Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Fuller, Professor in Biodiversity and Conservation, The University of Queensland

Do you love spending time in nature? Or are you a city slicker, happier in the concrete jungle than the great outdoors? Back in 1986, the US biologist EO Wilson proposed that humans have an innate connection with the natural world, an idea known as biophilia.

Almost every aspect of our lives depends on nature, from food and shelter to fuel and clothing. Yet some of us are much more “into” spending time in nature than others.

To try to understand why, we studied more than 1,100 pairs of twins to find out how much of our connection to nature might depend on our DNA. We found almost half the variation in people’s connection to nature can be put down to genetics.

Nature is good for you

There is strong evidence even a wander in the local park can be beneficial for our mental and physical health. Yet with work and family responsibilities and packed social schedules, most of us do not regularly spend time in nature.

We wondered why some people spend more time in nature than others, and what underpins the fact some of us feel more strongly connected to nature.

Read more:
Why daily doses of nature in the city matter for people and the planet

Perhaps our affinity for nature is inherited. Or perhaps we get it from environmental factors – such as beautiful forests – in the places we live. Or again it might come from our cultural milieu such as the books we read or the TV programs we watch.

Finding answers to these questions might help us work out how to get some nature back into people’s lives.

Studying twins

We studied more than 1,100 pairs of twins to understand the origin of affinity for nature, and report the results in a study published today in PLoS Biology. It turns out identical twins are much more similar to each other in the strength of their connection to nature than non-identical twins.

Statistical analysis of the results showed 46% of the variation in connection to nature, as measured on a psychological scale, can be explained by genetic factors. Even the amount of time we spend in our own backyards and visiting local parks seems to have a strong genetic basis.

Why the strong genetic influence on our love for nature? Well, one can imagine a strong affinity with nature conferring a significant survival advantage for early humans. This might have led to the formation of complex networks of genes that govern how we relate to nature, and how we behave in it.

Despite the clear role of genetics, our results show other factors actually shape most of our affinity to nature. These might include childhood holiday destinations, the examples set by our parents, friends and other family members, educational experiences, and whether we live in a biodiverse area.

This is good news, because many of these things are under our own control.

Nature and health

Nature–based health interventions such as green gyms or environmental volunteering can improve physical, mental and social health and well-being. Nature-play initiatives such as the Green Passport for Queensland kids can give children powerful experiences of nature that could benefit their health over the long term.

Read more:
Being in nature is good for learning, here’s how to get kids off screens and outside

A deeper question, and one we don’t yet have a clear answer to, is whether spending time in nature fosters our sense of environmental concern, and in turn, support for nature conservation.

The US ecologist James Miller has argued interactions with nature are crucial in sparking support for protecting nature. Yet an Australian study led by environmentalist Jessica Pinder showed conservation concern among Australian undergraduates was more strongly associated with social and cultural experiences in childhood than with the amount of time a person spends in nature. Clearly, there is much more to learn in this area.

Ultimately, we now know despite a genetic basis for our affinity to nature, much of it also depends on other factors that are decidedly under our own control. So make a resolution today to rekindle your connection to the great outdoors!

Richard Fuller receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Brenda Lin receives funding from the Commonwealth and State governments. She is affiliated with CSIRO, which sponsors The Conversation. She is also a STEM Ambassador with Science & Technology Australia.

Danielle Shanahan is affiliated with Zealandia’s Centre for People and Nature, and Victoria University of Wellington.

Kevin J. Gaston receives funding from UKRI.

Chia-chen Chang, L. Roman Carrasco, and Rachel Oh do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why do we love the great outdoors? New research shows part of the answer is in our genes – https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-love-the-great-outdoors-new-research-shows-part-of-the-answer-is-in-our-genes-175995

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olga Boichak, Lecturer in Digital Cultures, University of Sydney

Eight years since the Russian annexation of Crimea, Ukraine is facing another threat from its eastern neighbour. Russia has amassed an estimated 130,000 troops and military equipment along its borders in recent weeks.

Ukraine is literally surrounded by Russian troops: along its northern border with Belarus, in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk), in Crimea to the south, and in Transnistria, the Russian-occupied part of Moldova to the west.

Despite these disturbing developments, Russia continues to deny any planned aggression towards Ukraine. Russia is not only the second-largest natural gas producer in the world – it is also extremely good as gaslighting.

Russia’s ‘reflexive control’ strategy

As the official Russian rhetoric goes, Ukraine and Russia are “one people” belonging to the same historical and spiritual space.

However, this claim is a historical fabrication. It is strategically deployed to de-legitimise Ukraine’s claims to nationhood – and by extension, sovereignty – and bring it back into Russia’s orbit of influence.

The significant military buildup on Ukraine’s border is part of a larger coordinated geopolitical offensive called “reflexive control”.

Read more:
How Russian is Ukraine? (Clue: not as much as Vladimir Putin insists)

Reflexive control involves a wide variety of hybrid warfare tactics, such as deception, distraction, deterrence and provocation. We’ve seen these tactics playing out in the rising number of cyber attacks on Ukraine’s government servers and energy grid, to the Russian state-sponsored disinformation campaigns aimed at sowing distrust and discord in the country.

In many cases, these disinformation campaigns have originated online with the help of the Internet Research Agency, a troll factory in Russia.

Reflexive control also involves the potential for so-called false-flag operations – terrorist acts allegedly committed by Ukraine on Russian territory or involving Russian citizens. These types of incidents can be used to justify a military incursion into a sovereign state.

A history of interference and disinformation

The roots of Russian interventions in Ukraine go much deeper than its illegal annexation of Crimea and occupation of large parts of Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014, and its actions on the border today. In fact, Ukraine has been subjected to Russian interference since becoming an independent state in 1991.

This influence has manifested in myriad ways, from economic and political coercion to cultural conformism. This includes weaponising Ukraine’s energy dependency on Russia, a near-complete russification of Ukraine’s media, attempts to install pro-Kremlin governments, and even high-profile assassinations of journalists and political activists.

Ukraine has seen two major waves of popular protests against rising Russian influence. The first was the Orange Revolution of 2004 following Russian attempts to rig Ukraine’s presidential election to try to ensure the pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, won.

Another protest broke out in 2013 after Yanukovych, then president, refused to sign a political association agreement with the European Union, opting instead to join a customs union with Russia. This was known as the Revolution of Dignity, or the Maidan Revolution.

In both cases, Russian official rhetoric used these revolutions as evidence of Ukraine being subverted by the West. This effectively de-legitimised their true causes and the public sentiment around them.

One of the most prominent Russian narratives was that Ukraine was a “failed state” – a country governed by chaos, swarming with radicals and fascists, and on the brink of a civil war. Conveniently, this vilification also served as a cautionary tale to prevent any pro-democratic protests from erupting in Russia.

The Maidan Revolution eventually succeeded in Yanukovych being removed from office. But Russia took advantage of the transition of power by sending uniformed men with no insignia to covertly take over government buildings in Crimea. It was the most significant breach of territorial integrity in Europe since the second world war.

A secession referendum was then held in Crimea that was the exact kind of “democracy” the Ukrainian people have fought so hard to overthrow.

It does not take a mathematical genius to question the validity of a near-unanimous vote to secede (96.77%) in a region comprised of only 60% ethnic Russians, many of whom had Ukrainian citizenship and did not support the secession.

Russian-orchestrated “insurgency” in the east

Russia’s next move was to orchestrate an insurgency in eastern Ukraine stoked initially by Russian special operations units and paramilitary groups.

I have written extensively on how a handful of citizens in the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol were able to successfully counter a so-called “insurgency” after seeing their city suddenly flooded by strangers who spoke an unfamiliar dialect of Russian, had a hard time paying in Ukrainian currency and repeatedly asked locals for directions.

These strangers – locals called them “political tourists” – were sent to Mariupol from the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don to instigate pro-Russian demonstrations. Similar operations took place throughout 2014 in many other Ukrainian cities.

In hindsight, Ukrainian activists were perhaps the only reason the Russian army couldn’t advance further into the country eight years ago. They quickly identified these patterns across the country and organised against the interlopers.

Yet, as is often the case with gaslighting, the burden of proof is on the victim – many in the West still repeat Russia’s “civil war” narrative to this day.

Read more:
Don’t call it a civil war – Ukraine’s conflict is an act of Russian aggression

Reasons for hope

In the face of such an existential threat, Ukraine has experienced profound social, political and cultural transformations.

Over the past eight years of occupation, hundreds of grassroots volunteer initiatives have stepped up to help the country recover from the humanitarian crisis stemming from the long-running conflict and counteract a full-scale military invasion.

This type of civil society activism is the cornerstone of democracies around the world. There is still a long way to go in Ukraine, but these emerging foundations can now be observed in nearly every aspect of public life.

Ukrainians do not want democracy because they are being “subverted” by the West, as Russia claims. Ukrainians want democracy because it paves the way from an imperial Russian borderland to a sovereign statehood.

Allowing Russia to thwart these aspirations and re-invade Ukraine sets a dangerous precedent for other sovereign states trying to break away from their violent and traumatic past.

Olga Boichak is affiliated with Ukraine Democracy Initiative – an international nonpartisan network of researchers, field experts, civic activists, journalists, and policy-makers working on the topic of democratic transformations in Ukraine.

– ref. Why Ukrainians are ready to fight for their democracy – https://theconversation.com/why-ukrainians-are-ready-to-fight-for-their-democracy-175649

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Petterson, Deputy Editor, Health + Medicine, The Conversation Australia

The requirement to show proof of two doses of a COVID vaccine to do things such as eat out, go to the pub and visit sporting events is still in place across parts of the country including Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia.

Part of the rationale for such mandates is to limit transmission of the virus, and therefore also protect vulnerable people who may be at risk of severe disease.

But the arrival of the Omicron variant has changed the COVID landscape in Australia. Emerging evidence suggests two doses of COVID vaccine provides little protection against infection against the highly-infectious Omicron variant – though they’re still effective against severe disease.

So we asked five experts, is it time to rethink vaccine mandates for dining, fitness and events?

Here’s what they said.

– ref. Is it time to rethink vaccine mandates for dining, fitness and events? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/is-it-time-to-rethink-vaccine-mandates-for-dining-fitness-and-events-we-asked-5-experts-176356

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Johanna Thomas-Maude, PhD Candidate, Massey University

New Zealand’s critical shortage of specialist nurses made headlines again this week, but it’s not the country’s only pressing medical need.

The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS) has estimated almost 3,000 more GPs and specialist doctors, and 12,000 more nurses, are needed to match Australia’s per-capita staffing levels.

The predicted impact of Omicron adds to the urgency, but since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there have been regular reports of a medical workforce in crisis, with longer waiting times and patients being turned away.

Border closures and immigration restrictions have only made the doctor shortage worse. We need to ask, therefore, why many foreign-trained doctors currently living in New Zealand are still not allowed to work.

Brain drain and brain gain

Doctors have always moved around. It’s been an important aspect of the medical profession for centuries, as a way of learning new skills and knowledge. According to a 2019 Medical Council workforce survey, around 40% of New Zealand-trained physicians from the 2005 cohort were living overseas after ten years.

To compensate for this “brain drain”, which leads to roughly one in six New Zealand-trained doctors working overseas, doctors from other countries are encouraged to immigrate. New Zealand’s health system depends on this migrant “brain gain”.

