the atmosphere and turn to liquid (this process is termed “deliquescence”), producing hypersaline aqueous solutions (brines), which crystallise at temperatures far below the freezing point of pure water. Furthermore, laboratory experiments have shown that solutions formed by deliquescence can stay liquid for long periods even after temperatures drop below their own freezing points.

We therefore suggested in our paper that the waters in the south polar subglacial lakes are “salty”. This is particularly fascinating, because it has been shown that brines like these can hold enough dissolved oxygen to support microbial life.

Could conditions be right for life beneath the ice?

Our discoveries raise new questions. Is the chemistry of the water in the south polar subglacial lakes suitable for life? How does this modify our definitions of habitable environments? Was there ever life on Mars?

To address these questions new experiments and new missions must be planned. In the meantime, we are gearing up to continue acquiring MARSIS data to collect as much evidence as possible from the Martian subsurface.

Each new piece of evidence brings us one step closer to answering some of the most fundamental scientific questions about Mars, the solar system and the universe.

Read more: Mars: mounting evidence for subglacial lakes, but could they really host life?

– ref. Buried lakes of salty water on Mars may provide conditions for life – https://theconversation.com/buried-lakes-of-salty-water-on-mars-may-provide-conditions-for-life-146928

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Strangio, Associate Professor of Politics, Monash University

We have long been accustomed in Australia to the Commonwealth’s pre-eminence over the states and prime ministers dwarfing premiers. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has given us a practical reminder of the extensive day-to-day powers that still sit with state governments in our federation. Premiers can have an influence and prominence that transcends their own jurisdictions.

In a situation he no doubt would prefer to have forgone, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has loomed large over the national landscape since a second wave of the pandemic gripped his state in July. One indicator of how many eyes have been glued on the premier: a database of Australian media outlets shows there have been almost as many mentions of him as of Prime Minister Scott Morrison over the past three months. Andrews has had nearly as many hits as all the other state leaders combined.

Elected in November 2014, Andrews is Australia’s longest-serving head of government. The next closest is Queensland’s Annastacia Palaszczuk, who has been premier since February 2015.

Two things stand out about Andrews’ pathway to office. First, it exhibits the hallmarks of a quintessential Labor apparatchik. Second is its rapidity.

Following graduation from Monash University where he majored in politics, Andrews became an electorate officer and factional enforcer for federal Labor MP Alan Griffin, before stints as an organiser and then assistant state secretary for the Victorian ALP. In November 2002, aged 30, he won a seat in the Legislative Assembly. He was immediately appointed as a parliamentary secretary in the second Steve Bracks-led Labor government.

Four years later, Andrews was promoted to the ministry and, after the ALP lost office in November 2010, he was elected opposition leader. By age 42, he was premier of Victoria.

Read more: An obedient nation of larrikins: why Victorians are not revolting

An activist premier

One of the perversities of the modern party apparatchik scheming their way into parliamentary office from a tender age is that, once there, they commonly lack the wherewithal to meaningfully exercise power. They resemble a dog that chases and catches the truck. It is as if they have spent too much time obsessing about the object of their ambition at the expense of bothering to understand its purpose.

Andrews is different. Early this year, I attended the memorial service for the former Labor premier John Cain, who presided over a period of watershed reform in Victoria in the 1980s. A story Andrews chose to tell about Cain said as much about him as it did about the late premier. He recalled that Cain rang him on the eve of the November 2014 state election with Andrews poised to win government. An emotional Cain impressed on Andrews the opportunities of office and implored him not to waste a day of power.

If his own instincts to leave an imprint on the state and Cain’s urgings weren’t enough, Andrews had another reason to be an activist premier. The Liberal-National government Labor defeated in 2014 had mostly seemed becalmed during its single term in office, exacerbating the state’s infrastructure shortfall and squandering the goodwill of an impatient, fast-growing Victorian community.

It was a very different scenario from the last time Labor had won power from opposition in 1999, when Steve Bracks surprisingly triumphed over Jeff Kennett. Then, the imperative had been for a period of healing and consensus following Kennett’s steamroller leadership. The amiable and cautious Bracks was perfectly attuned to that need, but some problems were put in the too-hard basket. Eventually, time ran out for Bracks’ successor, John Brumby, not least because of discontent with Melbourne’s overstretched public transport system.

Andrews, by contrast, styled himself as an assertive premier from the moment he took office. This was exemplified by an ambitious infrastructure building agenda: signature policies were a major program of level-crossing removals and the Metro tunnel rail project.

Belying his buttoned-up Clark Kent-like exterior, but also confident that Victoria was more receptive to bold social reform than other parts of the nation, his government made Victoria the first Australian state to legalise voluntary assisted dying, established the state’s first drug-injecting room, firmly supported the Safe Schools program, appointed the Royal Commission into Family Violence, and embarked on negotiating a treaty with the Indigenous community.

Andrews the earnest reformer coexists with a powerful streak of the political hard man. He demonstrated a willingness to barge through controversies unapologetically (whether cancelling the contract for the East West Link project, the prolonged dispute over reforming the Country Fire Authority, or revelations about Labor’s deployment of taxpayer-funded electoral staff in its 2014 election campaign — the so-called “red shirts” affair).

Similarly, Andrews seemed to derive satisfaction and affirmation in provoking critics. He thumbed his nose at Melbourne’s top-rating commercial talkback radio host, Neil Mitchell, and appeared unfazed at earning the enmity of the state’s News Corp tabloid, the Herald Sun.

Enter the ‘Danslide’

The formula worked. Despite vociferous attacks by the Herald Sun but aided by a tin-ear law-and-order campaign by the Liberal opposition, which jarred in a community defined by complexity and diversity, the Andrews government was triumphantly returned in November 2018. The victory was so comprehensive that it was dubbed the “Danslide”.

Former Liberal prime minister John Howard sought to console devastated Victorian Liberals by christening the state the “Massachusetts of Australia”. Yet in a review of the election for the Victorian Liberal Party, Howard’s former principal adviser, Tony Nutt, acknowledged the effectiveness of Andrews’ leadership over the previous four years. In private circles, Liberals conceded he was one of the most formidable politicians of the generation.

Read more: Victorian Labor’s thumping win reveals how out of step with voters Liberals have become

The dangers of dominance

When Andrews so emphatically won a second term, I wrote that a potential danger was that, emboldened, he might grow too domineering.

That, of course, was long before the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically impacted the political landscape. Early in the crisis, Andrews’ decisive style appeared ideally equipped for the challenge. As head of one of the senior states, he had an influential presence in Morrison’s specially formed national cabinet.

In common with his fellow leaders, Andrews’ management of the first wave of the virus won strong public endorsement. In late April, Newspoll recorded him enjoying an approval rating of 75%, with 85% of respondents believing he had handled the pandemic well.

Then came the botched hotel quarantine program, the unleashing of a second wave of the virus and the imposition of strict restrictions on Victorians in early July. For Andrews, who has prided himself on his control of his government and mastery of detail, it has no doubt been a humbling experience.

He has responded in perhaps the only way he knows how: by asserting still tighter hold over his government and upping an already onerous workload. Day in and day out for the past three months, he has fronted a media conference to announce the latest COVID numbers, exhausting the questions of a frequently hostile journalist pack.

Any semblance of bipartisanship over the management of the virus disintegrated. The state opposition and Morrison government ministers have roundly condemned Andrews.

Predictably, the News Corp press has been especially strident. They resent what they regard as Andrews’ ideological adventurism and also seem actuated by revenge for the 2018 election result.

The legitimate criticisms that can be made of his government for its defective co-ordination, lack of accountability and occasionally tactless overreach have been overshadowed in their pages by hyperbolic columns depicting Victoria as a kind of failed state in which “Dictator Dan” tramples civil liberties. One wonders how many of these columnists have actually walked the streets of Melbourne during the lockdown: the public hardly gives the impression of being cowered under the jackboot of a police state.

Last week, through gritted teeth, The Australian reported the results of a Newspoll that indicated support for Andrews was holding up in Victoria. His approval rating was 62%. Two-thirds of those surveyed believed his government was doing well in handling COVID-19.

What this suggests is that the shrillest voices of criticism are not representative of public opinion at large. The public stoically accepts the restrictions and also has a sense of proportion about what has happened in Victoria when compared to the severity of the crisis in many other countries.

Even as the second wave of the virus is contained, the challenges for Andrews are many. Like his counterparts federally and in the other states, the premier’s destiny will likely be determined by how dire the economic reckoning is and how effectively his government handles the task of recovery.

Andrews may also need to moderate his leadership approach. Crises have a habit of leaving a legacy of centralised authority in governments — think of Kevin Rudd’s federal Labor government and the GFC — but monopolising too much power is ultimately neither sustainable nor wise for any leader. Unless tempered, his ruthlessness, most recently displayed by publicly cutting adrift Health Minister Jenny Mikakos, risks eventually seeding an internal revolt.

There are some predictions a wounded Andrews, emulating what Bracks did in 2007, will resign the premiership before the next state election. I’m unpersuaded. There are amends to be made and to walk away now would be tantamount to conceding to his detractors.

Besides, relinquishing power would go against the grain.

Read more: Victorian Health Minister Jenny Mikakos quits, lashing out at Daniel Andrews

– ref. Andrews under fire: why an activist premier’s greatest challenges may yet lie ahead – https://theconversation.com/andrews-under-fire-why-an-activist-premiers-greatest-challenges-may-yet-lie-ahead-146838

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vasso Apostolopoulos, Professor of Immunology and Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research Partnerships, Victoria University

Vaccines are traditionally administered with a needle, but this isn’t the only way. For example, certain vaccines can be delivered orally, as a drop on the tongue, or via a jet-like device.

Vaccines that appear particularly suitable to needle-free technology are DNA-based ones, including a COVID-19 vaccine being developed in Australia.

Needle-free vaccines are attractive as they cause less pain and stress to people with needle phobias. But they have other benefits.

Read more: Fear of needles could be a hurdle to COVID-19 vaccination, but here are ways to overcome it

Jet injectors and beyond

The earliest needle-free injection systems date back to 1866 and used jet injectors. These hand-held devices used pressure to penetrate the skin and deliver medicine.

They became increasingly popular around the middle of the 20th century, and were used to deliver vaccines against typhus, polio and smallpox.

A hepatitis B outbreak linked to their use meant they were discontinued in the 1980s. However, research picked up again in the 1990s. Variations included a spring-loaded jet injector (a spring is released to deliver the drug), a battery-powered jet injector, and a gas-powered jet injector.

Jet injection has also been used in dental care to deliver local anaesthetic.

Read more: Australia’s just signed up for a shot at 9 COVID-19 vaccines. Here’s what to expect

Beyond jet injection, oral vaccines including rotavirus, cholera, polio and typhoid have been around for several decades, and are still used today in various parts of the world. They can come as a liquid or tablet.

More recently, researchers and biotechnology companies have developed vaccines you inhale, such as nasal sprays, as well as skin patches. These are mostly still in clinical testing.

DNA-based vaccines and the gene gun

DNA vaccines were a chance discovery as a result of early gene therapy experiments in the 1990s, where injecting DNA into the muscle unexpectedly generated an immune response.

With a DNA vaccine, a small section of the genetic material of the virus is delivered into cells under the skin. These cells then express the DNA as viral proteins. The body recognises these as foreign and stimulates an immune response.

DNA vaccines are simple and cheap to produce in large quantities, and they’re relatively safe as they don’t contain any infective agents, such as live virus.

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

Scientists have explored a number of ways to deliver DNA vaccines, either with a needle or needle free. The needle-free methods include ultrasound (sound waves) and electroporation (electrical pulses) that disrupt cell membranes, allowing DNA into the cells.

The gene gun or “biojector 2000”, a form of jet injector, seems to be the most effective method. This uses pressure to inject DNA into deep layers of the skin. Because it improves the distribution of the vaccine deeper into the injection site, this method uses far less DNA than injection with a needle to generate the same immune response.

But no DNA vaccine has been licensed for use in humans yet. Although needle-free DNA vaccines have shown success in pre-clinical and early clinical trials, DNA vaccines in general are also not as effective in generating immune responses against diseases such as HIV and cancer.

Needle-free COVID-19 contenders

The University of Sydney recently received federal government funding to commence human trials using a “liquid jet” injector to deliver its DNA-vaccine.

Liquid jet injectors use small volumes of liquid forced through a tiny opening (smaller than a human hair). This ultra-fine high pressure stream penetrates the skin where cells then take up the vaccine and stimulate immune cells.

This method was effective in several clinical trials against HIV and is currently used to deliver some influenza vaccines.

Other needle-free COVID-19 vaccines in development include a bandaid-like patch made up of 400 tiny needles, a nasal vaccine, an oral vaccine as a tablet, and a needle-free device that delivers an mRNA vaccine.

Vaccines based on mRNA work in similar ways to DNA vaccines.

Advantages and disadvantages

The advantages of needle-free vaccine technology, specifically jet injectors, include:

• they may be significantly more acceptable for people afraid of needles, including children

• there’s no risk of being accidentally injured with a needle

• they eliminate needle disposal (up to 500 million needles are thrown in landfill every year after vaccinations, and 75 million of these could be infected with blood-borne diseases)

• they improve vaccine delivery into the skin and use a lower vaccine volume.

Disadvantages include:

• start-up costs for those using the device, including buying gun devices, and access to gas/air systems to power them

• staff who administer the vaccine will need special training, and may not feel confident using the technology

• the equipment needs regular maintenance.

Read more: Eyeing local development: a look at the 3 Australian COVID vaccine candidates to receive a government boost

– ref. A COVID-19 vaccine may come without a needle, the latest vaccine to protect without jabbing – https://theconversation.com/a-covid-19-vaccine-may-come-without-a-needle-the-latest-vaccine-to-protect-without-jabbing-146564

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew G. Allen, Professor of Development Studies, The University of the South Pacific

This week, 156 people from the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, an island in Papua New Guinea, petitioned the Australian government to investigate Rio Tinto over a copper mine that devastated their homeland.

In 1988, disputes around the notorious Panguna mine sparked a lengthy civil war in Bougainville, leading to the deaths of up to 20,000 people. The war is long over and the mine has been closed for 30 years, but its brutal legacy continues.

Read more: Bougainville has voted to become a new country, but the journey to independence is not yet over

When I conducted research in Bougainville in 2015, I estimated the deposit of the mine’s waste rock (tailings) downstream from the mine to be at least a kilometre wide at its greatest point. Local residents informed me it was tens of metres deep in places.

I spent several nights in a large two-story house built entirely from a single tree dragged out of the tailings — dragged upright, with a tractor. Every new rainfall brought more tailings downstream and changed the course of the waterways, making life especially challenging for the hundreds of people who eke out a precarious existence panning the tailings for remnants of gold.

The petition has brought the plight of these communities back into the media, but calls for Rio Tinto to clean up its mess have been made for decades. Let’s examine what led to the ongoing crisis.

Triggering a civil war

The Panguna mine was developed in the 1960s, when PNG was still an Australian colony, and operated between 1972 and 1989. It was, at the time, one of the world’s largest copper and gold mines.

It was operated by Bougainville Copper Limited, a subsidiary of what is now Rio Tinto, until 2016 when Rio handed its shares to the governments of Bougainville and PNG.

When a large-scale mining project reaches the end of its commercial life, a comprehensive mine closure and rehabilitation plan is usually put in place.

Read more: PNG marks 40 years of independence, still feeling the effects of Australian colonialism

But Bougainville Copper simply abandoned the site in the face of a landowner rebellion. This was largely triggered by the mine’s environmental and social impacts, including disputes over the sharing of its economic benefits and the impacts of those benefits on predominantly cashless societies.

Following PNG security forces’ heavy-handed intervention — allegedly under strong political pressure from Bougainville Copper — the rebellion quickly escalated into a full-blown separatist conflict that eventually engulfed all parts of the province.

By the time the hostilities ended in 1997, thousands of Bougainvilleans had lost their lives, including from an air and sea blockade the PNG military had imposed, which prevented essential medical supplies reaching the island.

The mine’s gigantic footprint

The Panguna mine’s footprint was gigantic, stretching across the full breadth of the central part of the island.

The disposal of hundreds of millions of tonnes of tailings into the Kawerong-Jaba river system created enormous problems.

Rivers and streams became filled with silt and significantly widened. Water flows were blocked in many places, creating large areas of swampland and disrupting the livelihoods of hundreds of people in communities downstream of the mine. These communities used the rivers for drinking water and the adjacent lands for subsistence food gardening.

Several villages had to be relocated to make way for the mining operations, with around 200 households resettled between 1969 and 1989.

In the absence of any sort of mine closure or “mothballing” arrangements, the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the Panguna mine have only been compounded.

Since the end of mining activities 30 years ago, tailings have continued to move down the rivers and the waterways have never been treated for suspected chemical contamination.

Read more: Environment Minister Sussan Ley faces a critical test: will she let a mine destroy koala breeding grounds?

Long-suffering communities

The 156 complainants live in communities around and downstream of the mine. Many are from the long-suffering village of Dapera.

In 1975, the people of Dapera were relocated to make way for mining activities. Today, it’s in the immediate vicinity of the abandoned mine pit. As one woman from Dapera told me in 2015:

I have travelled all over Bougainville, and I can say that they [in Dapera] are the poorest of the poor.

They, and others, sent the complaint to the Australian OECD National Contact Point after lodging it with Melbourne’s Human Rights Law Centre.

The complainants say by not ensuring its operations didn’t infringe on the local people’s human rights, Rio Tinto breached OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises.

The Conversation contacted Rio Tinto for comment. A spokesperson said:

We believe the 2016 arrangement provided a platform for the Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG) and PNG to work together on future options for the resource with all stakeholders.

While it is our belief that from 1990 to 2016 no Rio Tinto personnel had access to the mine site due to on-going security concerns, we are aware of the deterioration of mining infrastructure at the site and surrounding areas, and claims of resulting adverse environmental and social, including human rights, impacts.

We are ready to enter into discussions with the communities that have filed the complaint, along with other relevant parties such as BCL and the governments of ABG and PNG.

A long time coming

This week’s petition comes after a long succession of calls for Rio Tinto to be held to account for the Panguna mine’s legacies and the resulting conflict.

A recent example is when, after Rio Tinto divested from Bougainville Copper in 2016, former Bougainville President John Momis said Rio must take full responsibility for an environmental clean-up.

And in an unsuccessful class action, launched by Bougainvilleans in the United States in 2000, Rio was accused of collaborating with the PNG state to commit human rights abuses during the conflict and was also sued for environmental damages. The case ultimately foundered on jurisdictional grounds.

Taking social responsibility

This highlights the enormous challenges in seeking redress from mining companies for their operations in foreign jurisdictions, and, in this case, for “historical” impacts.

The colonial-era approach to mining when Panguna was developed in the 1960s stands in stark contrast to the corporate social responsibility paradigm supposedly governing the global mining industry today.

Read more: Be worried when fossil fuel lobbyists support current environmental laws

Indeed, Panguna — along with the socially and environmentally disastrous Ok Tedi mine in the western highlands of PNG — are widely credited with forcing the industry to reassess its “social license to operate”.

It’s clear the time has come for Rio to finally take responsibility for cleaning up the mess on Bougainville.

– ref. A brutal war and rivers poisoned with every rainfall: how one mine destroyed an island – https://theconversation.com/a-brutal-war-and-rivers-poisoned-with-every-rainfall-how-one-mine-destroyed-an-island-147092

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Kidson, Lecturer in Educational Leadership, University of Wollongong

Some Australian private schools have reported lower interest from prospective parents due to the financial pressures of COVID-19.

A number of Victorian school principals have also called on the state government to re-open borders to international students. They say there’s a possibility schools may be forced to close, due to severe financial distress from the non-return of students.

But the cause of the problem may lie not so much in COVID border closures but in fragile business and financial models adopted by some schools.

It was getting worse before COVID

Some schools with large boarding communities, including The King’s School and St Joseph’s College in Sydney, have accessed JobKeeper payments as their income met the 30% downturn threshold, while their total income is fewer than A$1 billion. These schools enrol large numbers of regional and rural students, as well as international students.

The last few years have also seen a steady increase in weekly boarders — who come from families for whom juggling work and study is facilitated by boarding, even when they live in relative proximity to the school.

The costs associated with running these residential facilities is significant, so it’s unsurprising the loss of boarding income for these schools is acute.

The loss of international student enrolments for most schools, though, is unlikely to cause many of these schools to reach the 30% downturn threshold. The Australian Boarding Schools’ Association notes only 10% of its 21,000 residential students are from overseas. With these smaller numbers, some principals now find themselves with an increasingly stressed financial situation and little direct support.

This is not new, as the history of the global financial crisis shows. In the five years between 2008 to 2013, international student enrolments in Australian schools fell from 28,291 to 17,739. The number of new enrolments also fell from 14,281 to 8,753. Both represent nearly 40% declines — far in excess of the 18% decline of international school enrolments reported by Austrade in July 2020.

And international school enrolments flatlined over the period 2016-2019, even as the higher education and vocational education sectors increased by more than 30% across the same period.

Read more: Five charts on Catholic school enrolments: they’re trending down while Australia’s population booms

Independent Schools Australia, the peak advocacy body for schools where most international students enrol, also notes while overall international education enrolments increased by 9.7% in 2019 from the year before, international student enrolments in non-government schools declined by 4.7% in the same period.

The case for government intervention due to COVID weakens somewhat in light of these data.

Some private schools need to rethink their models

Parental choice — often the preferred ground of legitimacy for non-government schools — may also require some principals to rethink the sustainability of their models. International enrolments are not subsidised by the Australian government and their fees can be very high compared to domestic students. For example, Wesley College in Melbourne charges A$42,850 for international students in Years 9 to 12 (not including the additional $27,000 for boarding), while domestic students in Year 10 to 12 are charged $34,610.

A reduction of this income can have a significant and material impact on school operations. When parents cannot afford the fees, they will shift their child’s enrolment to a school with more sustainable fee levels.

When school enrolments deteriorate, there is significant human cost to teachers, administration and support staff. That loss, while painful for those directly impacted, could be a gain for other schools in both government and non-government sectors.

Read more: The UK Labour Party wants to abolish private schools – could we do that in Australia?

As enrolments drift elsewhere, so too does the need to increase staffing in those schools to accommodate additional enrolments. The data above suggest solutions will need to emerge from within the schools themselves as they did post-GFC, rather than from government.

The non-government school sector has long benefited from the marketisation of education in Australia. The challenge now is how some schools will reconfigure their operations in light of these changing circumstances. If they do not, or cannot, the future looks quite dire.

In response to COVID-related financial pressures, some private schools have reportedly offered fee cuts and deferrals, and asked alumni to help pay the fees of students at risk of quitting due to economic pressures in the family.

The rapid growth of UK independent school partnerships in China is also providing an increasing range of options for parents seeking international education experience.

Some private schools will likely need to adjust their staffing levels as their enrolments change; if they can do so successfully, their future may be more secure, if not quite the future those school communities and principals may have envisaged.

Such is the logic of market-driven policy.

– ref. Some private schools need to change their models — they were losing students even before COVID – https://theconversation.com/some-private-schools-need-to-change-their-models-they-were-losing-students-even-before-covid-146745

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

The economic crises that have punctuated the 21st century, most notably the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis, have led to a growing realisation that alternatives to our present system are possible and perhaps inevitable.

In particular, there has been an erosion of the belief that the economy is able to provide a decent income to everyone who wants to work.

A number of proposals have been put forward in the wake of this realisation, among them

• universal basic income, which would unconditionally provide every resident (children and adults) with a regular subsistence wage

• a job guarantee in which the government would provide real jobs, at the minimum wage, to all unemployed Australians

Many seem utopian, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it’s good to look beyond the day-to-day to consider how things could be done differently.

In a new Australian National University Policy Brief we propose something practical, which we are calling a Liveable Income Guarantee (LIG).

Take the age pension..

It starts with one of the most successful institutions we’ve got: the age pension.

Before the age pension was introduced in 1908, retired Australians were highly likely to be poor. But now, on some measures, retired Australians are less likely to be in poverty than Australians of less than pension age.

Our proposal is to replicate this success for the entire population.

We are proposing a payment equal to the pension, and subject to the same asset and income tests, that would be provided to everyone who is willing to make a contribution to society consistent with their ability to do so.

…extend it to others

“Contribution” would be defined broadly to maximise contributions. Examples would include full-time study, volunteering, caring for children, ecological care, and starting a small business.

The biggest shift relates to the treatment of unemployed workers and single parents.

JobSeeker is set to return to the unliveable rates of the former Newstart after the end of December.

We are suggesting that instead it be lifted to the rate of the age pension, which is about where it used to be before unemployment benefits were frozen in real terms in the 1990s.

Newstart versus the age pension

Parenting Payments have also been notoriously low, especially for single parents, whose support has been cut consecutively by five prime ministers from Howard to Turnbull.

Unlike some proposals for a universal payment to all citizens, the increased expenditure required for the liveable income guarantee would be relatively modest, as little as A$20 billion a year.

Do it for the price of tax cuts…

This is roughly comparable to the budget cost of the income tax cuts, primarily directed to high earners, legislated to take effect in 2022 and 2024.

The real barriers to the adoption of the proposal are ideological. The central assumption underlying economic policy in Australia has been that in a market economy everyone who wants a decent job is capable getting one.

It has followed that the unemployed are seen as either unwilling to work or suffering from particular deficits that need to be remedied by training and job readiness programs case by case.

Read more: ‘If JobSeeker was cut, the unemployed would be picking fruit’? Why that’s not true

Over the first two decades of this century, it has become evident this assumption is incorrect. The global financial crisis and the subsequent swing to austerity produced sustained high unemployment in much of the developed world.

While Australia avoided the worst consequences thanks to well-timed stimulus (here and in China) the unemployment rate has failed to fall below 5% as underemployment has climbed for more than a decade.

Any prospect of a rapid return to full employment have been dashed by the pandemic.

Read more: The jobs market is nowhere near as good as you’ve heard, and it’s changing us

Longer term it is clear that many existing jobs will disappear as a result of technological change, and it isn’t clear that our current institutions will be able to managing the process.

While governments should commit to a return to full employment, they are unlikely to be completely successful.

Ready us for the future

The implementation of a liveable income guarantee would allow us to be better prepared in case they are not and to be better prepared for future disruptions, be they pandemics or anything else.

On the brighter side, technological progress has increased our productive capacity to the point where we can afford to support a much wider range of non-market contributions to a market economy. The crisis has shown us how important many of those contributions are.

Looking beyond the crisis, it is possible (relatively simple) to create a society in which everyone has a decent standard of living, and no one is excluded.

Providing dignity to everyone who makes a contribution would benefit us all.

– ref. Meet the Liveable Income Guarantee: a budget-ready proposal that would prevent unemployment benefits falling off a cliff – https://theconversation.com/meet-the-liveable-income-guarantee-a-budget-ready-proposal-that-would-prevent-unemployment-benefits-falling-off-a-cliff-146990

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul S.C.Taçon, Chair in Rock Art Research and Director of the Place, Evolution and Rock Art Heritage Unit (PERAHU), Griffith University

Western Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, has a remarkable range and number of rock art sites, rivalling that of Europe, southern Africa and various parts of Asia. Several thousand sites have been documented and each year new discoveries are made by various research teams working closely with local Aboriginal communities.