Read more:
Omicron is overwhelming Australia’s hospital system. 3 emergency measures aim to ease the burden

Before the pandemic, almost 43% of New Zealand doctors were from overseas. But many have joined a general exodus of skilled workers, with some blaming delays over residency.

To make matters worse, not all of those who stay are able to work as doctors in their adopted country.

Long pathways to practising

The reason lies in the way New Zealand licenses foreign doctors depending on where they trained. Those with training and experience in “comparable health systems” can generally practise as soon as they receive a job offer.

That comparability is measured by indicators such as life expectancy and doctors-per-capita in other countries. It’s hardly surprising that only wealthier countries are on the list.

Doctors who can’t claim comparability must first complete a medical knowledge exam from either Australia, the UK, US or Canada, pass an English test and then pass the New Zealand Registration Examination (NZREX).

This process can cost more than NZ$10,000 and takes years – especially since COVID-19 has meant half of the exam offerings were cancelled in 2020 and 2021, adding to wait times.

Read more:
New Zealand’s border quarantine has intercepted thousands of COVID cases, but is it time to retire the flawed system?

A hurdle too far

Once a doctor has passed the exams and met the required standard, they must still complete two years of supervised work before being licensed.

This is where the catch comes: first-year supervised positions are limited, prioritised for New Zealand medical graduates and rarely offered to foreign-trained doctors.

Most doctors from comparable health systems, on the other hand, don’t need to take the NZREX or complete two years of supervised work. By not competing with New Zealand medical graduates to be licensed, they don’t experience the same bottlenecks.

Of the foreign doctors who passed the NZREX between 2016 and 2021, just over half now have provisional registration and can work. This leaves 94 who have passed the exam in the past five years but are still not licensed to practise medicine.

For those who passed the exam earlier, the results are valid for only five years. If they haven’t been able to secure a supervised position in that time, they are back to square one.

A wasted workforce

The government has an ongoing recruitment campaign to lure overseas doctors. The Medical Council is also looking for ways to simplify the pathway for doctors from comparable health systems.

Despite the obvious need, qualified immigrant doctors have reportedly been denied work opportunities at understaffed hospitals during the pandemic.

It is difficult not to see an apparent assumption that a doctor’s competency as a physician is associated with the country they are from. This is not an unusual phenomenon – migrant physicians from non-Western backgrounds often experience barriers to registration and licensing in their destination countries.

But in New Zealand the disadvantage some foreign doctors face also extends to the licensing pathways. To be registered, those from non-Western countries must demonstrate clinical skills, including showing Māori cultural competency, while those from “comparable health systems” don’t.

One might ask, if cultural competency is important in the context of New Zealand’s inequitable health outcomes, why shouldn’t all foreign doctors be required to demonstrate this before being licensed?

With so many foreign-trained doctors in New Zealand unable to work, even after passing their licensing exams, we argue the problem is less about brain drains or brain gains. Rather, it reflects a “brain waste” for both the doctors themselves and for Aotearoa New Zealand, as Omicron threatens to stretch a system already in crisis.

Sharon McLennan received funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Marsden Fund.

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

– ref. Critically understaffed and with Omicron looming, why isn’t NZ employing more of its foreign-trained doctors? – https://theconversation.com/critically-understaffed-and-with-omicron-looming-why-isnt-nz-employing-more-of-its-foreign-trained-doctors-175914

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Webster, PhD candidate, The University of Queensland

In humid savanna on Cape York Peninsula, February 5, 1922, a man was on the hunt with a local Indigenous guide. They had just heard their quarry calling among the tall grass – a low “oomm, oomm, oomm” – before it burst into view with a flurry of wingbeats. A loud shotgun blast, and the bird dropped to the ground.

The bird was a buff-breasted button-quail, and the collector was Australian field naturalist William Rae McLennan. Later that evening he would have skinned and stuffed the bird, turning it into a museum specimen, before describing the encounter in his diary.

This skin was the last of the species ever collected. A century later, we have still yet to confirm any sightings of this mysterious, native bird.

I’ve spent four years searching for the buff-breasted button-quail, walking hundreds of kilometres and spending months scouring practically every locality where the species had ever been reported. All I’ve been able to find is its more common cousin: the painted button-quail.

Still, my ongoing research has brought us a step closer to solving this mystery and I remain hopeful the bird is still in existence. If it is, it urgently needs our help.

Searching for a lost species

McLennan’s diary from that wet season of 1921-1922 has remained the only detailed descriptions of the buff-breasted button-quail’s ecology. Some 60 years later in 1985, it was “rediscovered” just west of Cairns, and this launched dozens of new sightings by birdwatchers and several research projects over the next few decades.

Unfortunately, none of these reports or research endeavours produced anything more than brief sightings of the bird, typically only split-second views as it flew off from under their feet. No photos, no specimens, nor any other verifiable evidence has been produced.

Read more:
Regent honeyeaters were once kings of flowering gums. Now they’re on the edge of extinction. What happened?

For my doctoral project on the species, I joined the RARES research group at the University of Queensland in 2018. Our research team aimed to find a population, study its ecology, determine what threatening processes had led to its rarity, and learn how it could be conserved.

There were a few times in far north Queensland’s wet-season – supposedly the best time of year to see buff-breasted button-quail – when I saw birds fitting its widely accepted description: they were large, with sandy rufous (reddish brown) back and rumps, and contrasting dark primary feathers.

But whenever I thought I saw one on the ground, it turned out to be a painted button-quail. These differ by having a bright red eye and a grey breast.

Given there had been numerous reported sightings of buff-breasted button-quails from the region in the years prior, finding only painted button-quails was surprising, confusing and raised serious concerns.

Indeed, my research team and I became increasingly apprehensive about the status of the buff-breasted button-quail, and began questioning the features used to separate them from painted button-quail. This prompted a thorough investigation of all historical reports, and the reliability of characteristics used to identify the two birds in the field.

Has the bird been misidentified?

To determine how best to separate these two species in the field, I examined over 100 button-quail skins in museum collections worldwide. I also caught and photographed painted button-quail throughout north Queensland. What I discovered was intriguing.

Several supposedly key characteristics of the buff-breasted button-quail either did not exist, or were actually features of the painted button-quail.

Read more:
More than 200 Australian birds are now threatened with extinction – and climate change is the biggest danger

For instance, it was commonly reported that buff-breasted button-quail were much bigger than painted button-quail. My study of museum specimens, which is not yet published, showed the two are actually the same size.

I also discovered a previously undocumented colour variation in the plumage of painted button-quail. At the start of the wet season when they begin breeding, the female’s typical grey plumage is replaced by a much brighter rufous plumage. This brighter plumage is very similar to the sandy rufous colour expected of a buff-breasted button-quail.

This apparently breeding-related change in plumage was completely unknown, and its seasonal timing coincided with an increase in reports of the buff-breasted button-quail.

In short, with no hard evidence of the buff-breasted button-quail’s existence for 100 years, many of the most recent sightings of the species could actually have been the much more common painted button-quail.

This means the buff-breasted button-quail is likely far rarer than we could ever have ever feared.

What does its future hold?

When McLennan collected the last buff-breasted button-quail skin, the Tasmanian tiger roamed Tasmania’s forests, and the paradise parrot was still nesting in termite mounds in south east Queensland.

We realised too late that these unique species were in decline. Have we made the same mistake with the buff-breasted button-quail?

We already knew the bird was rare, but was our confidence in the species’ status misplaced, propped up by misidentifications of a more common species?

Aside from a clutch of eggs collected in 1924, there has been no incontrovertible proof the species continues to exist. Our extensive searches at sites where it was once found have failed.

We also know the bird communities of Cape York have been changing at a rapid rate, mostly due to the impact of changed fire patterns and cattle grazing. Other iconic Cape York species – such as the golden-shouldered parrot and red goshawk – have also declined over the past decades.

It seems likely the buff-breasted button-quail has suffered the same fate. It may not be extinct, but our research suggests it may only be hanging on by a thread, at best.

Read more:
Like a jackal in wolf’s clothing: the Tasmanian tiger was no wolfish predator — it hunted small prey

This 100-year anniversary is an opportunity to recognise the bird’s dire situation. Our new findings should prompt the federal and Queensland governments to act.

First, they should invoke the precautionary principle, which is to improve conservation actions for the species in light of its uncertain status. They should also immediately up-list the species to critically endangered, as right now it’s listed only as endangered.

Second, they should urgently provide the resources needed to re-evaluate the species’ conservation needs, as the status quo is not working.

We hope these efforts will prove the species is still in existence – perhaps living in a previously unsurveyed part of Cape York – and not another one that has disappeared on our watch.

Patrick Webster receives funding from the Australian Government, National Environmental Science Program.

– ref. Is the buff-breasted button-quail still alive? After years of searching, this century-old bird mystery has yet to be solved – https://theconversation.com/is-the-buff-breasted-button-quail-still-alive-after-years-of-searching-this-century-old-bird-mystery-has-yet-to-be-solved-175647

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Moore, Doctor of Botany, The University of Melbourne

The huge storms many Australians have experienced recently have damaged or toppled old trees which had withstood the vagaries of our weather for the past century or more.

This is what we can expect as our climate changes, with storm events more frequent, wind speeds stronger and rainfall heavier. These all contribute to trees falling or dropping large branches.

But there’s something you might not think of as linked to climate change. As storms intensify in our new climate, we’re likely to see more lightning strikes. And that means our tallest trees will be hit more often.

Is lightning always lethal to trees?

Most of us are used to the rules we were told about lightning and trees from childhood. Don’t shelter under a tree during a thunder storm. Lightning never strikes in the same place twice.

How do these rules apply from the perspective of a tree? Old trees are often the tallest thing around. When lightning strikes, they are more likely to be struck. You’d think a lightning strike would be game over for most trees. In fact, the effects can vary enormously.

The damage done depends on the tree species, whether it was sheet or forked lightning, how wet it was and where the lightning hits the earth and dissipates.

Strikes can be up to a million volts, generating temperatures up to 20,000℃. For a tree unlucky enough to be hit by one of these events, it’s all over. The sap inside the tree instantly turns to steam, which can cause it to literally explode, or lose great strips of wood and bark. It would be an excellent idea not to be under a tree when this happens.

Read more:
Dry lightning has set Tasmania ablaze, and climate change makes it more likely to happen again

Trees are not very good conductors of electricity. If the trunk of the tree is very wet from rain, the lightning will course through the water and dust on the trunk down to the earth, causing little damage to the tree itself. You can sometimes see the sooty residue left on parts of the tree after a strike like this. You may well notice the tree will appear to be undamaged and continue to grow well.

Sometimes, lightning will strike one side of a tree. Such a strike often kills the tree’s living tissues in a strip running along a large branch, vertically down the trunk to the ground, or even ending a metre or two above the ground. You’ll notice the lightning scar on trees like these, as it’s very visible. The wood behind the scar often decays over time, leaving a hollow behind. Trees can often recover from strikes like this, if the scar and decay are not too great.

There is a splendid variegated elm growing at Melbourne University’s Burnley Campus which was struck by lightning almost 30 years ago. Many of us thought it would die, but it defied the odds. Over the following years, I observed the long, narrow lightning scar deepening as the wood decayed. As more years passed, its trunk broadened and the scar eventually grew over. If you go past today, you will see no evidence of wounds or scars. But you and I know a secret – its trunk is hollow but strong.