Today, in the journal Australian Archaeology, we and colleagues introduce an important previously undescribed rock art style. Consisting of large human figures and animals, the style is primarily found in northwest Arnhem Land, and has been named Maliwawa Figures by senior Traditional Owner Ronald Lamilami.

We recorded 572 Maliwawa paintings at 87 rock shelters over a 130-kilometre east-west distance, from Awunbarna (Mount Borradaile) to the Namunidjbuk clan estate of the Wellington Range, a region home to unique and internationally significant rock art of various types.

Maliwawa Figures consist of red to mulberry naturalistic human and animal forms shaded with stroked lines. Occasionally they are in outline with just a few strokes within. Almost all were painted but there is one drawing.

The figures are often large (over 50 cm high), sometimes life-size, although there are also some small ones (20–50 cm in height). Various lines of evidence suggest the figures most likely date to between 6,000 to 9,400 years of age.

Animal-human relationships

In the Maliwawa paintings, human figures are frequently depicted with animals, especially macropods (kangaroos and wallabies), and these animal-human relationships appear to be central to the artists’ message. In some instances, animals almost appear to be participating in or watching some human activity.

Another key theme is a male or indeterminate human figure holding an animal, often a snake, or another human figure or an object.

Such scenes are rare in early rock art, not just in Australia but worldwide. They provide a remarkable glimpse into past Aboriginal life and cultural beliefs.

Maliwawa animals are usually in profile. Some macropods are shown in a human-like sitting pose with paws in front, resembling a person playing a piano. Depictions of animal tracks (footprints) and geometric designs are rare.

Macropods, birds, snakes and longtom fish are the most frequent animal subjects, comprising three quarters of total fauna. But, more generally, mammals are most common.

There are seven depictions of animals long extinct in the Arnhem Land region, consisting of four thylacines and three bilby-like creatures. At one Namunidjbuk site there is a rare depiction of a dugong.

A third of human depictions were classified as male because they have male genitalia depicted. Females, identified because breasts were shown, are rare, comprising only 5% of human depictions. Almost 59% of human figures could not be determined to be either male or female because they lack sex-specific characteristics.

Human figures generally have round-shaped or oval-shaped heads; some have lines on the head suggestive of hair. 30% of human figures are shown with headdresses, of which there are ten different forms. The most common is a ball headdress, followed by oval, cone and feather.

Maliwawa males are usually in profile and often have a bulging stomach above a penis. A few Maliwawa females are also shown with an extended abdomen.

National significance

Most Maliwawa Figures are in accessible or visible places at low landscape elevations rather than hidden away, or at shelters high in the landscape. This suggests they were meant to be seen, possibly from some distance. Often, Maliwawa Figures dominate shelter walls with rows of figures in various arrangements.

We first found some of these figures during a survey in 2008-2009 but they became the focus of further field research from 2016 to 2018.

In Australia, we are spoiled with rock art — paintings, drawings, stencils, prints, petroglyphs (engravings) and even designs made from native beeswax in rock shelters and small caves, on boulders and rock platforms. Often in spectacular and spiritually significant landscapes, rock art remains very important to First Nation communities as a part of living culture.

There are as many as 100,000 sites here, representing tens of thousands of years of artistic activity. But even in 2020, new styles are being identified for the first time.

What if the Maliwawa Figures were in France? Surely, they would be the subject of national pride with different levels of government working together to ensure their protection and researchers endeavouring to better understand and protect them.

We must not allow Australia’s abundance of rock art to lead to a national ambivalence towards its appreciation and protection.

The Maliwawa Figures demonstrate how much more we have to learn from Australia’s early artists. And who knows what else is out there waiting to be found. ​

– ref. Introducing the Maliwawa Figures: a previously undescribed rock art style found in Western Arnhem Land – https://theconversation.com/introducing-the-maliwawa-figures-a-previously-undescribed-rock-art-style-found-in-western-arnhem-land-145535

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sommer Kapitan, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Auckland University of Technology

If social media engagement rates determined which parties form the next government, New Zealand’s parliament would soon look a lot different.

With its daily social media interactions commanding an average 7.7% engagement rate, Advance NZ (incorporating the NZ Public Party) would be streets ahead of Labour and National.

Opposing the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, 5G and the United Nations, and promoting anti-lockdown protests, might only get them to 1% in opinion polls — but it is a winning formula online.

Advance NZ’s livestreamed anti-lockdown march in August netted 255,600 views — 86% of them generated by only 4,793 people who shared the posted video.

That’s a higher engagement rate than many posts by the acknowledged Facebook champion of New Zealand politics, the prime minister and Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern, whose own posts routinely attract between 120,000 and 500,000 views.

Politics in the attention economy

Across the political spectrum, parties have seen the greatest boost in visibility when they post about hot-button issues: taxation, lockdowns, economic stress, mask wearing — even tobacco prices.

A photo meme of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters pledging to remove tobacco excise tax was among the highest-performing posts, gaining 24 times the party’s usual number of comments, likes, shares and views.

The platform algorithms reward posts that outperform a party page’s usual engagement rates. In a kind of snowball effect, high-performing posts are pushed higher into news feeds and deeper into the minds of voters.

Read more: The Facebook prime minister: how Jacinda Ardern became New Zealand’s most successful political influencer

Social media algorithms are proprietary and tweaked often. But their purpose is clear — to read the user’s searches and interactions in order to serve them more related content and keep them continually engaged.

With this persuasive power built into the technology and our attention now a commodity to be bought and sold, no politician can ignore social media nowadays.

Organic vs paid media

In New Zealand from July to September 25, there were 9,537 paid advertisements on Facebook and Instagram related to social issues, elections and politics, costing a total of $NZ 1,054,713.

Parties are particularly paying for attention when their content has limited organic reach.

Labour and Jacinda Ardern have the greatest organic reach, with 1.6 million Facebook fans combined (the lion’s share being Ardern’s). The party spent only $41,396 on posts in one 30-day period ending in September.

Read more: We need a code to protect our online privacy and wipe out ‘dark patterns’ in digital design

By contrast, National and its leader Judith Collins lack organic reach. With only 180,000 fans across their Facebook pages, they need to spend to keep up — $143,825 in the same 30-day period.

Of that, $35,000 was devoted to a massive push for people seeing Collins’ social media advertisements to “like my page to stay up to date”. Ultimately, the strategy is about boosting party votes and building greater organic reach in future.

Reach and reinforcement

But even smaller parties have outspent Labour. The Greens paid $82,000 for social advertising in the same period.

However, Greens Auckland Central candidate Chloe Swarbrick (who has a bigger social following than party co-leaders James Shaw or Marama Davidson) went organically viral with a simple photo of herself wearing a vintage party jumper.

Replica garments were rushed into production and sold out overnight on the party’s fundraising site.

So, social media do work, as ACT and its leader, David Seymour, would no doubt also attest. Having spent $78,000 to promote their “Change your future” bus tour and “Holding the other parties accountable” message, the party is climbing in the polls.

And despite its organic strength, Advance NZ has spent nearly $7,000 on social media. Half of that was dedicated to boosting numbers at the anti-lockdown protests, but such spending is also clearly designed to reach voters who aren’t already fans or friends of fans.

Cultivating reality

The benign view is that social channels allow parties to stay in the conversations and thoughts of voters. Voters in return become more connected to politicians and informed on the issues they care about.

But because of the way those algorithms work, voters may rarely see the other side of policies and issues. Instead, those first clicks, views and interactions lead down the rabbit hole and create filter bubbles.

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

Filter bubbles have been blamed for slowly polarising audiences, causing gradual changes in voter behaviour and perception. This is a vastly different political sphere than existed even five years ago.

For example, anyone following only certain politicians might not have known that several social posts misrepresenting Ardern’s comments about farming in the first TV leaders’ debate had been subsequently fact-checked and debunked.

Over time, the filter bubble makes room for fake news to churn inside these echo chambers where users often fail to fact-check content. Misinformation thrives on repetition and familiarity.

But is there evidence that digital messaging influences voting behaviour? Yes, according to at least one major US study, especially when shared with friends and family. Such forms of social transmission seem more effective than politicians’ own use of social media.

If attitudes cultivated online translate into real-world voting behaviour, then Advance NZ may be merely a forerunner of what’s to come in New Zealand.

– ref. Click, like, share, vote: who’s spending and who’s winning on social media ahead of New Zealand’s election – https://theconversation.com/click-like-share-vote-whos-spending-and-whos-winning-on-social-media-ahead-of-new-zealands-election-144486

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert McLachlan, Professor in Applied Mathematics, Massey University

New Zealanders are polarised on climate change policy, according to a recent Stuff/Massey University survey of 55,000 readers. This puts the two major political parties in a difficult position as they seek options that are credible yet appealing to voters.

Just 30% of Labour voters and 22% of National voters think the country is “more or less on the right path” on climate action.

The majority of voters on one side of the political spectrum wants to see “urgent action and radical change”, while at the other end most recommend caution and scepticism.

The survey helps explain the deep distrust climate advocates have for the National Party, and their demands for bolder choices from Labour.

Where the parties stand

Labour is running heavily on its record, including the passing of the Zero Carbon Act and the introduction of a falling cap on emissions permits issued under the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Although the government’s COVID-19 recovery spending has been criticised for not being green enough, Labour seems aligned with a “just transition” approach championed by the International Labour Organisation.

Labour’s climate headline policy is for 100% renewable electricity by 2030, five years earlier than planned, and to spend NZ$100 million developing a pumped hydro scheme.

Read more: New Zealand wants to build a 100% renewable electricity grid, but massive infrastructure is not the best option

Labour is also sticking with a plan for a nationwide fuel efficiency standard, which would begin to turn around New Zealand’s growing transport emissions.

The party has dropped the electric car rebate, which the National Party has attacked on the grounds it could increase the price of popular vehicles. A similar approach worked for the Australian Liberal Party in 2019.

The Green Party would go further. While also promising 100% renewable electricity by 2030, the party promotes home solar and insulation and community clean energy. More boldly, it would immediately ban new fossil-fuelled industrial boilers and end industrial coal use by 2030 and gas by 2035. It would prioritise free public transport for under-18s, ban petrol car imports from 2030 and create a NZ$1.5 billion cycleway fund.

The National Party has released its electric vehicle policy, with a target of 80,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2023 (up from 16,000 now). It would exempt these vehicles from fringe benefit tax until 2025 and from road user charges until at least 2023 to encourage uptake by commercial fleets.

It would also target a third of government vehicles to be electric by 2023 and allow electric vehicles to use bus and carpool lanes. The last point has been criticised for impeding the flow of buses.

On the other hand, National’s climate spokesperson, Scott Simpson, has called the party a “broad church” and pledged to amend the Zero Carbon Act to emphasise that food production should not be sacrificed for climate goals.

The ACT Party, which on current polling would increase from one to ten MPs, was the only party to oppose the Zero Carbon Act. It now proposes repealing the act and tying the price of carbon to that of New Zealand’s five top trading partners.

What a difference three years make

At the time of New Zealand’s last general election in September 2017, Extinction Rebellion and the School Strike 4 Climate movements did not yet exist. Greta Thunberg was unknown to the world.

Now climate activism has increased globally. Climate-change impacts, including temperature records of 38℃ in northern Siberia to 54℃ in Death Valley, have attracted widespread attention. Orange skies in San Francisco are a reminder of apocalyptic Australian bushfires less than a year ago.

There are also signs of bolder climate action that may fulfil the declarations of the Paris Agreement. In the European Union, negotiations are under way to cut 2030 emissions to 40-45% of 1990 levels. This target would require halving emissions in the next decade.

In the US, the Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, has a US$2 trillion proposal for rapid decarbonisation. Ireland’s new government has agreed to emission cuts of 7% per year. China has pledged to be carbon-neutral before 2060.

In New Zealand, both Auckland and Wellington councils have released highly ambitious climate plans that will require sweeping changes to housing and transport.

But this year’s New Zealand general election won’t be about climate change. The COVID-19 crisis and the high level of uncertainty about economic recovery and employment have made issues of leadership, trust and party branding more important than ever.

Read more: New Zealand’s COVID-19 budget delivers on one crisis, but largely leaves climate change for another day

In this context, Labour’s nod to the Lake Onslow pumped hydro project could be a winner. Its storage potential is enormous – more than all of New Zealand’s present hydro lakes combined and 15 times the size of Australia’s Snowy 2.0 project.

It could decarbonise not just all electricity generation, but a lot of industrial process heat and transport as well. It would address the seasonal imbalance between lake inflows and electricity demand, and protect against dry years. But it’s also a traditional civil engineering project far in the future and doesn’t threaten anybody’s lifestyle today.

In New Zealand, as elsewhere, climate politics means finding support for actions now whose benefits extend far into the future.

– ref. NZ election 2020: survey shows voters are divided on climate policy and urgency of action – https://theconversation.com/nz-election-2020-survey-shows-voters-are-divided-on-climate-policy-and-urgency-of-action-146569

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

The federal government is selecting six priority areas for support in a $1.5 billion manufacturing plan Scott Morrison will outline in a pre-budget address.

They are resources technology and critical minerals processing, food and beverage, medical products, recycling and clean energy, defence, and space.

The plan will also focus on building “supply chain resilience” after the COVID pandemic exposed the risks of not having enough capability to quickly produce large amounts of vital items such as personal protective equipment.

The funding will be provided over the budget’s forward estimates period.

In a Thursday speech to the National Press Club, released ahead of delivery, Scott Morrison says this budget “will be one of the most important since the end of the second world war”.

“This budget will be necessarily different in scale to those we have seen for generations. It will respond responsibly to the challenge of our time.

“The budget will confirm the strong plan we have to recover from the COVID-19 recession and to build our economy for the future.”

Morrison says Australia needs “to keep making things”. Manufacturing employs about 860,000 and before COVID generated more than $100 billion in value annually for the economy and more than $50 billion in exports.