Lightning can cause unexpected tree deaths well after the strike

For some trees when there is a small or no lightning scar, the tree appears to be fine only to die suddenly between two and 12 months later. This may be due to the strike causing a serious disruption to the tree’s metabolism or because it’s been unable to fend off fungal disease or insect pests after being weakened by the strike.

If the lightning goes to the earth through the roots, there may well be no symptoms of a strike visible above ground. Underground, it can be a different story, with potentially catastrophic damage to the root system. If the whole root system is damaged, the tree can die quickly, or fail over time as the roots decay. If only some roots have been killed, the tree may decline slowly for no obvious reason.

Some trees do seem more susceptible to lightning than others. I’ve seen a number of pines and other conifers die after a strike, for instance, while many eucalypts and oaks recover and remain healthy. It is possible to install a lightning protection system on a tree, but they’re costly and rarely installed in Australia.

If you know a tree has been struck by lightning, you would be wise to keep an eye on it. Often, the serious damage is not immediately obvious and will only be revealed in the weeks and months ahead. For some trees, the full impact only becomes clear in the following spring when they fail to recover or resume normal growth. An inspection by a qualified arborist would be a good investment.

Read more:
An unexpected consequence of climate change: heatwaves kill plant pests and save our favourite giant trees

You may well need an arborist to help with a related climate change driven threat to trees. That’s wind. In places like Victoria, trees cope with the prevailing winds from the west or north west by developing stronger root and branching systems. But now we’re seeing strong winds and severe storms coming from different directions.

If the wind comes from an unusual direction, a tree can be damaged or fall despite its age and past experience. The storm which pillaged Victoria’s Dandenong Ranges last year toppled many old, strong trees and led to long-lasting power outages because the winds came from a different direction. An arborist can check if your trees have been weakened by these new threats.

Lightning really does strike twice

When you think about the rules we were taught about lightning as children, you can see why the main one exists. You do not want to be near a tree during a thunderstorm.

Some rules aren’t quite accurate. The tallest and oldest tree in an area would be very likely to have been hit by lightning, and not just once but often. So yes, lightning can strike twice in the same place.

In fact, lightning is likely to strike in exactly the same place – the top of the tallest tree – every few years until the tree is no longer the tallest around, as other trees grow up and around it. Even for old trees, there is safety in numbers.

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

– ref. What does lightning actually do to a tree? – https://theconversation.com/what-does-lightning-actually-do-to-a-tree-176353

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Raewyn Connell, Professor Emerita (social science), University of Sydney

Can we grieve not for a person but for an institution? Should we be angry over possibilities destroyed, young talents denied a chance to flourish? Is there any point in lamenting greed, short-sightedness, the brutality of power?

As I write this, in September 2021, Australian higher education is in a deeper hole than it has been since the 1950s, when the creaky collection of universities inherited from colonial times, under severe stress, was rescued by the Menzies government. I worked in that rebuilt sector as student, teacher and researcher for about 50 years. Then I retired and wrote a book called, with a mixture of irony and hope, The Good University.

In the past couple of years I’ve watched the COVID-19 pandemic place huge new demands on university workers – my colleagues and friends – who had already come under heavy stress. This is a brief reflection on what has happened and why, and how we might do better.

The history matters

We’ve only had a national public university system for two generations; the sector has been through mighty changes in a short span. At first, Australian universities were separately funded by the colonial and state governments that set them up.

Building a national system made sense under the agenda of modernisation, industrialisation and nation-building that was more or less shared by Liberal and Labor parties in the postwar decades. High-school enrolments boomed in the 1950s and undergraduate enrolments followed, spurring governments to launch new universities as well as expand the older ones. National co-ordinating bodies were established.

At the same time there was a spurt in higher degree studies, giving Australia, for the first time, a capacity to produce its own research workforce. This was, potentially, a revolutionary change for the economy and society – a potential never realised.

Universities in the 1950s and 1960s were not comfortable places. They were run by an oligarchy of male professors who were linked, especially in faculties of law, medicine and engineering, with professional establishments outside. The odour of the British Empire still hung around academic life. Curricula were monocultural, despite the mass immigration of Australia’s postwar decades and the presence of Indigenous cultures.

There’s research showing that many of the students were quite alienated from these institutions. The majority were enrolled in bread-and-butter “pass” degrees; they listened to lectures and sat for exams but got little attention from academic staff. Only a minority were in honours streams with a more challenging agenda.

Through the 1960s, students increasingly became politicised in groups that opposed the war in Vietnam, supported Aboriginal causes and demanded democratic reform of the universities themselves.

When the Whitlam government took over the entire funding of universities in the 1970s and abolished fees, the stage was set for further expansion. New suburban and regional universities were launched, and the combination of rapid growth and new institutions made space for experiments in curriculum and teaching methods. New fields such as urban studies, environmental studies, women’s studies, information science and molecular biology opened up.

Read more:
A century that profoundly changed universities and their campuses

Both the students and the university workforce became more diverse. Yet universities remained privileged institutions, gateways to the elite professions. Most vocational education was the business of TAFE (Technical and Further Education) colleges and the Australian equivalent of polytechnics, the CAEs (Colleges of Advanced Education).

By the mid-1980s, as the political system shifted towards a free-market agenda, a new kind of pressure was exerted on education. At the end of the decade, Labor’s education minister, John Dawkins, introduced dramatic changes for universities. Fees were restored, the CAEs were folded into the university system in a chaotic free-for-all of amalgamations and takeovers, co-ordinating and consultative bodies were ditched, and university administrators were encouraged to become corporate-style managers and entrepreneurs.

Read more:
Don’t just blame the Libs for treating universities harshly. Labor’s 1980s policies ushered in government interference

The rise of universities as competing businesses

To do him justice, Dawkins wanted to widen access to universities. Basically, he instigated a fresh expansion of the system by beginning to privatise it. Though a less obvious privatisation than the outright sale of Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank, this would have huge consequences in the long run.

University enrolments did grow, while the proportion of public funding in universities fell. Fees rose steadily, and student debt – more or less hidden by the deferred payments of HECS and then HELP – grew.

Some universities became heavily dependent on fees from overseas students. University managers’ salaries and bonuses rose steeply, losing any connection with university workers’ pay packets. (By 2019, Australian vice-chancellors’ average package was a million dollars a year, very high by global standards.)

Read more:
How Australian vice-chancellors’ pay came to average $1 million and why it’s a problem

The system began to split, with a cabal of older universities declaring themselves an elite – the “Group of Eight”, derisively known as the Sandstones. Universities were gradually redefined as market-oriented, competing firms rather than co-operating parts of a public service.

More and more executives and directors from for-profit companies were appointed to university councils, bringing their business connections and their business ideology. University managers centralised decision-making in their own hands, imposing “performance” demands on staff who had previously been trusted to do their work as professionals.

Managers increasingly saw their younger workforce not as the teachers, researchers and operations staff of the future but as a budget cost needing to be reined in. The result has been a massive casualisation of the teaching workforce, outsourcing of more and more general and professional staff, and a growing distrust between the university workforce and its managers.

Read more:
2 out of 3 members of university governing bodies have no professional expertise in the sector. There’s the making of a crisis

Exploring the role of universities

This was the situation when I wrote The Good University, in the years after a long industrial struggle at the University of Sydney – an enterprise-bargaining affair in which management tried hard to degrade our conditions of employment. Meditating on the picket line, I thought that university workers had been on the back foot too long, responding to every policy disaster from Canberra or aggression from management. To shift the terms of debate required serious rethinking of what these institutions were.

I tried to re-examine the work that universities did, their social role, their history (much more varied and interesting than most people know), and what alternatives to the dominant model could be found for curriculum, control and social purpose. I thought we needed, above all, fresh ideas about the kind of university that would be good to work in, good to study in and worth fighting for.

Well, the book had been out for a year, and I was in the United States on a tour to publicise and discuss it, when the COVID-19 pandemic arrived. I scrambled home on one of the last scheduled Qantas flights and went straight into self-isolation.

Nothing could isolate the universities from the pandemic. In Australia as overseas, campuses were closed as lockdowns of regions and cities began. University staff worked very hard to shift courses online, and that intricate work is still under way nearly two years later. Students too had to change their routines and methods, learning to work from home, learning to study in isolation and needing their own access to the internet.

These changes happened worldwide, but the crash was particularly brutal in Australia. The national government, so slow to organise a vaccination program, rushed to close the borders – that was its primary response to the pandemic, eerily matching its response to asylum seekers.

Border closures suddenly cut off the flow of overseas students, who before 2020 had been paying about half the total fee income received by Australian universities. This plunged many institutions into financial trauma – one reason for their heavy job losses, now estimated at 40,000 across the higher education sector.

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

No sympathy or support from government

I doubt that the Morrison government worried about this effect. When the JobKeeper scheme was introduced in the first half of 2020, subsidising businesses to keep their workers employed during the pandemic, the government carefully excluded universities.

In June the same year it revealed its ideas about higher education in a document called the Job-Ready Graduates Package. It’s the most miserable excuse for a higher education policy in the 80 years that such documents have been written in Australia. In the name of vague “national priorities”, the Job-ready Graduates Package arbitrarily doubled fees for arts and humanities degrees, cut overall support for areas (such as nursing and education) that it claimed to encourage, introduced perverse trade-offs likely to reduce support for research and, in the background, cut government support for the whole sector.

What is going on here? In general terms, both the Coalition and Labor have been reducing the capacities of the public sector for a generation; this is another step in the same direction.

More specifically, there is a culture-wars agenda. The reactionary wing of the Coalition, in step with the Murdoch media, doesn’t like humanities and social sciences, basically because they encourage critical thinking (called “cultural Marxism” in recent right-wing rhetoric). Accordingly, the policy makes humanities and social sciences more difficult to access and burdens those who do with heavier debt.

Perhaps most importantly there’s an attitude that flows from overall economic strategy. When the Menzies government expanded higher education, the new funding made sense within the state-guided industrial development strategy of the time. That development strategy was abandoned in the neoliberal wave of the 1980s in favour of deregulation, “opening” of the Australian economy and a search for comparative advantage in global markets.

The industries with big comparative advantages in the short term were mining coal, mining iron ore, mining other kinds of rocks, running sheep and cattle, and growing wheat. These are industries with low demand for highly educated workers and little demand for a research capacity in Australia, since their technology is imported. In the logic of free-market fundamentalism, Australia hardly needs universities at all.

It might be politically embarrassing to close them down, but it’s easy to see why in 2020 the Coalition government would refuse JobKeeper subsidies and leave universities and university workers to sink or swim in the pandemic. It’s not clear that the Labor leadership would have done anything very different.

Public still believes in the public university

Yet there is considerable popular support for higher education. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, universities and colleges around the world were teaching 200 million students, representing a vast increase in recent decades. Domestic demand for university places has held up in Australia, despite the pandemic.

Managers and governments might treat universities as competitive firms, but the public still tends to see them as a public service. Universities do well in surveys of public trust in various institutions.

Read more:
Pandemic widens gap between government and Australians’ view of education

Universities could have a more secure position in the economy, the culture and public policy. To reach this new position would take more than a public-relations effort. It would need a serious reconstruction of the way universities work as organisations and the way they serve their public.