“Our government is determined to set a ten-year time horizon where all parties – industry, workforce (including unions), governments at all levels, capital (including superannuation funds) and our scientific and research community – are pulling in the one direction,” Morrison says.

He says the government’s “practical strategy” has three elements: creating a business environment where manufacturers can be more competitive, aligning resources to build scale in areas of competitive strength, and securing sovereign capability in areas of national interest.

The policy involves considerable government intervention – picking winners in terms of sectors, and collaborating with them in planning.

A $1.3 billion “modern manufacturing initiative”, focused on the priority areas, will invest in projects to help manufacturers “scale up” and create jobs.

The government and industry will partner to develop industry-led roadmaps to identify growth opportunities, barriers to scale and what is needed along the value chain in each area.

These maps, to be prepared by April, will be guides for investment and actions by both government and industry.

They will set goals and performance indicators – in jobs, research and development, investment – for the following two, five and ten years.

The manufacturing plan is one of a series of policy initiatives the government is announcing in the run up to the budget.

Others have included deregulation of credit policy to stimulate lending, changes to insolvency provisions to cushion struggling businesses, measures to promote digitalisation, and policies on energy.

Morrison in his speech again strongly talks up the importance of gas for the economic recovery generally and the manufacturing sector in particular.

“If you’re not for gas, you’re not for jobs in our manufacturing and heavy industries,” he declares. “For many manufacturers, it is half the problem.”

The National Covid-19 Co-ordination Commission had advised that gas was 20-40% of many industries’ cost structures.

“Combined with higher electricity costs, the NCCC said that has moved many firms into a ‘doom loop’ where they are living ‘turnaround to turnaround’, making existential decisions at each point of the next major maintenance decision, rather than decisions to invest in technology and much-needed productivity improvements to remain competitive. This needs to change,” Morrisons says.

“That is why, as part of our gas-fired recovery plan, we have committed to resetting our east coast gas markets, unlocking gas supplies, establishing a new gas hub and improving our gas grid distribution systems.”

His speech comes as Santos’s $3.6 billion controversial Narrabri coal seam gas project has this week been given “phased approval” by the NSW Independent Planning Commission, with its development subject to it meeting a range of conditions.

Morrison says the government’s “modern manufacturing initiative” will provide a new investment vehicle to help overcome the barriers to scale. It will leverage co-investment with states and territories, industry and research institutions across three activities

• collaboration: investments of an average of $80 million each to foster long-term, large-scale production or R&D facilities involving consortia of businesses and other organisations, including physical clusters (such as at the Western Sydney Aerotropolis)

• translation: investments of about $4 million for industry-led projects translating research and commercialising new products

• integration: investments of about $4 million connecting local firms with export markets.

The national sovereignty part of the manufacturing plan has more than $107 million earmarked for “supply chain resilience”.

“We cannot ignore the obvious. The efficiency benefits of hyper-globalisation and highly fragmented supply chains can evaporate quickly in the event of a major global shock like the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It is only sensible that Australia consider more options to guard against supply chain vulnerability for critical necessities and to secure us against future shocks,” Morrison says.

Currently, a government review is being done of Australia’s supply chain vulnerabilities in the wake of the pandemic.

The resilience initiative “will support Australian manufacturers investing in capabilities to address areas of identified acute vulnerability domestically, and to ensure they are in a position to contribute to the supply chains of trusted partners and like-minded countries.

“Sovereign Manufacturing Capability Plans will be developed in key areas and a range of policy options will be considered including procurement and long-term contracting arrangements, as well as actions to promote better information sharing and collaboration between government and industry.”

But Morrison stresses this does not herald a return to protectionist policies.

He says Australia is complementing its actions to boost domestic sovereign capability through greater collaboration with like-minded countries.

The manufacturing policy also includes $52.8 million for the existing manufacturing modernisation fund which gives grants to support transformational technologies and processes.

In a Wednesday pre-budget speech Anthony Albanese renewed his calls for trains to be built locally.

“State governments will invest billions of dollars in new public transport projects over the next two decades, requiring hundreds of new rail carriages.

“We should build them here. We have the facilities in Maryborough, Ballarat, Bendigo, Newcastle and Perth. We also have the skills,” he said.

“What we need is a government prepared to back in Australian-made trains and Australian-based jobs.

“This is just one example of how the government should use its purchasing power to create good, secure jobs while strengthening our sovereign industrial and research capabilities.”

– ref. Scott Morrison names six priority areas in $1.5 billion plan to boost manufacturing – https://theconversation.com/scott-morrison-names-six-priority-areas-in-1-5-billion-plan-to-boost-manufacturing-147213

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

On Tuesday, the 2020 budget will be brought down. It will show a huge deficit for this financial year and massive government spending, aimed at promoting economic recovery and reducing unemployment. In the wake of COVID, the Coalition’s usual preoccupation with “debt and deficit” has become very yesterday.

On this week’s Politics podcast, we speaks with Chris Richardson, partner at Deloitte Access Economics. Deloitte’s Economics Budget Monitor, released this week, favoured bringing forward the tax cuts as one measure to stimulate the economy and expected the deficit to be holding up better than earlier thought.

Like economists in a recent survey Richardson says the budget should prioritise a permanent boost to JobSeeker and fund more social housing:

“The least noticed thing about this crisis is how geographically specific it is,” he says.

“The job losses in Australia have been far and away the biggest where unemployment rates, suburb by suburb, town by town, out in the bush, were already the highest. … The areas that were struggling are now struggling a lot more. The areas that weren’t struggling haven’t been that hard hit.”

“And one real advantage of boosting unemployment benefits. It’s probably the single most targeted regional spend you can do in Australia at a time when that is needed most.”

And on social housing: “Think of what this virus has done all around the world. It’s found the weakest link in every nation.

“It’s travelled through the political system, the political divide in the US, it’s travelled through the migrant workers, construction workers in Singapore.

“In Australia, it showed up or could have shown up through our very low unemployment benefit… And social housing. You saw those towers locked down, as the virus got away on us in Melbourne. And again, both social housing and unemployment benefits. That’s money that would be spent. It makes it good stimulus.”

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Chris Richardson on what Tuesday’s budget will and should do – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-chris-richardson-on-what-tuesdays-budget-will-and-should-do-147206

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter van Duyn, Maritime Logistics Expert, Centre for Supply Chain and Logistics (CSCL), Deakin University

Twenty-two years ago, images of balaclava-clad security guards with German shepherds, locking out wharfies at the Patrick container terminals shocked the nation.

With a fresh industrial dispute underway at the Patrick container terminals, are we on track for another war on the waterfront? And what will this mean for medication and food supplies?

What is this dispute about?

Patrick Terminals is one of Australia’s biggest container terminal operators.

About seven months ago, Patrick and the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) started negotiations over a new nationwide enterprise agreement, which expired on June 30.

The dispute centres around a wage increase, improved rostering arrangements, minimising casualisation of the workforce and increased superannuation contributions. The union initially asked for a 6% annual pay increase but is now negotiating for 2.5%.

Unhappy with the progress of negotiations, the wharfies voted in late August to take protected action against the company, including 24-hour strikes, stop-work meetings and bans on overtime. Patrick says this severely limits its ability to run the business, including efficiently to service ships, trucks and trains.

Normally, negotiations would run over a longer period before industrial action would be taken. But given recent industrial action with another container stevedore, DP World, (which has now ceased), the effect of the delays built up quickly and Patrick went to the Fair Work Commission (FWC).

What’s at stake?

Patrick has warned more than 100,000 containers face delays if the partial work bans continue into next week.

“The delays are real,” Patrick chief executive Michael Jovicic told Radio National on Wednesday.

Read more: Is global shipping in the doldrums?

Patrick says ships face lengthy delays to find a berth in Port Botany. Or they are being diverted to other ports, which has seen additional expenses for importers and exporters.

The cost to run a ship can amount to A$25,000 per day. In an effort to recoup the costs they incur in having to wait at sea for a berth, shipping lines have instigated so-called “port congestion charges” of up to US$350 per container (A$492).

On top of incurring delays to their cargo, importers and exporters also have to absorb these additional costs.

Supply chains, already under pressure due to COVID-19, will come under more strain if the dispute is not resolved quickly. If it drags on much longer, cargo will bank up further and it will become harder to catch up in time to get imported goods on shelves before Christmas.

This could result in additional costs for imported goods, as well as shortages leading up to the usually busy festive period. Exporters will also lose out if they cannot get their goods overseas.

Strong words

The situation has now reached fever pitch. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison described the union behaviour as “appalling”. As he told reporters,

we cannot have the militant end of the union movement effectively engaging in a campaign of extortion against the Australian people in the middle of a COVID-19 recession.

The National Farmers’ Federation says the dispute is threatening the sector’s recovery from the drought and COVID-19, while the Australian Industry Group has raised concerns about the flow of white goods, construction supplies and food manufacturing.

There have also been concerns medical supplies could be delayed. The union has rejected these claims, while Medicines Australia says there are no current shortages.

The MUA’s national secretary Paddy Crumlin, meanwhile, says talk of huge delays is “fake news”. He says Patrick is trying to

slash the conditions of their workforce under the cover of the COVID crisis.

All key parties are highlighting their own interests — using examples to suit their case and try and resonate with the public.

Will it be resolved?

On Wednesday, Patrick and the MUA went to the FWC for a conciliation hearing.

Ahead of this, the union offered a peace deal. It proposed the existing workplace agreement is rolled over for 12 months in return for a 2.5% pay rise and both parties to negotiate in good faith during the next 12 months.

As of 6pm on Wednesday, the hearing – which started at 10am – was still going. There is a further FWC hearing scheduled for Thursday to try to settle the dispute.

Remember the history

We need to heed the lessons of 1998. As the infamous waterfront dispute dragged on, more parties were affected and became involved, resulting in long, drawn out legal arguments in the courts.

Read more: Morrison wants unions and business to ‘put down the weapons’ on IR. But real reform will not be easy.

It’s time for cool heads to prevail. Inflammatory language from parties not directly involved in the dispute will do nothing to ensure a negotiated outcome.

– ref. Explainer: what is the latest waterfront dispute about? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-latest-waterfront-dispute-about-147100

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marcus Banks, Social policy and consumer finance researcher, School of Economics, Finance and Marketing, RMIT University

In 1988, then federal education minister, John Dawkins, drew upon the politics of class privilege to justify rolling out HECS student loans. A university user-pays system was needed, he argued, because Labor was not in the business of funding “middle-class welfare”. At the time, one reason a neoliberal appeal by Labor to its base could deflate widespread public opposition was that just 7% of working-age Australians held a degree.

Three decades on, Education Minister Dan Tehan is also dog-whistling up the politics of class to cut off the loans system to first-year students who fail half their subjects, ramp up fees for many others, deny JobKeeper to workers in the sector and cut funding.

Read more: The government would save $1 billion a year with proposed university reforms — but that’s not what it’s telling us

Dawkins’s representation of the policy problem framed higher education as a bastion of privilege. It relied on the relative absence of working-class students and the irrelevance of higher education to their parents.

For Tehan the problem is represented by these students’ overabundance — particularly in courses that do not produce workers with the specific technical skills he claims are in demand by employers. Tehan’s call to rid the system of failing students is couched in paternalism, a hallmark of the welfare system.

Agenda predates COVID

On the surface, a small cohort of students mostly from low socioeconomic backgrounds appear to be the target. Politically, however, it neatly links with the government’s broader restructuring agenda across the campuses. For higher education students and staff alike, it epitomises what the National Union of Students (NUS) president has called a neoliberal way to “incentivise success through fear of punishment”.

The restructuring goes well beyond the crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. An explosion of casual employee networks across the country and a recent national assembly of nearly 500 academics voting to build towards unprotected industrial action have boosted campaigning by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) and NUS against the current cuts and broader restructuring agenda.

Read more: As universities face losing 1 in 10 staff, COVID-driven cuts create 4 key risks

What has changed since 1988?

There are optimistic grounds for thinking that broader societal support is now more likely than in 1988 for this defence of universities as a freely accessible public good.

In May 2019, a third of the working-age population (20-64 years) held at least a bachelor degree. That’s almost five times more than in 1988. And nearly two-thirds of this group had a degree, diploma or post-school certificate.

Some 46% of women and 35% of men between the ages of 25 and 34 have a degree. Soon most women in this key working-age cohort will be university graduates, alongside a significant proportion of men.

Social wage has widened

This mainstreaming of university education means the sector joins health and welfare as a core part of the social wage. Australian government spending on keeping the workforce skilled, fit and able to work accounted for more than 60% of its 2019-20 budget. Health-care spending, whether provided by employers (such as US insurance schemes) or more commonly via the state, is in reality part of our wages whether it is paid in cash or kind or goes to workers collectively rather than individually.

The social wage came to prominence in the 1980s as a key part of the Prices and Incomes Accord. The Labor government reached agreement with trade unions and employers that they would trade off wage increases for better social security benefits and progressive education and health reforms. Political economist Elizabeth Humphrys has explained how these trade-offs strengthened the hold of neoliberalism and weakened trade unions.

Read more: Australian politics explainer: the Prices and Incomes Accord

The social wage is the collective part of our overall wages. This understanding provides broad-based, industrial grounds to defend its provision.

Just as it has been unfortunately shown that wage cuts are not stopping job cuts in the university sector, cuts to our social wage are also not in our collective self-interest.

For example, we need to loudly call out that the framing of social security payments as handouts for the poor is a cynical attempt to cultivate “them and us” divisions. In reality, between 2001 and 2015, over 70% of Australian working-age households required income support at some stage. These payments helped smooth the financial risks of unemployment, low wages, caring responsibilities, injury, frailty or disability.

Arguments for the JobSeeker supplement to be kept after the pandemic – such as by the Raise the Rate campaign – are gaining widespread traction.

Read more: Unemployment support will be slashed by $300 this week. This won’t help people find work

A similar basis of mass support exists for campaigns to have equitable, accessible and quality higher education. Secondary school students and their parents, casualised and ongoing staff and the wider trade union movement all have a stake in rejecting the current round of university cuts and restructuring. Higher education is now firmly part of our social wage, and we must defend it.

– ref. Do Australians care about unis? They’re now part of our social wage, so we should – https://theconversation.com/do-australians-care-about-unis-theyre-now-part-of-our-social-wage-so-we-should-144798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Arrow, Professor of History, Macquarie University

“Show business”, Helen Reddy once said, “was the only business that allowed you to earn the same salary as a man and to keep your name”.

The singer and actress best known for her trailblazing feminist anthem I Am Woman has died in Los Angeles, aged 78. She was one of the most famous Australians in the world during the 1970s, and an icon of women’s liberation.

Born in Melbourne in 1941 to vaudeville performers Max Reddy and Stella Lamond, Reddy learned to sing, dance and play piano as a child. By her late teens, she was performing in her father’s touring show.

At 20, she married the musician Kenneth Weate. The marriage was brief and, after it was over, she and her daughter Traci moved to Sydney.

Ambitious and keen to try her luck in the United States, in 1966 she entered and won a singing competition. A trip to the US and a recording contract were her prize. Arriving in New York with three-year-old Traci, the promised contract evaporated. Reddy performed in clubs in the US and Canada to stay afloat.

She had the good fortune, however, to meet the expat Australian journalist Lilian Roxon (author of the groundbreaking Rock Encyclopedia) who organised a rent party for Reddy on her birthday. There, she met her second husband (and manager) Jeff Wald. They married shortly after, moving to Los Angeles in 1968.

Persistence

Reddy and Wald initially encountered resistance from the music industry when trying to build her career. But their persistence paid off: in 1970 she recorded a cover of I Don’t Know How to Love Him from the musical Jesus Christ Superstar. The song made it to number 13 in the US charts and number one in Australia.

Read more: I Am Woman review: Helen Reddy biopic captures the power and excitement of women’s liberation

After moving to Los Angeles, Reddy became involved in the women’s movement. As she recalled in her 2005 memoir, The Woman I Am, her growing interest in women’s liberation drove her to try to find songs that expressed her pride in being female.

Unable to find one, she “finally realised I was going to have to write the song myself”. While Ray Burton wrote the music, the lyrics to I Am Woman were Reddy’s.

“I am strong, I am invincible,” encapsulates its powerful message of female empowerment. The song found its audience as the women’s liberation movement took off across the world. It went to number one on the US charts in October 1972, and number two on the Australian charts in 1973.

The song made Reddy a star, and a celebrity feminist: one of a small group of women, including Gloria Steinem and Germaine Greer, whose high profile and media savvy helped communicate feminist ideas to wide audiences.

The song became the official theme song of International Women’s Year in 1975. It has been a feature of feminist protests and celebrations ever since.

‘She makes everything possible’

While I Am Woman made Reddy famous, her Grammy acceptance speech in 1973 made her notorious: thanking “God, because she makes everything possible”.

Her win was said by Brisbane’s Courier Mail at the time to have “sent a thrill through the bra-less bosoms of Women’s Liberationists around the world.”

Reddy followed I Am Woman with a string of pop hits over the following five years including Delta Dawn and Ain’t No Way to Treat a Lady.

She built a successful career in television, film and theatre, with roles in Airport 1975 (1974) and Pete’s Dragon (1977), guest appearances in TV series including The Love Boat (1977–87) and Fantasy Island (1977–84), and even had her own variety program, The Helen Reddy Show in 1973. She was awarded a star on the Hollywood walk of fame the following year.

She performed until the early 2000s, released her memoir in 2005, and was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame in 2006.

While she kept a lower profile in the last years of her life, she appeared in the 2017 Women’s March in the US. A biopic directed by Unjoo Moon, I Am Woman, was released on Stan just last month.

Alice Cooper famously dismissed Reddy as the “queen of housewife rock” in the 1970s. I doubt Helen Reddy saw this as the insult Cooper perhaps intended it to be.

In a male-dominated music industry, and a sexist society where women were routinely discriminated against, Reddy’s music made women feel strong and invincible.

When I researched the impact I Am Woman had on Australian women, many said the song had helped them through tough times and changed the way they thought about themselves.

One woman, who had endured a long, violent marriage, told me:

I think I Am Woman was a life saver for me, as to play it was my little bit of rebellion. I am sure that it would have been the same for many other women.

There could be no greater tribute to this extraordinary, trailblazing feminist than that.

– ref. Helen Reddy’s music made women feel invincible – https://theconversation.com/helen-reddys-music-made-women-feel-invincible-147179

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

Christmas promises the gift of open travel within Australia, and possibly to New Zealand and even other Pacific Island nations.

But it seems increasingly likely international borders will remain largely closed until at least mid-2021. The mothballing plans of airlines such as Qantas further suggest international travel will take years to recover to pre-pandemic levels.

Read more: Qantas cutbacks signal hard years before airlines recover

For any tourist attraction primarily geared to international visitors, and for the hotels, restaurants and shops that cater to that tourist traffic, this spells trouble.

In 2019 more than 9 million international tourists injected an estimated A$47 billion into the Australian economy.

On the other hand, local destinations that primarily attract local tourists could be in for boom times, attracting those who might otherwise have gone overseas. (In 2018-19, more than 10 million did so, spending A$65 billion in the process.)

Tourism, though, is not a zero-sum game. Not all of the money that might have been spent overseas will necessarily be spent on a local holiday. Even if it was, and the boom in domestic tourism more than made up for the loss of international tourists, the impact would be different across cities and locations.

That’s because local and foreign tourists tend to opt for different holiday experiences. International visitors are more attracted to the sights of Sydney and Melbourne, and the tourist hot spots of Queensland. Locals disproportionately want to get away from the city and avoid the tourist traps, relaxing in the country or on the coast.

Measuring international attraction

To get a better sense of how closed international borders will affect local economies, we calculated locations’ reliance on international tourists using data distilled from TripAdvisor, a popular travel booking and review website.

As a proxy for how many foreigners visit (and then review) a location relative to the number of domestic visitors, we looked at the number of reviews written in English relative to other languages.

Obviously this is an imperfect measure. A lot of foreign visitors come from New Zealand, Britain and Ireland, for example. Non-English speakers might use a different platform entirely. Nonetheless the results give us a basis to see where the absence of international tourists will likely be felt the hardest.

Using the data from TripAdvisor, the following chart shows the relative importance of tourism to local economies as well as the relative importance of international tourists.

At a glance, Cairns, the gateway to the Great Barrier Reef, stands out as the having the most to lose, due the relative importance of tourism, and international tourists, to its economy.

Sydney attracts the greatest proportion of foreign visitors, but is less dependent on tourism.

Regional towns like Tamworth in NSW and Bendigo in Victoria (bottom left) should be least affected.

The biggest losers

About two-thirds of all international passengers touch down in Sydney and Melbourne. Our data from Tripadvisor also suggests this is where foreign visitors spend most of their time and money.

In Sydney the Opera House, Harbour Bridge and Bondi Beach are magnets for foreign tourists. Melbourne has the Eureka Skydeck and its Royal Botantic Gardens. Any business attached to the traffic for these attractions will face a tough year ahead.

The only upside is the big cities have more diverse labour markets. So those losing tourism jobs in these areas have a slightly better chance of finding work elsewhere.

The bigger risk comes to Cairns and other smaller tourist hubs with star attractions that attract a large flow of international tourists. For many businesses in these local economies a closed border could be an existential challenge.

Read more: The end of global travel as we know it: an opportunity for sustainable tourism

The potential winners

While our results are more robust for predicting where lost international tourism will hurt most, we can also see some possibilities of boom times for destinations that provide the experience local tourists are seeking.

Two examples are Echuca in Victoria and Busselton in Western Australia. These are very different towns. Echuca is an historic inland town on the Murray River often associated with paddle steamers. Busselton is a fishing town south of Perth long associated with lazy beach holidays.

Locations offering the more relaxed “getaway” experience might find their bookings overflowing this holiday season as Australians unable to visit Barcelona or Bali look to holiday closer to home.

– ref. Which Australian destinations lose, and which may win, without international tourism – https://theconversation.com/which-australian-destinations-lose-and-which-may-win-without-international-tourism-146395

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

Christmas promises the gift of open travel within Australia, and possibly to New Zealand and even other Pacific Island nations.

But it seems increasingly likely international borders will remain largely closed until at least mid-2021. The mothballing plans of airlines such as Qantas further suggest international travel will take years to recover to pre-pandemic levels.

Read more: Qantas cutbacks signal hard years before airlines recover

For any tourist attraction primarily geared to international visitors, and for the hotels, restaurants and shops that cater to that tourist traffic, this spells trouble.

In 2019 more than 9 million international tourists injected an estimated A$47 billion into the Australian economy.

On the other hand, local destinations that primarily attract local tourists could be in for boom times, attracting those who might otherwise have gone overseas. (In 2018-19, more than 10 million did so, spending A$65 billion in the process.)

Tourism, though, is not a zero-sum game. Not all of the money that might have been spent overseas will necessarily be spent on a local holiday. Even if it was, and the boom in domestic tourism more than made up for the loss of international tourists, the impact would be different across cities and locations.

That’s because local and foreign tourists tend to opt for different holiday experiences. International visitors are more attracted to the sights of Sydney and Melbourne, and the tourist hot spots of Queensland. Locals disproportionately want to get away from the city and avoid the tourist traps, relaxing in the country or on the coast.

Measuring international attraction

To get a better sense of how closed international borders will affect local economies, we calculated locations’ reliance on international tourists using data distilled from TripAdvisor, a popular travel booking and review website.

As a proxy for how many foreigners visit (and then review) a location relative to the number of domestic visitors, we looked at the number of reviews written in English relative to other languages.

Obviously this is an imperfect measure. A lot of foreign visitors come from New Zealand, Britain and Ireland, for example. Non-English speakers might use a different platform entirely. Nonetheless the results give us a basis to see where the absence of international tourists will likely be felt the hardest.

Using the data from TripAdvisor, the following chart shows the relative importance of tourism to local economies as well as the relative importance of international tourists.

At a glance, Cairns, the gateway to the Great Barrier Reef, stands out as the having the most to lose, due the relative importance of tourism, and international tourists, to its economy.

Sydney attracts the greatest proportion of foreign visitors, but is less dependent on tourism.

Regional towns like Tamworth in NSW and Bendigo in Victoria (bottom left) should be least affected.

The biggest losers

About two-thirds of all international passengers touch down in Sydney and Melbourne. Our data from Tripadvisor also suggests this is where foreign visitors spend most of their time and money.

In Sydney the Opera House, Harbour Bridge and Bondi Beach are magnets for foreign tourists. Melbourne has the Eureka Skydeck and its Royal Botantic Gardens. Any business attached to the traffic for these attractions will face a tough year ahead.

The only upside is the big cities have more diverse labour markets. So those losing tourism jobs in these areas have a slightly better chance of finding work elsewhere.

The bigger risk comes to Cairns and other smaller tourist hubs with star attractions that attract a large flow of international tourists. For many businesses in these local economies a closed border could be an existential challenge.

Read more: The end of global travel as we know it: an opportunity for sustainable tourism

The potential winners

While our results are more robust for predicting where lost international tourism will hurt most, we can also see some possibilities of boom times for destinations that provide the experience local tourists are seeking.

Two examples are Echuca in Victoria and Busselton in Western Australia. These are very different towns. Echuca is an historic inland town on the Murray River often associated with paddle steamers. Busselton is a fishing town south of Perth long associated with lazy beach holidays.

Locations offering the more relaxed “getaway” experience might find their bookings overflowing this holiday season as Australians unable to visit Barcelona or Bali look to holiday closer to home.

– ref. Which Australian destinations lose, and which might win, without international tourism – https://theconversation.com/which-australian-destinations-lose-and-which-might-win-without-international-tourism-146395

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brianna O’Shea, Lecturer, Ethical Hacking and Defense, Edith Cowan University

The source code of the Windows XP operating system is now circulating online as a huge 43GB mega-dump.

Although the software is nearly two decades old, it’s still used by people, businesses and organisations around the world. This source code leak leaves it open to being scoured for bugs and weaknesses hackers can exploit.

The leaked torrent files, published on the bulletin board website 4chan, include the source code for Windows XP Service Pack 1, Windows Server 2003, MS DOS 3.30, MS DOS 6.0, Windows 2000, Windows CE 3, Windows CE 4, Windows CE 5, Windows Embedded 7, Windows Embedded CE, Windows NT 3.5 and Windows NT 4.

Tech news site The Verge claims to have verified the material. And Microsoft said it was “investigating the matter”, according to reports.

The leak came with files containing bizarre misinformation related to Microsoft founder Bill Gates and various conspiracy theories. This is consistent with past leaks from 4chan, a site often associated with extremist content and internet trolls.

Using the name “billgates3”, the leaker reportedly said:

I created this torrent for the community, as I believe information should be free and available to everyone and hoarding information for oneself and keeping it secret is an evil act in my opinion.

If the leak is genuine, this won’t be the first time a Microsoft operating system source code was released online. At least 1GB of Windows 10 source code was leaked a few years ago, too.

Vulnerabilities in the source code

The source code is the “source” of a program. It’s essentially the list of instructions a computer programmer writes when they develop a program, which can then be understood by other programmers.

A leaked source code can make it easier for cyber criminals to find and exploit weaknesses and serious security flaws (such as bugs) in a program. It also makes it easier for them to craft malware (software designed to cause harm).

One example would be “rogue” security software trying to make you think your computer is infected by a virus and prompting you to download, or buy, a product to “remove” it. Instead, the download or purchase introduces a virus to your computer.