It’s highly unlikely that Universities Australia, the organisation that claims to be “the voice of Australia’s universities”, would support reconstruction: it represents the managers who benefit from the current regime. But managers aren’t the only people on campus. There are multiple groups and different interests.

The National Tertiary Education Union, which represents the bulk of university staff, has been discussing alternatives for the sector and paying more attention to casualisation. Student organisations, too, could support a different future.

Let’s consider just one aspect of the work done in universities. The commonest image of university teaching is a lecture. Holding forth to students sitting in neat rows is what professors and lecturers are supposed to do, even if the podium is replaced with a screen. But that’s not the heart of higher education.

University teaching builds a relationship between groups of students who have adult intellectual capacities, and the complex structure of research-based knowledge. It does not simply train young people for current jobs; it educates graduates who can think for themselves from a base of solid knowledge and relevant method.

The process needs co-operation across the university workforce, a supportive environment and an intricate, two-way learning process between teachers and students. That can’t be commanded from above nor automated from outside. Universities work from below, and that is their strength. There is democratic potential in the nature of the work itself.

The good university isn’t a lost cause

There has been “crisis” talk about universities for a generation. I was sceptical of it, but I have to say that the language of crisis makes more sense now. The riotous growth of managerial power, the level of distrust between management and the workforce, the stresses on university workers, their increasingly precarious employment, government hostility or indifference, plus the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic – that’s a more toxic combination than I have ever seen before.

But, classically, a “crisis” is not just a threatening situation. It’s a turning point, which may be for the worse or for the better.

For the better – how? There’s a need for imagination, creating new models of university life and work. There’s a need for internal reform, for industrial democracy. There’s a need for policy work, for more stable funding and more secure jobs. There’s certainly a need for more rational co-operation among universities. There’s a need for more effective support from universities’ multiple constituencies. And underlying all of these, there’s a need to organise – among university workers, among students and their families, and beyond.

Coming back to the questions I raised at the start, yes, there is reason to grieve for what’s been done to institutions that were flourishing, though flawed. And there’s reason for anger at what’s been done to a whole generation of university workers. This wasn’t necessary, and it isn’t necessary now.

It won’t be easy to turn the situation around, but it can happen. Good universities are possible, if we are determined to make them.

This article is an edited extract, republished with permission, from Griffith Review 75: Learning Curves edited by Ashley Hay.

Raewyn Connell is a life member of the National Tertiary Education Union. She is a graduate of the University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney, and in the past has worked at Flinders University of South Australia and Macquarie University in Sydney, as well as several universities overseas.

– ref. Remaking universities: notes from the sidelines of catastrophe – https://theconversation.com/remaking-universities-notes-from-the-sidelines-of-catastrophe-175920

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

If you’re paying off a mortgage – or aspiring to – imagine if you didn’t have to worry so much about rising interest rates.

That’s already the reality for US home buyers. Unlike in Australia, most mortgages in the US have a fixed-interest rate, locked in for 30 years.

Instead of having to wait and see if their central bank (the Federal Reserve) raises rates each month, a US 30-year fixed mortgage at 2% will still have the same monthly repayment – even after a rate rise.

In contrast, when the Reserve Bank of Australia lifts rates it has huge implications for household budgets, because most borrowers still have variable-rate mortgages.

Every time the cash rate increases and banks inevitably pass through that increase, our mortgage payments go up too – adding thousands of dollars to average annual repayments.

This is one reason why RBA governor Philip Lowe has been so cautious about following the US Federal Reserve’s strong signal about lifting interest rates.

So why don’t Australian lenders offer 30-year fixed-rate mortgages too, like their US counterparts?

Every extra 1% can cost thousands

Here in Australia, an extra 1% on a A$600,000 mortgage means $6,000 a year more in interest payments. And these are post-tax dollars. So if you earn $100,000 and hence pay an average tax rate of 25%, that’s like taking a roughly $8,000 pay cut. Ouch.

A 3% rise in official rates over two to three years is not impossible. On a $600,000 mortgage that would mean an extra $18,000 a year in interest payments.

The RBA knows this, of course. It looks at Australian household debt of more than 120% of GDP and knows raising rates too aggressively risks putting a significant number of Australian households into financial distress.

Read more:
Top economists expect RBA to hold rates low in 2022 as real wages fall

In one sense this is good news. It means the RBA has large-calibre ammunition to fire in pursuit of its monetary policy goals (to keep unemployment low and inflation between 2% and 3%).

But it would be better if the Australian mortgage market involved less risk for consumers.

There is no reason why Australian lenders couldn’t offer 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. After all, there’s an active government bond market with maturities from one year to 30 years. This provides a benchmark to price mortgages.

Two fixes for more affordable mortgages

Fixed-rate mortgages have become much more popular in Australia in the past few years: the proportion of new mortgages that were fixed jumped from about 15% in June 2019 to more than 45% by September 2021.

But even those loans are typically fixed for only three years – sometimes as short as one year, sometimes as long as five years. After that, the rate reverts to the variable rate.

Longer fixed-rate loans would insulate Australian borrowers from big swings in interest rates. In the US you can refinance a 30-year fixed mortgage if long-term rates drop. So you benefit if rates go down but are protected if they go up.

Read more:
Building back better: how RBA Governor Lowe sees the year ahead

Another idea to improve loan contract terms for borrowers – long advocated by University of Melbourne economist Kevin Davis – is the so-called “tracker mortgage”. These contracts limit borrowers to paying a certain “spread” over a benchmark interest rate.

Such offerings depend in large part on competition in the banking sector. The US has lots of competition in banking. Australia has very little.

When costs go up, two groups can bear that cost: customers or shareholders.

In Australia when bank funding costs go up, customers bear pretty much all of the cost, and shareholders zero. That’s the best evidence you’ll ever get of true market power.

Threading the needle

The Reserve Bank is well positioned to drive the official unemployment rate down from 4.2% to the lowest levels in 50 years while keeping inflation under control. It knows when it does increase interest rates this will transmit very directly to the real economy.

The challenge for Lowe is to use his interest-rate firepower in true Goldilocks fashion: not too little but not too much. That will be the great central banking challenge of the next several years.

If we could restructure the Australian mortgage market to better protect borrowers from swings in interest rates, the job of future RBA governors need not involve such a delicate balancing act.

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

– ref. What’s wrong with Australian mortgages? They’re fixed for shareholders, not home owners – https://theconversation.com/whats-wrong-with-australian-mortgages-theyre-fixed-for-shareholders-not-home-owners-176234

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Glitsos, Lecturer in Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University

The 2020s is the age of the reboot. Without a doubt, one of the most anticipated has been the revival of the iconic TV show Sex and The City, with the 10-episode mini-series And Just Like That.

And Just Like That comes 11 years after the second Sex and the City film, and 17 years after the final season of the HBO television series. The new series picks up where we left off with the characters navigating love and relationships in New York City. In other ways, there is much that has changed as certain characters (spoiler alert) are not present and others are dearly departed. In either case, returning to the Sex and the City world provides a kind of emotional nutrition.

While there might be some sense of nostalgia in the return to Sex and the City it’s only a small, surface part of what drives us back to this show.

To understand why anyone would risk the legacy of Sex and the City with such a perilous return, we need to understand the impact of the original in the first place.

Sex and postfeminism

Frank, unapologetic, and female-oriented: Sex and the City was the first of its kind. A television show that took “real” conversations and put them on the screen —warts and all, so to speak.

When Miranda needed advice on her date’s preoccupation with “butt-licking”, the girls were there to talk it out. When Charlotte’s date fell asleep during love-making, the group rallied together for support.

As feminist scholar Jane Gerhard explains, it’s not just the sex that’s exciting–it’s the talking about the sex. In her research, Gerhard writes:
“In season four, when Carrie has a gigantic orgasm with a guy who has an Attention Deficit Disorder, part of the pleasure of that orgasm comes from talking about it to her friends.”

But its popularity wasn’t just about the sex and its attendant conversations, it was the fact it represented the new incarnation of women’s politics — postfeminism.

Postfeminism is hard to define. At its heart, postfeminism doesn’t do away with feminism – it is a phenomenon in which women’s emergent power sits side-by-side by the contradictions and entanglements of capitalism and patriarchy.

Postfeminism is complicated. Sex is complicated. Yet somehow, Sex and the City took both of these forms and simplified them in witticisms and pithy puns that enabled people of all genders to reflect, question, argue, and best of all, laugh at ourselves. It asked the classic postfeminist questions like, “can women have sex like men?” and it explored how much women must sacrifice for their careers.

Read more:
And Just Like That: how Sex and the City sequel is broadening the representation of 50+ women on TV

Starting the conversation

In many ways, Sex and the City encapsulated late 90s gender politics and contemporary sexual relationships.

Admittedly, the show didn’t always get it “right” and looking back with our current views it may even seem outdated and naïve at times, but what it certainly did do is start the conversation.

The show constantly pushed boundaries. There was of course Carrie’s kiss with Alanis Morrissette in the episode Boy, Girl, Boy Girl, and who could forget Samantha’s affair with the legendary Sônia Braga in season four.

But there were also major flaws. Even at the time, Sex and the City was overtly white-centric and heteronormative. When Samantha announced her lesbian affair it was treated more as a sideshow oddity (especially by Carrie, Charlotte, and Miranda) than a genuine expression of a complex sexual identity.

Unfortunately, with the rebooted And Just Like That, the politics might be updated but the dialogue is far too forced. It’s as if the writers, in their desperate bid to update the show’s politics and erase the naivety of the past, lost the very important art of “show don’t tell”.

Instead of leading us through stories that would highlight the critical changes in our culture around sex, gender, ageing and political sensitivities, And Just Like That gives us clunky, overt, obvious, and frankly weirdly cringe situations that have little if any of the artful craft of screen writing.

Turning to technicolour

Even so, And Just Like That retains some of the original sparkle of its predecessor, intertwining both fashion and friendships as they trend, fade, and sometimes return. For many viewers, watching the first episode of Sex and The City was a bit like watching that moment in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy opens the cabin door and everything turns to technicolour– complete with the glamour, the glitter and the beautiful shoes.

However, the original show’s fashion was both fabulous and sometimes even accessible to the average viewer. Where once, in the original Sex and the City, there were characters (especially Carrie) who could pull off the most funky outfit from a vintage store, and style it up with just a touch of Balenciaga, in the new And Just Like That, the fashion is so far out of the normal person’s reach that it mocks instead of inspires.

The contrast between the two shows is highlighted by their representations of New York City – often referred to as the “fifth character” of Sex and the City. Sure, its version of Manhattan was always a complete phantasmagoria, but it left in some grittiness. NYC in And Just Like That is instead glossy, super-slick and mostly set in million dollar apartments. What we gained in cleanliness we’ve lost in character.

Return to Oz

We wanted — perhaps felt we needed — a return to the fantasy world of Sex and the City. We wanted to “talk things out” once more. The fantasy continues — it’s just no longer matched by the warmth and uniqueness that made us fall in love with it in the first place.

Like returning to Oz, it’s an interesting and sometimes darker journey, but it may not be what you were expecting.

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

– ref. Frank, unapologetic, and female-oriented: the cultural legacy of Sex and the City, and the lure of the reboot – https://theconversation.com/frank-unapologetic-and-female-oriented-the-cultural-legacy-of-sex-and-the-city-and-the-lure-of-the-reboot-175061

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

Scott Morrison’s language was sharp, bordering on bullying. Asked on Wednesday about the preselection shambles in the NSW Liberal Party, his message was that recalcitrant party members should leave things to the professionals.