According to a report from computer security company F-Secure, on average it takes about 20 minutes for a Windows XP machine to be hacked once it’s connected to the internet.

Read more: Australia’s cybersecurity strategy: cash for cyberpolice and training, but the cyberdevil is in the cyberdetail

Is Windows XP still supported?

Windows XP hasn’t had “official” support from Microsoft since 2014. This means there are currently no security updates or technical support options available for users of the operating system.

However, until as recently as last year, Microsoft continued to release security fixes and virus preventive measures for it.

The most notable was an emergency patch released in 2017, to prevent another incident like the massive WannaCry ransomware attack from happening again. This malware affected 75,000 computers in 99 countries – impacting hospitals, Telefonica, FedEx and other major businesses.

Windows XP is still used by people, airlines, banks, organisations and in industrial environments the world over.

In 2016, the network which runs the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne Health, was infected with a virus targeting computers using Windows XP. The attack forced staff to temporarily manually process blood, tissue and urine samples.

Online, users have posted photos of Windows XP being used at places such as Singapore’s Changi Airport, Heathrow Airport and Zeventem Brussels Airport.

Although the exact figure isn’t known, one estimate suggests the operating system was running on 1.26% of all laptops and desktops, as of last month.

Is there still incentive for hackers to target Windows XP?

The availability of the Windows XP source code opens access for cyber criminals to search for “zero-day threats” in the code that could be exploited.

These are discovered flaws in software, hardware or firmware that are unknown to the parties responsible for patching or “fixing” them – in this case, Microsoft.

Zero-day threats are often found in older ATM machines, for example, as these can’t be patch-managed remotely. This is because they have an embedded version of Windows XP with limited connectivity.

To upgrade in such cases, a bank’s IT professionals would have to visit the machines one by one, branch by branch, to apply security patches for the embedded systems.. One report suggests hackers can break through the defences and security features of these older style ATMs within 10-15 minutes.

There’s no easy way to confirm whether ATMs in Australia are still running this 19-year-old software, but past reports indicate this could be the case. The Conversation has reached out to certain parties for this information and is awaiting a response.

Possible defences

Windows XP was left to its own defences back in 2014 when Microsoft stopped mainstream support for the operating system.

But as one of Microsoft’s most widely-used operating systems, it’s still being run and could be around for many years to come.

According to Microsoft Support, since Windows XP is no longer supported, computers running it “will not be secure and will still be at risk for infection”.

Any antivirus software has limited effectiveness on computers that don’t have the latest security updates. The number of holes in software also increases as machines are left unpatched.

Luckily, most organisations have strategies (requiring money and human resources) to manage large-scale upgrades and isolate their most critical systems.

If your computers are still running on the extremely outdated Windows XP operating system, you too should migrate to a more modern one. No one can force you, but it’s certainly a good idea.

Read more: Apple iPhones could have been hacked for years – here’s what to do about it

– ref. Airports, ATMs, hospitals: Microsoft Windows XP leak would be less of an issue, if so many didn’t use it – https://theconversation.com/airports-atms-hospitals-microsoft-windows-xp-leak-would-be-less-of-an-issue-if-so-many-didnt-use-it-147018

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy J. Lynch, Associate Professor in American Politics, University of Melbourne

After nearly an hour of bickering — at times shouting — between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, Chris Wallace, the Fox News anchor moderating the first US presidential debate, finally lost his patience.

“I hate to raise my voice, but why should I be any different from the two of you,” he admonished the candidates, though he was probably speaking more to Trump, who interrupted both Wallace and Biden repeatedly during the debate.

Amid the chaos, Trump and Biden did address some key questions in the presidential race on issues like COVID-19, racial justice, the economy, public safety, the Supreme Court, climate change and, of course, Trump’s taxes.

The Conversation’s experts were watching the debate in Australia and the US. Here’s what they thought of the night.

Jared Mondschein, Senior Advisor, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

In the 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, many conventional analysts — as well as Clinton supporters — said it was clear the former secretary of state had won each one of their debates.

Clinton, they posited, provided strong data points and policy analysis that made clear she was more presidential and appropriate for the job.

Trump supporters, on the other hand, argued it was undeniable he had, in fact, won the debates because he ridiculed and mocked Clinton in a way that she deserved.

The Clinton-Trump debates in 2016 were like Rorschach tests — your perception of them depended on your opinion of the candidates.

Four years later, there appears to be more consensus about the clear winner of the first debate between Trump and Biden: chaos.

With countless interruptions, personal attacks and name calling, some have already called it the worst debate they’ve ever seen.

But the debate, in many ways, mirrors where America is right now: this is perhaps the worst political climate the country has seen in modern history. People are angry and using raised voices while refusing to agree upon a basic set of facts.

The ultimate question, however, is whether this will change any opinions of US voters. Nearly 90% of voters came into the debate saying their minds were already made up about who they will be voting for. Many voters have, in fact, already submitted their ballots.

But given Trump’s 2016 victory was ultimately reliant on a margin of fewer than 80,000 votes across Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, even the smallest of advantages could prove critical in the election.

Initial polling conducted after the debate indicated Biden may have won a slim advantage over Trump. What is much clearer, however, is who lost: US voters.

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

Timothy J. Lynch, Associate Professor in American Politics, University of Melbourne

The debate reminded me of the absurd denouement to Rocky II. After a bruising encounter, both men are floored. The fighter that gets up first is the winner.

Except with the debate in Cleveland today, neither Trump nor Biden rose from the canvas. Each spent 90 minutes trying to drag the other down.

There were moments when Biden staggered to his feet, looked down the camera lens and called for a return to normalcy. But he kept being pulled back into the scrap by Trump, who was determined to play to his base.

Neither won. Neither lost. On that basis, Biden had the slightly better result. He did not live down to Trump’s caricature of him as a doddering, old man. We know what Trump is — love him or hate him — and saw that again tonight.

Biden’s job was to present a sane alternative. He only partly succeeded.

Ponder how remarkable a scene this was: the most divisive and controversial president in modern American history, who has presided over the deaths of 200,000 Americans from COVID-19 and the eruption of several cities into violent protests, and the only politician deemed capable by the Democrats of removing him is Joe Biden.

The debate reminds us how blessed Trump has been by his opponents. He was facing not a man at the peak of his powers, but a compromise candidate of a deeply divided Democratic party.

Trump scored points by hammering away at the “radical left socialists” that would, he claimed, run the Biden administration. Biden had no killer response to this line of attack.

Swing voters know what Trump is. But doubts about the ideological momentum of a Biden White House endure. The small number of undecided voters may well back the devil they know. If they do, Trump wins.

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

The Biden camp is pinning much on the growing exasperation with Trump — and a basic human desire to feel normal again — to get them over the line.

That strategy just about held together in the first debate. Offered every opportunity to be statesmanlike, Trump kept aiming low. He maintained his notorious authenticity by doing so.

But Americans have had nearly four years of this act. Biden did, imperfectly, make clear there is an alternative style of political discourse on offer. He’s no Rocky Balboa. But, like Rocky, he will get to fight another day.

Sarah John, Adjunct Professor, College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University; Project Manager, University of Virginia

After an awkward entrance, devoid of the usual handshake thanks to COVID-19, the first question — about Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett — launched both candidates into a competition of who could talk loudest over the other.

Trump won and continued to interject so frequently that the few uninterrupted sentences of Biden or Wallace stood out conspicuously.

While the messiness of the debate and the frequent inability of the moderator to control the participants were extreme, they were expected given our experience with Trump in the 2016 debates.

Read more: This is why the fight over the Supreme Court could make the US presidential election even nastier

Less expected was a full 15 minutes dedicated to the legitimacy of the vote count. Because elections in the US are very decentralised, with over 3,000 counties administering a single presidential election, systematic fraud at a national level is unlikely.

In the past, few have questioned certified presidential election results — even in 2000 (and other years) when the popular vote and Electoral College result conflicted.

Trump has turned that on its head.

Perhaps predictably, Biden took the high road: urging people to vote, downplaying concerns about fraud and pledging to accept the result, whatever it may be.

Biden made clear that voting by mail is nothing new, dating back the Civil War. (Indeed, overseas voters have used the federal write-in absentee ballot successfully for decades.)

Trump, on the other hand, raised his grievances about the “crooked” 2016 election, before turning to his favoured line about mail-in ballots.

As is so often the case, Trump’s comments mangled real issues relating to mail-in voting and jumbled it with a lot of speculation and confusion about ballots in creeks or wastepaper baskets.

Among the jumble of words, he made reference to one of the issues that does threaten to loom large. In 2016, 1% of absentee ballots that were otherwise correctly marked were rejected for technical reasons, most often because the signature on file with the election administration was not a match with the one on the ballot, or the ballot arrived too late.

In 2020, with a host of first-time vote-by-mail voters, this rate could be higher and even exceed the vote margin between the candidates in some key states. Lawsuits will no doubt follow.

Although Trump’s utterances about a “rigged” election and cheating are worrying, they are unlikely to shift public opinion. So much of what we saw on display today we have heard before, in an even more alarming form, at Trump’s recent rallies.

While we hope for a decisive outcome one way or the other, election officials are bracing themselves.

– ref. The first US presidential debate was pure chaos. Here’s what our experts thought – https://theconversation.com/the-first-us-presidential-debate-was-pure-chaos-heres-what-our-experts-thought-147178

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leigh Boucher, Senior Lecturer – Modern History, Macquarie University

Review: Wonnangatta by Angus Cerini, directed by Jessica Arthur, Sydney Theatre Company

Theatre is back in Sydney after the COVID–induced hiatus decimated the cultural life of the city. Wonnangatta begins with socially distanced seating, temperature checks on arrival and mandated masks for all audience members.

The smaller audience and lack of socialising before the production make for a less joyous return to live theatre than may be expected. But this sets a strangely appropriate tone for Angus Cerini’s gripping new play about murder, revenge and the unsettling power of the Australian bush.

Cerini draws inspiration from events that still circulate in East Gippsland community memory, the Wonnangatta murders: deaths that rocked the region in the summer of 1917/18 and for which there remains no explanation. Like many Australian stories before it, Wonnangatta asks unsettling questions about the relationship between settler Australians and the country they claim to possess.

Cerini rehearses our wonders and fears about these landscapes, and prompts disturbing questions about their power to transform us.

The psychic underbelly

The play opens with two friends standing in spotlight. Disturbing sounds of nocturnal birds and animals echo through the theatre. The sparse set evokes both the texture of eucalyptus bark and the panelling of a bush hut. We are clearly in the psychic underbelly of the settler imaginary – a place where men can easily lose their bearings and come apart at the seams.

Riggall (Wayne Blair) and Harry (Hugo Weaving) have discovered the half buried and mangled body of Harry’s friend, Jim Barclay, at Wonnangatta cattle station. For the next 90 minutes, the audience is gripped by their account of moving through the Victorian high country in an attempt to unravel this mystery.

The men barely move on stage as they speculate about the events that have taken place. A step to the left here or a gaze to the right there indicates their movement around the station, and then on horseback up into the high country. Never before have I noticed the shift of body weight from one foot to another so keenly.

Blair and Weaving are at the peak of their powers. Blair embodies the anxieties of Riggall in subtle tics and bodily shakes. Weaving’s transformations from grief to anger to fear are shaded by minute changes in bodily comportment and voice; at one point his throat seems to pincer the words as they came out of his mouth.

Indigeneity in the Australian gothic

Wonnangatta is part of a long lineage of gothic Australian stories about the capacity of the wilderness to disturb and unsettle.

This is not the Australian imaginary of heroic exploration, possession and stoic men turning these landscapes into productive wellsprings of settler wealth. These men are in the Victorian high country, “two days ride from anywhere” as Harry repeatedly observes, a place where they might not, in fact, belong.

Read more: Australian Gothic: from Hanging Rock to Nick Cave and Kylie, this genre explores our dark side

There are multiple histories evoked in this story: the Wonnangatta murders, but also the period 50 years before, when “explorers” moved through this country, naming the landscape in ways that recorded their fears and despairs.

As Harry navigates the high country, he recounts the names of the surrounding mountains: Mount Speculation, Mount Buggery, Mount Disappointment. This is an archive of settler unease and distress in the landscape. The feelings precede Harry and Riggall’s journey, and will continue long after it.

Perhaps because the play evoked these explorations, I was left wondering about the casting of Blair as Riggall.

The play itself makes no reference to Riggall’s Indigeneity, and, less at home in this landscape than Harry, he is not offered as a counterpoint to settler alienation.

Was this an invocation of these earlier moments when Indigenous guides enabled settler exploration? Alfred Howitt, who named so many of these mountains, depended entirely on this Indigenous knowledge to navigate the high country.

In a play that pivots on questions about settler belonging and possession, it was unclear to me what place was being imagined for Indigeneity in this world.

The power of words

Most importantly, though, this play is a world of words – a world made through their power, their rhythms and their humour. Moving freely between conversation, description, verse and what sounds like free association, Cerini serves a form of Australian-English to his audience like a rich, long meal. There were moments when I gasped from the beauty of his phrases.

I’ve walked across the ridge these characters describe, in conditions like those they face. Never have I been able to quite recapture the terror and awe I felt walking across a path of less than a meter wide on loose wet stones, peering down the sharp descent either side into cloud covered gorges below.

Cerini’s poetic cacophony took me back to that terrifying moment – and I suspect others without my first hand experience would be similarly transported.

Released from the limitations of the literal and of realism, Wonnangatta is a welcome reminder of the power of words to affect and unsettle. This is Australian writing at its provocative and powerful best.

Wonnangatta plays at the Roslyn Packer Theatre until October 31.

– ref. Wonnangatta review: Australian theatre writing at its provocative and powerful best – https://theconversation.com/wonnangatta-review-australian-theatre-writing-at-its-provocative-and-powerful-best-147184

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marcus Banks, Social policy and consumer finance researcher, School of Economics, Finance and Marketing, RMIT University

In 1988, then federal education minister, John Dawkins, drew upon the politics of class privilege to justify rolling out HECS student loans. A university user-pays system was needed, he argued, because Labor was not in the business of funding “middle-class welfare”. At the time, one reason a neoliberal appeal by Labor to its base could deflate widespread public opposition was that just 7% of working-age Australians held a degree.

Three decades on, Education Minister Dan Tehan is also dog-whistling up the politics of class to cut off the loans system to first-year students who fail half their subjects, ramp up fees for many others, deny JobKeeper to workers in the sector and cut funding.

Read more: The government would save $1 billion a year with proposed university reforms — but that’s not what it’s telling us

Dawkins’s representation of the policy problem framed higher education as a bastion of privilege. It relied on the relative absence of working-class students and the irrelevance of higher education to their parents.

For Tehan the problem is represented by these students’ overabundance — particularly in courses that do not produce workers with the specific technical skills he claims are in demand by employers. Tehan’s call to rid the system of failing students is couched in paternalism, a hallmark of the welfare system.

Agenda predates COVID

On the surface, a small cohort of students mostly from low socioeconomic backgrounds appear to be the target. Politically, however, it neatly links with the government’s broader restructuring agenda across the campuses. For higher education students and staff alike, it epitomises what the National Union of Students (NUS) president has called a neoliberal way to “incentivise success through fear of punishment”.

The restructuring goes well beyond the crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. An explosion of casual employee networks across the country and a recent national assembly of nearly 500 academics voting to build towards unprotected industrial action have boosted campaigning by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) and NUS against the current cuts and broader restructuring agenda.

Read more: As universities face losing 1 in 10 staff, COVID-driven cuts create 4 key risks

What has changed since 1988?

There are optimistic grounds for thinking that broader societal support is now more likely than in 1988 for this defence of universities as a freely accessible public good.

In May 2019, a third of the working-age population (20-64 years) held at least a bachelor degree. That’s almost five times more than in 1988. And nearly two-thirds of this group had a degree, diploma or post-school certificate.

Some 46% of women and 35% of men between the ages of 25 and 34 have a degree. Soon most women in this key working-age cohort will be university graduates, alongside a significant proportion of men.

Social wage has widened

This mainstreaming of university education means the sector joins health and welfare as a core part of the social wage. Australian government spending on keeping the workforce skilled, fit and able to work accounted for more than 60% of its 2019-20 budget. Health-care spending, whether provided by employers (such as US insurance schemes) or more commonly via the state, is in reality part of our wages whether it is paid in cash or kind or goes to workers collectively rather than individually.

The social wage came to prominence in the 1980s as a key part of the Prices and Incomes Accord. The Labor government reached agreement with trade unions and employers that they would trade off wage increases for better social security benefits and progressive education and health reforms. Political economist Elizabeth Humphrys has explained how these trade-offs strengthened the hold of neoliberalism and weakened trade unions.

Read more: Australian politics explainer: the Prices and Incomes Accord

The social wage is the collective part of our overall wages. This understanding provides broad-based, industrial grounds to defend its provision.

Just as it has been unfortunately shown that wage cuts are not stopping job cuts in the university sector, cuts to our social wage are also not in our collective self-interest.

For example, we need to loudly call out that the framing of social security payments as handouts for the poor is a cynical attempt to cultivate “them and us” divisions. In reality, between 2001 and 2015, over 70% of Australian working-age households required income support at some stage. These payments helped smooth the financial risks of unemployment, low wages, caring responsibilities, injury, frailty or disability.

Arguments for the JobSeeker supplement to be kept after the pandemic – such as by the Raise the Rate campaign – are gaining widespread traction.

Read more: Unemployment support will be slashed by $300 this week. This won’t help people find work

A similar basis of mass support exists for campaigns to have equitable, accessible and quality higher education. Secondary school students and their parents, casualised and ongoing staff and the wider trade union movement all have a stake in rejecting the current round of university cuts and restructuring. Higher education is now firmly part of our social wage, and we must defend it.

– ref. Do Australians care about unis? They’re now part of our social wage, so they should – https://theconversation.com/do-australians-care-about-unis-theyre-now-part-of-our-social-wage-so-they-should-144798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

COVID-19 has affected our relationship with technology in many ways, from the pleasures of mass online choirs to the perils of the endless Zoom meetings rendering us “zoombies”.

Connectivity is so hard-wired in our lives, many are re-assessing the virtues of being disconnected.

Ten years ago, US journalist William Powers published Hamlet’s BlackBerry: Building a Good Life in the Digital Age, a book that urged us to take an “internet sabbath” every now and again.

It was a prescient idea even if the book’s title sounds rather retro now, but there was a reason for his choice, as he explains today on Media Files.

Powers is a journalist who used to work at The Washington Post and is now an online technology consultant, and he joined me by Zoom from his home in Cape Cod in Massachusetts.

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

Additional credits

Theme music: Susie Wilkins.

With thanks to Chris Scanlon from Deakin University for production assistance.

Image

Shutterstock

– ref. Internet sabbaths and surveillance capitalism in the COVID-19 era: William Powers on what’s changed since Hamlet’s Blackberry – https://theconversation.com/internet-sabbaths-and-surveillance-capitalism-in-the-covid-19-era-william-powers-on-whats-changed-since-hamlets-blackberry-146100

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Young, PhD Candidate in Medical Sociology, University of Otago

According to the latest 1 News Colmar Brunton poll, almost two-thirds of New Zealanders are planning to vote yes in the upcoming referendum on assisted dying.

Our research shows this number aligns with the past 20 years of polling, which suggests stable support for the idea.

The referendum, to be held at the general election on October 17, will decide whether the End of Life Choice Act 2019 comes into force.

The act authorises a doctor to administer or prescribe a lethal dose of medication to competent adults suffering unbearably from a terminal illness that would likely end their life within six months — as long as they request it directly and voluntarily.

A person will not be eligible if their only reason is that they have a mental illness or a disability of any kind, or are of advanced age. Overall, the Act has more than 45 safeguards that must be met.

Understandably, discussions about assisted dying produce strong reactions. Evidence-based information is essential and we must sort fact from fiction, particularly about any hypothetical social consequences of the legalisation.

Read more: One year of voluntary assisted dying in Victoria: 400 have registered, despite obstacles

Having the option of assisted dying available if they needed it appealed to the terminally ill participants in my doctoral research. Assisted dying guaranteed what they understood as a good death, including being able to choose the timing and way they died.

Participants also felt dying would be difficult for their families if it took too long and they themselves would know best the right time for them to die. They felt medicine and religion shouldn’t get to decide what’s right for society as they didn’t know what it was like to approach the end of life. They saw the tight controls on assisted dying as a good thing and wanted it to be safe for everyone.

Coercion or consent?

The latest and largest review of international research on assisted dying, carried out by highly respected researchers in this field (including those who oppose it), concluded: “Existing data do not indicate widespread abuse of these practices.”

Evidence from the Netherlands and the US state of Oregon, where assisted dying is legal, shows concerns it would disproportionately affect people from vulnerable groups are unfounded. Instead, those who access assisted dying appear to be economically and socially privileged.

Of course, the health system is by no means perfect. Its problems include inequitable access, systemic racism and ableism. But denying dying people the right to choose is not going to change those disparities.

We can let terminally ill people make choices about how and when they die as well as advocate for a system that doesn’t force those choices on others.

Read more: In places where it’s legal, how many people are ending their lives using euthanasia?

Providing robust safeguards in legislation deals with the concerns about vulnerable groups. The New Zealand law requires two (or even three) independent doctors to confirm the request is genuinely voluntary and informed. They also have to speak to the person over a number of sessions to ensure the patient’s decision is unwavering. If any pressure is suspected at any stage, the doctor must stop the process immediately and report it to the Registrar Assisted Dying.

Although there is scepticism about whether everybody would comply with safeguards, there is equally a concern about decisions to withdraw life-sustaining interventions or administer pain relief that may hasten death. These are just as susceptible to abuse as assisted dying, but are already lawful. Dying people prefer a quick death to a long, drawn-out or violent death.

In fact, 5.6% of New Zealand’s general practitioners (and nurses under their instruction) who responded to an international standardised survey admit they are intentionally hastening death regardless of the legality, and not always with patients’ consent. These findings should be interpreted alongside research that suggests one-third of New Zealand doctors may not honestly answer questions about assisted dying.

It is safer to bring the practice of hastening death out into the open so doctors who are willing to administer an assisted death can be regulated and monitored and patients can give informed consent.

Contagion or conversation?

Some have suggested a contagion effect if assisted dying is legalised. As we have slowly learned with suicide, talking about suicide is more likely to prevent it. An in-depth study in the Netherlands similarly concluded that talking about euthanasia prevents euthanasia most of the time.

Legalised assisted dying will open up conversations about what people want at the end of life as it has done in other jurisdictions.

In terms of New Zealand evidence, the world-renowned longitudinal study of 987 25-year-olds found they distinguish between suicide and euthanasia. If 25-year-olds can see the difference, surely others can too?

Those bereaved by assisted dying witness less suffering and the impact on them is similar or no worse than other deaths.

If people vote for this law to come into force, there will be fewer suicides because terminally ill New Zealanders are sadly taking their own lives.

If assisted dying is legalised, dying people will experience less suffering at the end of life; there won’t be more deaths because the only people eligible are already dying.

As a dying person said to me in an interview for my research:

I think that there’s a profound principle in there somewhere, that people ought to have some, some way of saying this is long enough.

The views of people approaching the end of life are startlingly absent from the debate about legalisation. This is a rare opportunity to have input into passing a compassionate piece of law on their behalf.

– ref. Assisted dying referendum: people at the end of their lives say it offers a ‘good death’ – https://theconversation.com/assisted-dying-referendum-people-at-the-end-of-their-lives-say-it-offers-a-good-death-144112

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brett Mitchell, Professor of Nursing, University of Newcastle

Australians are emerging from winter and, where possible, enjoying trips to beaches and public pools. Beach-side picnics, barbecues and get-togethers are back on the cards for many of us.

While daily COVID-19 case numbers have been looking promising in most places lately, we are still very much in a pandemic; your spring and summertime social activities might look a little different this year.

Here’s how to stay safe if you’re planning a trip to the beach or public pool.

Read more: Heading back to the gym? Here’s how you can protect yourself and others from coronavirus infection

The three golden rules

Outdoor activities are associated with reduced COVID-19 transmission risk compared to indoor activities. That said, whatever your plans, the three golden rules still apply: stay home if you are sick, keep up the hand hygiene and maintain physical distancing from others.

If you’re sick, you shouldn’t be socialising at all. You should be getting a COVID-19 test and self-isolating while you wait for results. Even outdoors, one sick person can spread COVID-19 to a large number of people.

Going to the beach

Firstly, pick a quieter beach. The extra time it takes to research and travel to a more secluded beach may be a hassle, but it’s less risky than going to a crowded beach (and often nicer, too).

Consider driving or cycling to the beach (if possible) rather than taking public transport. If you do use public transport, pick an off-peak time of day and wear a mask — avoid rush hour.

When you arrive, put your towels down in a spot on the sand at least 1.5m away from others — more is better, if you can. You should still swim between the flags, but you don’t need to be sitting close to other people.

When swimming between the flags, it might feel crowded in the water during busy times or at busy beaches. If you are in that situation, think about reducing the time spent in the water — go in for five minutes, then come out for a bit, then go back in for another five, so you are not having prolonged contact next to another person.

If you see someone expelling mucus into a wave, try to avoid that wave and person if you can.

Remember to stay COVID-safe if you’re at a cafe for a post-swim snack or ice-block. Don’t bunch up in lines close to other people and maintain physical distance from others if you are sitting down for a meal.

In the past, it might have felt normal to share a plate of hot chips with mates or even offer a friend a sip of your drink — but we don’t do that anymore. If you’re having a beach-side picnic, make sure you’re not sharing utensils, double-dipping in the hummus or sticking your fingers into a shared bowl of olives.

Of course, all these general principles also apply to other outdoor swimming locations, such as rivers and dams.

Going to the pool

The ocean is probably less risky than going to the pool, because there’s more movement of water and a high level of dilution.

So you need to approach public pools with a degree of caution.

But if you have no choice, are living away from the coast and want a swim, it’s probably fine to go to an outdoor pool — especially if you are living in an area with a low level of community transmission. You can find out community transmission rates in your area from your state health department website.

Outdoor pools are less risky than indoor pools because of increased air flow. Confined spaces are associated with increased risk of COVID-19 transmission.

Choose the right time to go a pool. Transmission risk decreases with fewer people, so try to go at less busy times. In the morning, the pool water has likely had time to be well-filtered and well-chlorinated overnight and not many people have swum in it yet that day.

Chlorine kills coronavirus. The CDC says it is

not aware of any scientific reports of the virus that causes COVID-19 spreading to people through the water in pools, hot tubs, or water playgrounds […] including saltwater pools.

The risk of transmission, albeit potentially low, would also depend on how chlorinated the pool is and how long any coronavirus that may be in the water is exposed to chlorine before coming into contact with another person.

Theoretically, if someone is carrying the virus and some mucus goes out of their mouth and into the pool, there might be a certain period of time before any virus in that mucus is inactivated by the chlorine. If it gets to you before that inactivation happens, then it is possibly a bit more risky.

Avoiding the change-rooms is another way to reduce risk, as these rooms are often in a confined space. Being careful to maintain physical distancing in the pool, poolside and at the cafe are also important measures.

In general, it should be fine to take the kids to the pool but, if there was a degree of community transmission in your area, perhaps reconsider. There is growing evidence kids are less susceptible to COVID-19 compared to adults but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are not transmitting it.

Whatever you have planned this summer, think about the local risks and what you can do to reduce them.