“It’s time for those who […] don’t do this [politics] for a living, to really allow those who really need to get on for the sake of the Australian people,” he told 2GB.

He found the “childish games” in his home state party “very frustrating”, said people should “forget their factional rubbish”, and threatened intervention by the Liberal federal executive to sort them out.

It was a revealing insight into Morrison’s penchant for control. In fact, leading players in the “childish games” have been his own numbers man, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke, and his political adviser, Yaron Finkelstein. They act on behalf of the PM, who is a former director of the state party.

Morrison’s centre right faction, wedged between the right and the left, is in a minority in the NSW division. It has been seeking to increase its clout via preselections. But it has run into heavy resistance, because the state division recently fought a long battle to enable ordinary party members to exercise their right to choose candidates.

As a result of the shemozzle, there’s presently a standoff over whether Hawke, Environment Minister Sussan Ley and backbencher Trent Zimmerman should face preselection ballots or just be automatically endorsed.

The issue of principle is whether the party should let the rank and file have plebiscites, reserving the option of overturning any egregious decisions, or deny rank-and-file participation in the first place.

A proposal put by state president Philip Ruddock this week to have the executive rubber stamp the three was overwhelmingly defeated, with left and right aligned against the Morrison group.

Infighting and delays have also left key battleground seats without candidates as the May election bears down – including Hughes, Warringah, Dobell and Parramatta. An attempt by Morrison to get a Pentacostal woman preacher as the Dobell candidate blew up.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Morrison a ‘psycho’ – now who would have said that?

Morrison also failed to attract Gladys Berejiklian to run for Warringah. If he had prevailed it would have been beyond embarrassing when the text messages that had her describing him as a “horrible, horrible person” came out this week.

Senior NSW Liberals accuse Hawke, Morrison’s representative on the state executive, of holding up preselections for many months by making himself unavailable to participate in the group that vets preselection candidates. In effect, this has run down the clock, which renders rank-and-file ballot more difficult.

Morrison raised the question of intervention with the federal executive in November.

A powerful player on the federal executive is Nick Minchin, a former Senate leader in the Howard government and, like Morrison, a one-time state director (in South Australia). Minchin told the meeting intervention would be most unwise.

Minchin is both astute and tough. He was involved in the drafting of the rules for federal intervention some years ago, and they have many hurdles. If Morrison now tried to get full intervention he mightn’t succeed. Probably the best he would achieve would be some sort of exhortation from the federal executive.

The ugly entrails of the NSW Liberals may be arcane to ordinary voters struggling with the pandemic crisis and all its consequences. But they say a good deal about the PM, his political style and his present position.

Morrison’s activism reflects his personality, his experience from his state director days, and the fact that for various reasons, including bitter hatreds and structural problems, the NSW organisation is leaderless.

His faction’s push on preselections is against democracy in the party. It has also operated, as it’s turned out, against Morrison’s own interests, because it has left the Liberals badly prepared in a state where, on present calculations, they need to win – not just retain – seats to stay in government.

At the last election, Morrison’s meddling in preselections did not end well. He saved Craig Kelly, who later defected, became a vocal anti-vaxxer and is now the nominal leader of Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party.

He made the captain’s pick of Warren Mundine, one-time national president of the Labor Party, as the candidate in Gilmore, a seat the Liberals should have won but didn’t.

Read more:
Labor leads Coalition 56-44% and Morrison slumps dramatically in first 2022 Newspoll

The NSW imbroglio will have to be resolved quickly. Morrison risks coming coming out either with a bleeding nose or a very antsy party rank and file.

It’s not the only no-win situation the PM faces imminently. He has to decide the ministerial future of Education Minister Alan Tudge, presumably by the time parliament meets on Tuesday for what is expected to be a bruising fortnight for the government.

Tudge’s former lover Rachelle Miller has accused him of violence towards her – kicking her out of bed – when she worked for him. He denied the claim but stood aside from his ministerial duties while an inquiry was conducted.

We don’t know the investigation’s finding but Miller last week, speaking to the ABC, predicted the report of Vivienne Thom would “say what we all know it is going to say, which is that the outcome is inconclusive”.

Unless Tudge is fully exonerated his restoration to his position would be controversial.

And for Morrison the timing is dreadful. On Wednesday Grace Tame, former Australian of the Year, and Brittany Higgins, whose allegation of being raped in a minister’s office fuelled a massive debate about the culture at Parliament House, will appear at the National Press Club.

They are likely to be brutal in their assessment of Morrison and his government.

Tame’s stony face at a pre-Australia Day function at The Lodge last week received blanket coverage. Next week’s joint appearance will be a major media event.

Morrison struggles with women’s issues – one Liberal says, “it’s like me with the foxtrot, he never knows where to put his feet” – and there is little sign he will get any better. This has turned into irretrievable ground for him.

What we don’t know is the extent to which these issues, and Morrison’s reaction to them, will drive the votes of a significant number of women.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Morrison’s boys are frontline players in the ‘childish’ factional games he condemns – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-morrisons-boys-are-frontline-players-in-the-childish-factional-games-he-condemns-176380

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron M. Lane, Senior Lecturer in Law, RMIT University

News emerged overnight of the potential theft of more than US$326 million of Ethereum tokens from a blockchain bridge (which connects two blockchains so cryptocurrency can be exchanged between them).

It’s no surprise. Crypto crime has been on the rise – especially since the pandemic began. How are these crimes committed? And what can you do to stay ahead of scammers?

Direct theft vs scams

There are two main ways criminals obtain cryptocurrency: stealing it directly, or using a scheme to trick people into handing it over.

In 2021, crypto criminals directly stole a record US$3.2 billion (A$4.48 billion) worth of cryptocurrency, according to Chainalysis. That’s a fivefold increase from 2020. But schemes continue to overshadow outright theft, enabling scammers to lure US$7.8 billion worth of cryptocurrency from unsuspecting victims.

Crypto crime is a fast-growing enterprise. The rise of the crypto economy and decentralised finance (or DeFi), coupled with record cryptocurrency prices in 2021, has provided criminals with lucrative opportunities.

Australian data confirm the global trends. The Australian Consumer and Competition Commission reported more than A$26 million was lost to scams involving cryptocurrency in 2020 from 1,985 reports. In December, federal police told the ABC crypto scam losses for 2021 exceeded A$100 million. That’s despite many incidents likely left unreported, often due to embarrassment by victims.

Theft from exchanges

Most consumers obtain cryptocurrency from an exchange. This involves opening an account and depositing currency, such as Australian dollars, before converting it to a chosen cryptocurrency.

Typically the cryptocurrency is held in a “custodial wallet”. That means it’s assigned to the consumer’s account, but the private keys that control the cryptocurrency are held by the exchange. In other words, the exchange stores the cryptocurrency on the consumer’s behalf.

But just as a bank doesn’t hold all of its deposits in cash, an exchange will only hold enough cryptocurrency in “hot” wallets (connected to the internet) to facilitate customer transactions. For security, the remainder is held in “cold” wallets (not connected to the internet).

Unlike a bank, however, the government does not have a financial claims scheme to guarantee cryptocurrency deposits if the exchange goes bust.

The recent BitMart hack is a cautionary tale. On December 4, the exchange announced it had “identified a large-scale security breach” resulting in the theft of about US$150 million pls put AUD in brackets after any foreign dollar amount in crypto assets from hot wallets.

BitMart temporarily suspended withdrawals and later promised it would use its “own funding to cover the incident and compensate affected users”. It’s unclear when this will happen, with the CNBC reporting in January that customers were still unable to access their cryptocurrency. BitMart wasn’t the first exchange to be hacked, and it won’t be the last.

Similarly, consumers may be left with losses if an exchange fails for commercial reasons, rather than theft. Australians were left stranded in December when liquidators were appointed over Melbourne-based exchange myCryptoWallet.

One way consumers can protect themselves from exchange theft, or insolvency, is to transfer their cryptocurrency from the exchange to a software wallet (a secure application installed on a computer or smartphone) or a hardware wallet (a hardware device that can be disconnected from the computer and internet).

The cryptocurrency will then be under your direct control. But be warned, if you lose your private keys, you lose your cryptocurrency.

Read more:
The metaverse is money and crypto is king – why you’ll be on a blockchain when you’re virtual-world hopping

Types of scams

Drawing on the ACCC’s latest edition of the Little Black Book of Scams, the following types of scam are commonly observed in the cryptocurrency space, where the scammer is not personally known to the target:

• Email phishing

  The scammer sends unsolicited emails asking for personal login details, which can be used to steal cryptocurrency. Alternatively, they may offer “prizes” or “rewards” in exchange for a deposit.

• Investment scams

  The scammer creates a website that resembles a legitimate investment trading platform. It may be a fraudulent copy of a real business, or a completely bogus one. They may even post fake advertisements on social media platforms, with fake celebrity endorsements. In the latest news, billionaire mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest has launched criminal proceedings against Meta (previously Facebook) for allowing scam ads using his image.

  More sophisticated operations will have multiple scammers emailing and calling victims to give the impression of being a legitimate organisation. After cryptocurrency deposits are made, victims may be able to “trade” on the fake platform but can’t withdraw their supposed earnings. Delay tactics include asking for further deposits to be made for fees or taxes.

• Romance scams

  The scammer creates a fake profile and matches with victims on a dating app or website. They may then ask for funds to help them with a personal crisis, such as needing a surgery. Or they may say they’re trading cryptocurrency and encourage the target to get involved, leading the victim into an investment scam, as described above.

If a victim doesn’t already have a cryptocurrency exchange account, scammers may also coach them on how to open one. Some will mislead victims into installing remote access software on their computer, granting the scammer direct access to their internet banking or exchange account.

Practical challenges

There are practical legal challenges in the crypto crime environment. While reporting scams can be helpful in providing data and intelligence for regulators and law enforcement, it’s unlikely to result in the recovery of funds.

Taking civil legal action may be possible, too, but identifying perpetrators is difficult. Since cryptocurrency is by its very nature global and decentralised, payments are often made to parties outside of Australia.

So prevention is easier than a cure. The main way to avoid being scammed is to ensure you know exactly who you’re dealing with, transact through a reputable exchange and ensure all the channels you go through are verified. If an offer sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is.

Regulation on the horizon

In Australia, cryptocurrency exchanges must be registered with AUSTRAC, in compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terror financing obligations. But there are currently no other licensing requirements (such as capital requirements or cybersecurity, for example).

Last year, the Senate Select Committee into Australia as a Technology and Financial Centre recommended a more comprehensive licensing framework. The Australian government agreed with the recommendation, and the federal treasury department is due to begin consulting on what this will look like.

Mandatory measures to curb cryptocurrency crime at the exchange level will likely be high on the agenda.

Aaron M. Lane works for the RMIT University Blockchain Innovation Hub and holds honorary research positions at the UCL Centre for Blockchain Technologies and the University of Divinity. Aaron is a member of the Digital Commerce Committee of the Law Council of Australia. Aaron is also Special Counsel at law firm Duxton Hill where he advises on matters involving cryptocurrency.

– ref. Crypto theft is on the rise. Here’s how the crimes are committed, and how you can protect yourself – https://theconversation.com/crypto-theft-is-on-the-rise-heres-how-the-crimes-are-committed-and-how-you-can-protect-yourself-176027

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

Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe has painted an optimistic view of where the Australian economy is heading after a turbulent 2021.

Just how crazy last year was is highlighted by the differences between the bank’s forecasts at the start of last year and what has actually happened.

Despite the Delta and Omicron waves of COVID, which were unexpected and knocked things around, economic growth has been much higher and unemployment much lower than expected in February 2021.

The bank expected economic growth of 3.5% and might have got 5%. It expected unemployment of 6% and got 4.2%.

It has been a superb economic performance, offset by a higher than expected inflation with a headline rate of 3.5%.

While this looks as if we might be on the road to the high inflation seen in the rest of the developed world (in the US inflation is 7%), at a touch under 2.7% Australia’s so-called underlying rate of inflation is much lower than in the US, UK or New Zealand. It also happens to be in the middle of the bank’s 2-3% target band.

This might be because inflation has been well below the Reserve Bank’s target band for the past half decade.

Underlying inflation

Addressing the National Press Club on Wednesday, Philip Lowe said he expects Australia’s gross domestic product to continue growing at a rapid rate in the year ahead, around 4.5%. He also sees unemployment to continue falling – down to as little as 3.75% by the end of this year.

He expects underlying inflation to peak at just over 3%, before returning to the 2-3% target band.

Better than before

What explains this optimistic outlook? In many ways, the economy of 2022 resembles a return to normality.

Experts expect the Omicron wave to continue to diminish and the rollout of vaccine boosters and new anti-viral drugs to push COVID into Australia’s rear-view mirror.

This means Australia slowly returning to its pre-pandemic state with open borders and no lockdowns and restrictions.

It would also mean returning to the sub-par economic growth of 2-2.5% we had before COVID, were it not for two things.

One is what the crisis did in forcing the government to end its budget surplus fetish and spend to support the economy.

The other is what it did in persuading the Reserve Bank to rekindle its pursuit of full employment.

Before the pandemic, the bank worried excessively about the risks low interest rates posed to financial stability. Today, it rightly prioritises supporting the labour market.

These twin developments mean the 2022 economy is being supported by two coordinated boosters.

Combined, monetary (interest rate) stimulus and fiscal (budget spending) stimulus has pushed the unemployment rate well below 5% and will continue pushing it down over the months to come.

Read more:
Unemployment below 3% is possible for the first time in 50 years – if Australia budgets for it

Dr Lowe finished his speech turning to monetary policy and how it might unfurl over the year to come.

The bank has finished its use of unconventional monetary policies – bond-buying measures such as “yield curve control” and “quantitative easing”. But it remains committed to keeping its cash rate at the current low of 0.1% for a while yet.

So why keep interest rates low?

Why keep interest rates so low if the outlook is so positive? The governor put forward two reasons.

One is that, while the bank has an optimistic outlook for 2022, there is still a great deal of uncertainty around what the year will bring.

The bank wants to make sure these gains are locked in before it takes its foot off the accelerator. The costs of overheating the economy are relatively minor compared to what would happen if it hit the brakes too early and a new variant of COVID tipped the economy back into a recession.

Read more:
Top economists expect RBA to hold rates low in 2022 as real wages fall

The second is that wage growth remains very weak. The economy won’t be on a stable upward trajectory until wage growth picks up from its historic lows.

Although the bank expects wage growth to lift, it believes it will be a while yet before it climbs above the minimum of 3% needed to keep inflation within the target band.

Australia’s economy survived 2021 better than most expected. On Wednesday, Dr Lowe gave us good reasons to believe that this year it will do better still. And he has committed the bank to supporting households and businesses to try and ensure it does. He wants to deliver on his great expectations.

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

– ref. Building back better: how RBA Governor Lowe sees the year ahead – https://theconversation.com/building-back-better-how-rba-governor-lowe-sees-the-year-ahead-176006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Carrigy, Associate Director, Academic Programs, New York University

Review: Australians & Hollywood, National Film and Sound Archive

Visitors are greeted in the foyer of the National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA) by a life-size wax figure of the actor Eric Bana, on loan from Madame Tussaud’s, poised and ready for selfies.

Three ferocious steering wheels from Mad Max: Fury Road are provided by George Miller. Exquisite can-can costumes from Moulin Rouge are part of the Bazmark (the production company led by Baz Luhrmann and Catherine Martin) memorabilia housed by the NFSA.

Australians & Hollywood, the new exhibition at the archive, brings together objects from inside and outside the collections. The focus on Australia’s relationship with Hollywood is rich and timely. Curator Tara Marynowsky foregrounds the transnational dimensions of Australia’s film industry, drawing on the idea of Hollywood as a dispersed global phenomenon.

The subtitle of the exhibition, “a tale of craft, talent and ambition”, is an apt characterisation of her approach. The three concepts come to the fore in various locations and experiences throughout the space.

Craft

One of the most pleasurable aspects of the exhibition is its focus on craft.

Not surprisingly, this is prominent in the section titled “George Miller and His Universe”.

Miller rose to international prominence as the director of the Mad Max film franchise, and the exhibition highlights the eclectic scavenging undertaken by costume designer Norma Moriceau for her work on Mad Max 2 (1981) and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985).

Read more:
Our enduring love of Mad Max’s Australian outback: an anarchic wasteland of sado-masochistic punk villains and ocker clowns

The juxtaposition of this work with her design of Paul Hogan’s vest, hat and knife from Crocodile Dundee (1986) is a reminder of her influence over some of Australia’s most iconic and enduring cinematic imagery.

A variety of digitally rendered concept books and storyboards are dispersed throughout the exhibition space. The storyboards for Mad Max and Crocodile Dundee are joined by several stunning concept books put together under Catherine Martin’s design leadership for Bazmark productions, for films like Romeo + Juliet (1996) and Moulin Rouge (2001).

Through these early design works, we get the opportunity to explore a variety of approaches different creative teams bring to this process, from scruffy hand-drawn sketches to extensive collages envisioning individual shots as well as whole cinematic universes.

Read more:
Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet at 25: is this the best Shakespeare screen adaptation?

Ambition

I found the emphasis on the concept of ambition quite intriguing, particularly in terms of how this notion manifests in the section on the production company Blue-Tongue Films and their 2010 hit Animal Kingdom.

Animal Kingdom helped launch the Hollywood careers of filmmaker David Michôd and actors Ben Mendelsohn and Jacki Weaver.

A quote on the wall from Mendelsohn declares that, if he had been able to tell his younger self he woudld one day be in a Star Wars movie, he could have saved himself a lot of angst. In an audio interview, we hear of his undignified couch surfing days in Los Angeles.

An interview with Nicole Kidman in another corner of the exhibition dwells on similar stories about her early days slumming it in LA, surviving on the generosity of fellow Aussies.

Ambition, as this exhibition tells it, is frequently associated with resilience, grit and mateship.

Talent

While the Blue-Tongue and Bazmark sections emphasise collaboration, the focus of the exhibition is primarily on individuals, cleverly utilised as a tool through which facets of the industry are brought to the fore.

The emphasis on celebrating Australian talent and success is brought to life most explicitly in relation to the Academy Awards.

Producer Emile Sherman’s Oscar for best film, awarded to The King’s Speech (2010) is there, encased in glass. And there are numerous curated clips of interviews and thank you speeches from Australian actors and filmmakers in red carpet attire clutching trophies.

We’re left in no doubt about the recognition Hollywood has given Australian talent since the 1970s. Photographs peppered throughout the exhibition showcase the Hollywood careers of filmmakers like Miller, Phillip Noyce, Peter Weir, Sherman and Cate Shortland as well as actors like Cate Blanchett, Kidman, Bana and Weaver.

Read more:
Marvel’s Black Widow has been handed to a small independent Aussie director. And she’s the perfect fit

The missing stories

It is certainly a challenge to attempt to tackle the variety and complexity of the Australian industry’s relations with Hollywood, especially within this small, single exhibition space. And there is no doubt that this exhibition packs in an engaging variety of interesting objects and resources.

But while it looks at Australian talent being exported to Hollywood, it attends more briefly to the phenomenon of Hollywood productions on Australian soil.

There is some on-set photography from some of these productions including a number of Miller and Bazmark films as well as Thor: Ragnarok (2017), but there is little focus on the production studios and post-production facilities and teams that have contributed to these kinds of films over the decades.

Similarly, the exhibition showcases the success of Australia’s First Nations practitioners like Warwick Thornton and Rachel Perkins, but only briefly references the weaving of Indigenous culture into the Hollywood blockbuster Thor: Ragnarok.
Certainly, there is much to enjoy. We get multiple opportunities to peer behind-the-scenes, whether it’s getting up close and personal with iconic costumes and props or listening to actors reflect on their artistic and personal journeys. It is a delightful and engaging representation of our rich and diverse audiovisual heritage.

Australians & Hollywood is at the National Film and Sound Archive, Canberra, until July 17.

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

– ref. Australians & Hollywood at the NFSA: Aussie talent has been making international waves for decades – https://theconversation.com/australians-and-hollywood-at-the-nfsa-aussie-talent-has-been-making-international-waves-for-decades-175643

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John McCarthy, ARC DECRA Fellow, Flinders University

The Australian National Maritime Museum has announced a shipwreck found in Newport Harbour, off Rhode Island in the United States, has been confirmed as Captain Cook’s ship, HMB Endeavour.

There have been very similar announcements made over the years but have they finally made a definitive case?

By making its announcement, the Australian National Maritime Museum seems to have decided so, and there does seem to have been significant recent progress, centred on one shipwreck that matches the known details of Endeavour closely.

However, reports soon emerged lead investigator on the Endeavour discovery – Dr Abbas from the Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Project – described the announcement as “premature” and that there “has been no indisputable data found.”

The announcement by the museum includes recognition that there is not, and may never be, definitive proof but they appear satisfied that the case has been made within reasonable doubt.

I wasn’t part of this particular investigation so it’s not for me to say if this ship is indeed Endeavour or not. But I have worked on many shipwreck investigations and have been involved in the discovery of a couple of shipwreck sites of this period.

So I can share a little bit about what’s usually involved in trying to piece together the identity of a ship when a wreck is found.

Read more:
Sunken history: how to study and care for shipwrecks

From the survey site to the lab

The first thing you will need is a detailed survey of the site. The proces is similar to an archaeological survey on land, but for most shipwrecks you will be underwater. That makes it more difficult to take measurements precisely. Nowadays we also use 3D imaging techniques, high-resolution sonar and other specialist equipment to achieve a survey that is objective and highly accuracy.

We focus on identifying “diagnostic features”, things that can identify the site and tie it to a particular period and ship-building tradition.

This could be the way the keel is built and how it is attached, or dimensions of timber frames. Often it is the smallest details that can hint at a certain ship-building tradition. One really useful indicator is the way the wood has been fastened together. Is it done with iron nails? In layers? Or tied with rope in a certain way?

Once your survey is complete, you might undertake some sampling to recover artefacts. We generally try to remove as little as possible of a shipwreck. The gold standard is to leave as much in-situ as possible but it is common to recover some material for analysis in the lab, such as bricks, cannon balls, timber, coins; anything that can help establish a chronology for a shipwreck.

Once you have got your evidence from the site, you can move onto analysis in the lab.