Read more: As coronavirus restrictions ease, here’s how you can navigate public transport as safely as possible

– ref. How to reduce COVID-19 risk at the beach or the pool – https://theconversation.com/how-to-reduce-covid-19-risk-at-the-beach-or-the-pool-147088

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Baron, Associate professor, Australian Catholic University

Is it possible the whole observable universe is just a thing kept in a container, in a room where there are some other extraterrestrial beings much bigger than us? Kanishk, Year 9

Hi Kanishk!

I’m going to interpret your question in a slightly different way.

Let’s assume these extraterrestrial beings have a computer on which our universe is being “simulated”. Simulated worlds are pretend worlds – a bit like the worlds on Minecraft or Fortnite, which are both simulations created by us.

If we think about it like this, it also helps to suppose these “beings” are similar to us. They’d have to at least understand us to be able to simulate us.

By narrowing the question down, we’re now asking: is it possible we’re living in a computer simulation run by beings like us? University of Oxford professor Nick Bostrom has thought a lot about this exact question. And he argues the answer is “yes”.

Not only does Bostrom think it’s possible, he thinks there’s a decent probability it’s true. Bostrom’s theory is known as the Simulation Hypothesis.

A simulated world that feels real

I want you to imagine there are many civilisations like ours dotted all around the universe. Also imagine many of these civilisations have developed advanced technology that lets them create computer simulations of a time in their own past (a time before they developed the technology).

The people in these simulations are just like us. They are conscious (aware) beings who can touch, taste, move, smell and feel happiness and sadness. However, they have no way of proving they’re in a simulation and no way to “break out”.

Read more: Curious Kids: is time travel possible for humans?

Hedge your bets

According to Bostrom, if these simulated people (who are so much like us) don’t realise they’re in a simulation, then it’s possible you and I are too.

Suppose I guess we’re not in a simulation and you guess we are. Who guessed best?

Let’s say there is just one “real” past. But these futuristic beings are also running many simulations of the past — different versions they made up.

They could be running any number of simulations (it doesn’t change the point Bostrom is trying to make) — but let’s go with 200,000. Our guessing-game then is a bit like rolling a die with 200,000 sides.

When I guess we are not simulated, I’m betting the die will be a specific number (let’s make it 2), because there can only be one possible reality in which we’re not simulated.

This means in every other scenario we are simulated, which is what you guessed. That’s like betting the die will roll anything other than 2. So your bet is a far better one.

Are we simulated?

Does that mean we’re simulated? Not quite.

The odds are only against my guess if we assuming these beings exist and are running simulations.

But, how likely is it there are beings so advanced they can run simulations with people who are “conscious” like us in the first place? Suppose this is very unlikely. Then it would also be unlikely our world is simulated.

Second, how likely is it such beings would run simulations even if they could? Maybe they have no interest in doing this. This, too, would mean it’s unlikely we are simulated.

Laying out all our options

Before us, then, are three possibilities:

1. there are technologically advanced beings who can (and do) run many simulations of people like us (likely including us)

2. there are technologically advanced beings who can run simulations of people like us, but don’t do this for whatever reason

3. there are no beings technologically advanced enough to run simulations of people like us.

But are these really the only options available? The answer seems to be “yes”.

You might disagree by bringing up one of several theories suggesting our universe is not a simulation. For example, what if we’re all here because of the Big Bang (as science suggests), rather than by a simulation?

That’s a good point, but it actually fits within the Simulation Hypothesis, under option 1 — in which we’re not simulated. It doesn’t go against it. This is why the theory leaves us with only three options, one of which then must be true.

So which is it? Sadly, we don’t have enough evidence to help us decide.

Read more: Curious Kids: what started the Big Bang?

The principle of indifference

When we’re faced with a set of options and there is not enough evidence to believe one over the others, we should give an equal “credence” to each option. Generally speaking, credence is how likely you believe something to be true based on the evidence available.

Giving equal credence in cases such as the Simulation Hypothesis is an example of what philosophers call the “principle of indifference”.

Suppose you place a cookie on your desk and leave the room. When you come back, it’s gone. In the room with you were three people, all of which are strangers to you.

You have to start by piecing together what you know. You know someone in the room took the cookie. If you knew person A had been caught stealing cookies in the past, you could guess it was probably them. But on this occasion, you don’t know anything about these people.

Would it be fair to accuse anyone in particular? No.

Our universe, expanding

And so it is with the simulation argument. We don’t have enough information to help us select between the three options.

What we do know is if option 1 is true, then we’re very likely to be in a simulation. In options 2 and 3, we’re not. Thus, Bostrom’s argument seems to imply our credence of being simulated is roughly 1 in 3.

To put this into perspective, your credence in getting “heads” when you flip a coin should be 1 in 2. And your credence in winning the largest lottery in the world should be around 1 in 300,000,000 (if you believe it isn’t rigged).

If that makes you a little nervous, it’s worth remembering we might make discoveries in the future that could change our credences. What that information might be and how we might discover it, however, remains unknown.

– ref. Curious Kids: could our entire reality be part of a simulation created by some other beings? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-could-our-entire-reality-be-part-of-a-simulation-created-by-some-other-beings-146840

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yee-Fui Ng, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University

In the fight against the coronavirus, the Australian government has enacted a series of measures that have expanded executive powers. These include the use of smartphone contact-tracing technology, mandatory isolation arrangements and the closure of borders and businesses.

While Australians seem broadly supportive of this type of government control in times of crisis, critics have expressed concerns about the long-term implications of these measures for individual rights.

There are a few salient questions: how does executive power accelerate during a pandemic — and why is this a cause for concern? And what type of oversight of executive power should there be in a democracy?

What is executive power and how does it work in a crisis?

The government of the day exercises executive power to implement programs and policies. Our democratic system dictates that the use of executive power is checked by the other two branches of government: the judiciary and legislature.

But in exceptional times of disaster and crisis, the executive government tends to take a pre-eminent role. Under our biosecurity and public health laws, governments can declare states of emergency and disaster, which give them significant coercive powers.

As crises such as pandemics, disasters or wars threaten the very existence of the nation, the rationale is the government needs these enhanced powers to protect the people.

By contrast, the parliament and courts tend to stand on the sidelines and reduce their scrutiny of these powers.

Read more: Explainer: what are the Australian government’s powers to quarantine people in a coronavirus outbreak?

How has executive power been used in the COVID pandemic?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen an expansion of executive power at both the federal and state levels.

The federal Biosecurity Act has been used to impose overseas travel bans (including a cap on the number of returning travellers per week), restricted travel and other emergency procedures for remote communities, and enforced quarantine of returning travellers.

The government also has the power to detain and isolate people who are suspected of being infected with the virus.

State public health laws have also been used to imposed a range of coercive measures, such as mandatory quarantine, compulsory wearing of face masks, restrictions on people’s movements and gatherings, the closure of businesses and border closures between states.

How has parliament reacted during the crisis?

Alongside the expansion of executive power has been a decline in parliamentary scrutiny. The federal and state parliaments have been recessed for long periods during the pandemic. As a result, they are not scrutinising government action to the extent they should.

Even when parliament convenes during the pandemic, it passes legislation hastily without much scrutiny. For example, the COVIDSafe contact-tracing legislation was rushed through parliament in three days, despite significant privacy concerns.

Read more: Expanding Victoria’s police powers without robust, independent oversight is a dangerous idea

Another issue is parliament has delegated powers to the government to make major decisions by ministerial decree — both during and outside of a public emergency. This further increases executive power. The Centre for Public Integrity estimates such decisions have doubled in the past 30 years.

Parliamentary committee action has also been limited during the pandemic. At the federal level, the Parliamentary Select Committee on COVID-19 and Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation were set up to scrutinise government decisions and delegated legislation during COVID-19.
However, 19.1% of the government decisions and actions made since the beginning of the crisis are immune from parliamentary scrutiny.

This means parliament cannot veto these government decisions, unlike normal delegated legislation.

Why should we worry about expanding executive powers?

The increase of executive power raises several issues.

State police, aided by the Australian Defence Force, have enforced restrictions on individual movement and assembly. There are concerns the police and military have at times implemented these restrictions in a heavy-handed way.

For example, in New South Wales, a man was fined $1,000 for eating a pizza alone in his car on the way home after being laid off from his job.

Police also threatened to fine two women walking in a park with babies for violating the two-person gathering rule. The attorney-general later clarified that babies were not counted under the rule.

Also, research of wartime laws has shown some supposedly “temporary” coercive measures have persisted long beyond a time of crisis and become permanent.

For example, the current Crimes Act has replicated unlawful associations provisions from the first world war.

And Australia’s national security laws have exponentially increased in the years since the terror attacks of September 11 2001. Governments have strategically deployed these sweeping executive powers to punish protesters, journalists and whistleblowers.

Thus, executive powers need to be closely monitored to ensure they are rolled back after a crisis.

Read more: COVID-19, risk and rights: the ‘wicked’ balancing act for governments

What sort of oversight of executive power should there be?

So, how can we enhance government accountability in a pandemic?

In the midst of a pressing national crisis, legislative safeguards are required to protect individual rights and freedoms.

All legislation enacted during the crisis should automatically expire or be periodically reviewed. All delegated legislation should also have an automatic expiry date and be of short duration. This is not universal practice for all laws made during this pandemic.

All coercive powers under emergency health laws, such as the detention of those suspected of having COVID-19, should be subject to both court and tribunal review to allow for adequate legal scrutiny of government actions.

And both parliament and the courts should carefully police the executive’s use of its extensive powers during the pandemic.

More broadly, given the quiescence of parliament and the courts in times of crisis, further independent oversight in the form of a federal anti-corruption watchdog is essential.

In the heat of a crisis, the vast expansion of executive powers — coupled with a sophisticated regulatory state that has the capacity to closely monitor and police its citizens — generates great risks for individual rights and liberties.

We need to be vigilant to ensure these powers are not abused and are rolled back at the end of the crisis.

– ref. Have our governments become too powerful during COVID-19? – https://theconversation.com/have-our-governments-become-too-powerful-during-covid-19-147028

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

Australia’s aged care system has produced a litany of failures: unpalatable food, poor care, neglect, abuse and, most recently, the tragedies of the pandemic.

This should not come as a surprise. Poor regulation has taken the “nursing” out of “nursing homes” and allowed care funding to leach into provider profits. Older Australians have been pushed out of sight and out of mind. The result is an aged care system that is underfunded, poorly regulated, and often unable to give older Australians the support they need to live meaningful lives.

More money is necessary but not sufficient. The aged care system needs to be redesigned, throwing out the current market-driven, provider-centric approach.

The 2020-21 federal budget, to be unveiled October 6, should include an aged-care trifecta: expansion in home care, greater transparency, and a rescue package. The ultimate goal should be a dramatically different aged care system which is more attuned to supporting the rights of older Australians.

Read more: Our ailing aged care system shows you can’t skimp on nursing care

1. A right to home support

The vast majority of older Australians who need care and support want to receive it at home, yet the system cannot deliver. Instead, older Australians face unacceptably long waiting times.

This means people who need support are left with limited choices. About 100,000 people are currently waiting for a home-care package, often for more than a year. They regularly end up in residential care. A new aged care system should create a right to home care.

A senior official of the Commonwealth Department of Health estimated the cost of meeting the backlog for home care at $2 billion to $2.5 billion a year, in evidence before the Royal Commission on Aged Care.

But more money for home care isn’t sensible without reforming how it’s used. Administrative costs are far too high, and much of the funding allocated for home care has not been used because people didn’t need all the money allocated to them.

While the expansion of home care is being phased in, government should work on system redesign so the new arrangements can be individually tailored to the needs of the older person. The estimated $1 billion allocated but not spent can be used on actual service delivery.

Read more: As home care packages become big business, older people are not getting the personalised support they need

Access to packages should be dramatically streamlined so people get the care they need much more quickly. Administrative costs should be reduced, and the maximum amount of care hours able to be provided in the highest level home care package should be increased. This would enable more people to stay at home rather than be admitted to residential care.

Improved accreditation of home-care providers should also weed out high-cost, low-value providers, so older people and taxpayers get better value for money.

2. Increase transparency and accountability

The current aged care system uses the language of the market and choice. In practice, providers have much more information, control, and influence than consumers. In residential care, a veil of secrecy makes it very difficult for consumers to make judgements about key quality variables such as staffing levels.

Research for the Royal Commission applied a United States’ ranking system to Australian residential aged care facilities and showed only a minority of aged care providers have staffing levels at three stars or above in a five-star rating system.

Australia does not have such a ranking system so potential consumers are not let into the secret of who is good and who is not. Nor does high profit necessarily equate to high quality.

Consumers need much better information about quality and outcomes so they can choose which services to use. The protection racket that has stopped older people learning about the performance of home-care and residential care providers needs to end.

3. A rescue package for residential aged care

The pandemic has highlighted the fatal flaw in residential aged care regulation —no one is accountable for ensuring there are enough qualified staff to look after residents.

Research for the Royal Commission has identified 11% of aged care facilities are of really poor standard — more complaints, failing standards more often, and poorer clinical outcomes. Residents in these facilities deserve better.

The federal government should set up a $1 billion rescue fund to lift the standards in these low-performing facilities. The government should require those facilities to produce a recovery plan by December 31 2020 outlining how they propose to get there by the middle of next year.

The rescue fund should be used to make sure the plans are implemented. Access to the fund should be tightly scrutinised so the money goes to upgrading staffing, and not to greater profits for wealthy owners.

If providers can’t implement their rescue plan successfully, they should transfer management to a group that can. Over the next 12 months, a new funding and regulatory system should be designed to ensure facilities providing such poor care can’t continue to operate.

– ref. The budget must address aged care — here are 3 key priorities – https://theconversation.com/the-budget-must-address-aged-care-here-are-3-key-priorities-146678