For timber, we often use a technique called dendrochronology, which is analysis of tree growth patterns. If you have enough timber of the right type, you can work out almost to the year when the timber was felled and even where it was grown.

We might x-ray metal materials, trying to work out what the objects originally looked like.

Sifting through historical records

Then we move onto historical research, analysing records of all ships lost in that general area.

We may draw on newspaper reports from the time, salvage records and marine insurance claims. Indeed, marine insurance was the original insurance because shipwreck was once so common and so costly.

We might look for court records to see if there was a dispute about the disposal of shipwreck material in that area at some point.

Historical attempts to salvage valuable material may also leave a paper trail and it was common to try to recover brass cannons (which were extremely valuable).

Shipwreck survivor accounts can be very valuable – these were often published as a popular reading material from the 17th century onward.

One of the best sources can be oral traditions and community memories; the story of a significant shipwreck can survive in local memory for generations. Just talking to local people can provide quite a lot of unique information.

It isn’t easy

Identification of a shipwreck is not easy.

In any given area, there are likely to be multiple records of shipwrecks. The task is usually to eliminate those recorded ship losses that don’t match up with the clues you have collected.

And there are often close similarities between ship types that make it hard to identify an exact ship. The Spanish Armada, for instance, resulted in the loss of many ships from the same area at the same time, so if you find one, it is easy to know it is an Armada ship, but much harder to say which one.

Working in a marine environment complicates matters greatly. Wooden shipwrecks tend to be poorly preserved on the seabed. If they are quite old, what you really get is the survival of the non-wooden parts; cannon balls, cannons, metal objects and glass.

That makes it difficult because shipwrecks are a huge collection of material and some of the material may be much older than the shipwreck itself, which can suggest a wreck is older than it really is.

You can also have shipwrecks that have more recent material on the site that has drifted there from elsewhere in the sea or even from another shipwreck. In Iceland we investigated a 17th century shipwreck which had been partially covered by a later shipwreck.

Identifying ships is a long, arduous and painstaking process that usually takes many years and involves a host of challenges along the way. At all times, it is vital as a maritime archaeologist to remain objective and not fall into the trap of trying to bend evidence to fit a theory you have fallen in love with.

The repeated headlines about Endeavour may have made some of the project team wary about definitive claims, but there will also be sites that we cannot prove the identity of with absolute certainty, and we will be forced to make our best judgement call.

Read more:
What happens now we’ve found the site of the lost Australian freighter SS Iron Crown, sunk in WWII

John McCarthy receives funding from the ARC and the Dutch Embassy in Australia. He is a regional councillor for the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology and assistant editor of their journal.

– ref. Has Captain Cook’s ship Endeavour been found? Debate rages but here’s what’s usually involved in identifying a shipwreck – https://theconversation.com/has-captain-cooks-ship-endeavour-been-found-debate-rages-but-heres-whats-usually-involved-in-identifying-a-shipwreck-176363

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darryl Dymock, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow in Education, Griffith University

Under Labor’s proposed Future Made in Australia Skills Plan, Australians studying in an industry with a skills shortage will be supported through the provision of free TAFE places. This will include 45,000 new places. If Labor does that without expanding the present depleted teaching workforce, we’re likely to see more current teachers bailing out and corners cut in teaching practices.

Our 2021 research for the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) found the shortages of VET teachers and trainers extend to virtually every industry. If these shortages are not overcome, the result will be an inadequately trained vocational workforce. This in turn will have an impact on the country’s skill levels and productivity.

Not that the present federal government has much to be proud of in this regard. Although Vocational Education and Training (VET) significantly underpins the nation’s workforce development, it has limped along under recent national governments.

TAFE, the public provider, has remained a poor relation. Workforce shortages have continued, made worse by retirements from the ageing VET workforce and by the need to expand training to cater for new and emerging industries.

For our research we talked with key members of almost 30 registered training organisations (RTOs) across Australia about the shortage of trainers. We also surveyed over 300 practising teachers and trainers (VET practitioners) about their experiences of moving into VET.

The challenge in overcoming the shortage of VET practitioners is to encourage experienced workers from trades and the professions to move into VET.

What are the key issues?

The difference in salaries between industry and VET is a significant issue. It’s too simplistic an explanation for the lack of applicants, however.

For example, one disincentive is the nature of employment in the sector. Just over half of VET practitioners are employed in ongoing full-time roles. As one said:

“People at the top of their industry don’t leave for a temporary contract.”

Private training organisations reported they sometimes provide permanent employment for trainers simply to keep them “on the books”. One RTO principal told us:

“I can’t afford to put them off because we’ll never get them back.”

A further stumbling block is the inflexibility of the basic educational qualification as a point of entry. Trainers generally need to complete a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (Cert IV TAE) before they can teach. There is only minimum provision for supervised practice without it.

Training organisations reported prospective trainers are reluctant to acquire the full qualification before they’re allowed to teach. Tradespeople with significant practical experience but no formal education since their apprenticeship were also anxious about “returning to study”.

Paradoxically, there was pushback from university-educated professionals in senior positions against the need for a vocational qualification.

The value of the certificate itself as a training qualification has been an ongoing contentious issue. One ex-tradie wrote:

“They want teachers to have ten years of industry experience […] but expect a six-day course to be enough to be a good teacher.”

It’s understood changes to the qualification are in the wind. Let’s hope these include ones that will make entry to VET teaching more flexible.

Training organisations and trainers alike argued for better recognition of prior learning among those who already have a training or mentoring role.

Even after they make the transition, new practitioners sometimes leave VET because their expectations don’t meet the reality. This is especially true if their employer doesn’t provide appropriate orientation and support. One trainer said:

“Day one I was given a USB with PowerPoint presentations on it and told to go into the classroom and deliver it.”

What can be done to end the shortages?

We identified several strategies to attract more VET practitioners.

1. Exploit career points and individual passion for teaching and training.

A national media campaign could target prospective VET professionals at potential “turning points” in their careers. That might be, for example, when they are looking to move into something different from their everyday job, when family or financial responsibilities have eased, or when they are seeking an alternative work-life balance. Sell these as benefits beyond salary.

2. Smooth the entry path.

Provide more options to “try before you buy”. These might include “bite-size” opportunities to experience teaching in VET before making a commitment. Industry specialists could be allowed to teach short-term with a particular training skill set, rather than the full qualification.

It’s also essential to ensure prospective practitioners understand in advance how expectations in VET are different from those in their former workplaces. When they get there, give them a soft landing, especially those new to training. Show them they’re valued.

3. Involve industry more.

Encourage and enable movement in and out of VET – so-called “boundary crossing”. This will enable practitioners to maintain their links and their industry currency.

There is also scope and reason for industry to be more directly involved in promoting and fostering the VET practitioner career.

4. Enhance the status of VET.

This can be done by promoting the uniqueness of the “dual practitioner”. Arguably even more than at university level, VET employs tradespeople and professionals who have developed expertise in one career and channels them into a second career. As a VET teacher or trainer, their initial expertise is highly valued.

Our research showed many people in VET are passionate about its potential but some despair about its future. Whichever party is in power, expanding and equipping the VET workforce is a vital step forward.

Darryl Dymock received research funding from NCVER.

Mark Tyler received research funding from NCVER.

– ref. Who’ll teach all the students promised extra TAFE places? 4 steps to end staff shortages – https://theconversation.com/wholl-teach-all-the-students-promised-extra-tafe-places-4-steps-to-end-staff-shortages-175523

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

Germany has announced plans for a new climate alliance between the world’s advanced economies – a move that promises to transform international climate action.

This year, Germany is the president of the G7 – a key forum for wealthy democracies to discuss solutions to global challenges.

New German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who replaced long-time leader Angela Merkel in December last year, wants the G7 nations to become founding members of an international “carbon club”. This alliance of countries would coordinate shared climate policy standards and impose costs on countries that don’t meet them.

The proposal should ring alarm bells in Canberra. It is likely to mean economic and diplomatic costs for Australia, and further isolate this nation as a climate laggard on the world stage. To avoid this, Australia should at least match the climate ambition of G7 countries, by pledging to halve greenhouse gas emissions this decade.

What is a climate club?

The “climate club” concept was developed by Nobel-prize winning economist William Nordhaus in 2015, and has since gained ground in international policy circles.

United Nations climate agreements – such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement – are voluntary. Nordhaus argues this provides an incentive for some nations, overly focused on their own national interests, to seek to minimise their share of the global costs of climate action.

So while responsible nations bear the cost of switching to new, cleaner technologies, the “free-riding” nations benefit from those technologies and a potentially safer climate while failing to make adequate cuts their own domestic emissions.

To address this problem, Nordhaus proposes a “club” model for climate cooperation. Club members – those countries who move first to take climate action – would be both rewarded, and protected from competitive disadvantage.

Members would harmonise their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and work toward a shared goal. And nations that do not meet their global obligations would incur penalties, such as a levy on exports to club member nations.

Read more:
Japan wants to burn ammonia for clean energy – but it may be a pyrrhic victory for the climate

How the G7 could become a climate club

In addition to Germany, the G7 comprises the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan and Canada.

Just a month after being elected German chancellor, Olaf Scholz announced at the World Economic Forum in January that Germany intends to turn the G7 into the nucleus of an international climate club.

Scholz has been keen on the climate club idea for some time. Last August, as Germany’s finance minister, he proposed an “A-B-C” model that would be:

• ambitious: all members would commit to climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest, and set strong interim targets

• bold: member states would determine a shared minimum carbon price and coordinate measures to prevent production being moved to countries with weaker emissions rules

• cooperative: club membership would be open to all countries that introduce adequate climate action targets and measures.

A G7 climate club could build on the experience of the European Union. The EU already has an internal carbon market and will next year start imposing border levies on imported goods, based on the emissions generated in their production. The highest costs will be borne by exporters from countries that don’t have a carbon price or meaningful climate policy.

Scholz suggests G7 countries could negotiate similar arrangements to those of the EU. The G7 countries will consider Germany’s proposal at ministerial meetings this year.

Climate policy is a key priority for the Biden administration in the US, providing a window of opportunity for positive negotiations.

And there are already moves to set shared standards across the Atlantic. In October last year, the EU and the US announced they were working towards a world-first deal to restrict access to their markets for high-carbon steel.

What this means for Australia

Australia is widely seen as a free-rider in global climate efforts. While G7 member states have promised to cut their emissions by about 50% this decade, Australia has pledged only to cut emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels.

At last year’s COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, Australia was the only major developed country that refused to set a stronger 2030 emissions target. It’s also the only country in the world to have repealed a carbon price.

What’s more, the Morrison government is promoting a “gas-fired” economic recovery from the COVID pandemic. It continues to promote coal and gas exports, and derides the EU’s carbon border levies as protectionism.

Safe to say, if a G7-led climate club formed in the near future, Australia would not be invited to join.

Australia should take Germany’s climate club proposal seriously, and move quickly to implement climate policies that bring us in line with G7 nations.

Otherwise, Australia faces the prospect of economic harm. This would not just come in the form of potential carbon border levies, but also a loss of both investment capital and the economic gains that come from being a first mover in clean industries.

Read more:
Labor’s 2030 climate target betters the Morrison government, but Australia must go much further, much faster

Staying in the race

The climate club concept is not without its detractors. Some academics and climate negotiators caution that it could undermine multilateral cooperation in UN climate talks, while others warn such agreements can exacerbate equity issues between richer and poorer nations.

For its part, Germany has suggested climate finance could be provided to help developing countries become club members, and club members could make a phased policy transition.

The proposed G7 climate club marks a major shift in global efforts on climate change. Major powers now view climate action as a race for competitive advantage. The first movers in the new industrial revolution will take first, second and third prize.

If Australia wants to stay in the race, much more ambitious federal climate policy is urgently needed.

Read more:
What drove Perth’s record-smashing heatwave – and why it’s a taste of things to come

Wesley Morgan is a researcher with the Climate Council, a non-profit organisation that advocates for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

– ref. New German leader proposes a ‘climate club’ of leading economies that would punish free riders like Australia – https://theconversation.com/new-german-leader-proposes-a-climate-club-of-leading-economies-that-would-punish-free-riders-like-australia-175842

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

Late last year, El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele announced plans to build “Bitcoin City” – a tax-free territory in the country’s east.

The city will use the cryptocurrency and be powered by the nearby Conchuagua volcano. According to Bukele, there will be:

Residential areas, commercial areas, services, museums, entertainment, bars, restaurants, airport, port, rail [..] [but] no income tax, zero property tax, no contract tax, zero city tax and zero CO2 emissions.

Whether or not Bitcoin City eventuates, it joins a long and bizarre history of libertarian-inspired attempts to start independent cities and countries.

Bitcoin City

The generous financial incentives in Bitcoin City are aimed at encouraging foreign investment.

However, the plan has quickly been derided by finance commentators as something “worthy of a Bond villain”. There are doubts construction will ever begin.

As the Australian Financial Review observes, Bitcoin City is likely nothing more than a “splashy distraction from Bukele’s economic woes”.

New libertarian cities

But Bukele is not the only one to be tempted to set up a new territory, with new (or no) rules.

In a 2009 TED Talk, American economist Paul Romer argued developing nations should partner with foreign countries or corporations to create autonomous model cities.

Under his plan, host states would lease large tracts of undeveloped land to developed states, who would administer the territory according to their own legal system. The city’s residents would largely come from the developing state, but the administrators of the city would be appointed by (and accountable to) the developed state. Residents could “vote with their feet” by either migrating to or from the model city.

Read more:
How El Salvador and Nigeria are taking different approaches to digital currencies – plus, are we living in a simulation? The Conversation Weekly podcast transcript

Romer argues such cities would attract significant international investment because their legal architecture would insulate them from any political turmoil present in their host state. Notwithstanding the strong neo-colonial or neo-imperial overtones, several states have considered adopting Romer’s proposition.

The Honduran experiment

In 2011, the Honduran Congress amended its constitution to facilitate the development of Romer’s idea. Cities built within “special development regions” would not be subject to Honduran law or taxation. Instead, they would be self-governing under a unique legal framework.

After legal disputes about whether this breached Honduran national sovereignty, the plan was revived in 2015. Under the new plan, an investor that builds infrastructure in a site designated as a “zone for employment and economic development” (ZEDE) will be granted quasi-sovereign authority. The investor will be permitted to impose and collect income and property taxes, and establish its own education, health, civil service, and social security systems.

Under the ZEDE law, the president appoints a committee to oversee all of the model cities as well as setting the baseline rules and standards investors must follow. Reflecting the ideological backing of the idea, the first committee, announced in 2014, was heavily comprised of libertarians and former advisers to United States President Ronald Reagan. In 2020, the first site was launched, but development does not appear to have commenced.

To the sea

The Honduran plan involves a country leasing (temporarily or perhaps permanently) sovereign rights over its territory. Other projects have sought to build a new country on the sea.

Since 2008, attention has focused on the California-based Sea Steading Institute.

Founded by American libertarian Patri Friedman (grandson of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman) and initially financed by billionaire Peter Thiel, the institute sought to build habitable structures on the high seas – outside the jurisdiction (and taxation) of any state.

Read more:
Why is Australia ‘micronation central’? And do you still have to pay tax if you secede?

Although their website suggests sea steading could offer significant benefits to humanity globally, making money free of regulatory burden is the primary motivation. Backers are interested in sea steading’s potential to “peacefully test new ideas for governance” so “the most successful can then inspire change in governments around the world”.

No city has yet been built. In 2017 negotiations with French Polynesia for the development of floating cities within their territorial waters stalled when community pressure forced the government to withdraw. Many wondered whether “facilitating the tax evasion of the world’s greatest fortunes” would actually be beneficial for the islands.

The Republic of Minerva

Other proposals have not bothered to ask anyone whether they can get started. In the 1960s, several American businessmen sought to establish independent states upon coral reefs off the coasts of California and Florida. Both fell apart under pressure from the US government.

In the early 1970s, US libertarian Michael Oliver tried to finance the construction of a new country – the Republic of Minerva – on a submerged atoll in the Pacific Ocean between Tonga and Fiji. There would be no tax and no social welfare in his laissez-faire paradise.

Over the second half of 1971, Oliver’s team ferried sand on barges from Fiji to raise the atoll above sea level and commenced basic construction. Oliver envisioned creating 2,500 acres of habitable land elevated around two and a half to three metres above high tide. Floating cities and an ocean resort would also be built.

Progress proved hard going. Only 15 acres of land had been reclaimed by the time Oliver’s funds were exhausted. Nearby countries were also watching with alarm. In June 1972, King Tupou IV declared Tongan sovereignty over the atoll and ejected Oliver’s team.

Oliver abandoned Minerva, but in 1982, another group of American libertarians attempted to reassert and restore the republic. After spending three weeks moored in the lagoon, they were expelled by the Tongan military. Today, Minerva has been “more or less reclaimed by the sea”.

Perhaps they should have invested in Bitcoin.

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

– ref. ‘Worthy of a Bond villain’: the bizarre history of libertarian attempts to create independent cities – https://theconversation.com/worthy-of-a-bond-villain-the-bizarre-history-of-libertarian-attempts-to-create-independent-cities-173903

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Edwards, Lecturer, Podiatric Surgery, La Trobe University

Every day, parents around the world are told their child’s flat feet are normal and they will grow out of it.

This isn’t true – they just grow up and out of their paediatricians’ practice.

There’s no evidence children’s flat feet correct themselves with time.

Failure to intervene when problem flat feet are identified is a disservice to the child. Research shows they don’t get better, and usually get worse.

Most flat feet are correctable early in life. But when left untreated, they hinder a child’s development, exert adverse pressure on their feet and the rest of the body, and result in permanent adverse structural change.

This can cause and aggravate life-long issues with their posture.

A child’s flat feet should be treated early, aggressively, and for the appropriate length of time required to achieve correction.

Feet don’t unflatten

Experts agree painful adult flat feet usually arise from pre-existing flat feet in childhood.

Children rarely complain of foot pain because their bones are soft and forgiving and their body weight is low, resulting in minimal degrees of stress. They do, however, complain of leg, knee, and “growing” pains. Some also begin to avoid physical activity. Many parents say their child won’t stand up straight no matter how many times they are reminded.

Once grown up, they may not experience pain until their teens or twenties, or sooner if there are increased stresses, such as participation in sports.

Read more:
Teenage pain often dismissed as ‘growing pains’, but it can impact their lives

The claim children’s flat feet spontaneously resolve isn’t supported by any long-term studies. To the contrary, there’s published data suggesting children’s flat feet get flatter with time and eventually lead to painful adult flat feet.

Why many clinicians claim children’s flat feet get better was originally based on a 1957 study evaluating the heel-to-arch width ratio of two- and ten-year-olds. The authors found the width of the foot reduced by 4% in relation to their age. They concluded this to mean flat feet would resolve by age ten.

But their data didn’t take into account the child’s bone alignment, and the results lacked the significance to conclude that flat feet resolve over time. And it wasn’t a long-term study.

Children with flat feet also have a lower quality of life and a higher body mass index (BMI) compared with their peers.

Research confirms flat feet lead to abnormal stress and compensations in movement, resulting in further issues and pain in the knees and hips as children progress into adulthood.

The benefits of early intervention

Justin Greisberg MD, orthopedic surgeon and chief of the foot and ankle service at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, said

the most important treatment for the adult flatfoot is prevention. If the at-risk foot can be identified, early intervention might prevent the deformity.

Simply occasionally observing a child’s flat feet without intervening (as some doctors and podiatrists do) is a clinical mistake and makes later treatment difficult or impossible.

Early intervention encourages the development of the foot’s correct shape in a way similar to, for example, getting braces for your teeth.

This idea has been used successfully for decades in the correction of other foot posture issues, such as club feet.

This doesn’t mean all flat feet need to be treated, but a skilled clinician must identify those with the potential to become problematic immediately.

Occasionally monitoring a child’s flat feet leaves the condition to develop and fester, making it unresponsive to later treatment.

This approach also contradicts research showing early treatment is key to achieving successful results.

Treatments can include orthotics, strengthening exercises, ballet and surgery.

Read more:
What it means when kids walk on their toes

In the child’s flat foot, we face a complex assortment of loose ligaments, young muscles and nerves, and an immature and poorly aligned skeletal system.

It’s from this framework that children derive their adult foot structure and function.

Failure to intervene is a failure to recognise the long-term consequences of excessive flat-footedness not only on the feet but the entire body.

Steven Edwards works in private practice in Melbourne, Australia.

– ref. No, children don’t magically ‘grow out’ of flat feet. Treatment is key to avoid long-term pain – https://theconversation.com/no-children-dont-magically-grow-out-of-flat-feet-treatment-is-key-to-avoid-long-term-pain-176026

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Griffin, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The University of Queensland

Cases of the SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron have escalated globally over the past two months, with many countries experiencing peaks higher than previous variants.

Now we’re seeing cases of a sub-variant of Omicron, known as BA.2, emerge in Australia and more than 50 countries.

Rather than a daughter of the Omicron variant BA.1 (or B.1.1.529), it’s more helpful to think of BA.2 as Omicron’s sister.

Remind me, what is a variant?

Viruses, and particularly RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, make lots of mistakes when they reproduce. They can’t correct these mistakes, so they have a relatively high rate of errors, or mutations, and are constantly evolving.

When the genetic code of a virus changes as a result of these mutations, it’s referred to as a variant.

Omicron is a “highly divergent” variant, having accumulated more than 30 mutations in the spike protein. This has reduced the protection of antibodies from both prior infection and vaccination, and increased transmissibility.

When do health authorities worry about a new variant?

If changes in the genetic code are thought to have the potential to impact properties of the virus that make it more harmful, and there’s significant transmission in multiple countries, it will be deemed a “variant of interest”.

If a variant of interest is then shown to be more infectious, evade protection from vaccination or previous infection, and/or impact the performance of tests or treatments, it is labelled a “variant of concern”.

Read more:
What we know now about COVID immunity after infection – including Omicron and Delta variants

The World Health Organization (WHO) classified Omicron a variant of concern on November 26 because of its potential to cause higher reinfection rates, increased transmissibility and reduced vaccine protection.

What is the Omicron lineage?

A lineage, or sub-variant, is a genetically closely related group of virus variants derived from a common ancestor.

The Omicron variant comprises three sub-lineages: B.1.1.529 or BA.1, BA.2 and BA.3.

While the WHO has not given BA.2 a separate classification, the United Kingdom has labelled BA.2 a variant “under investigation”. So not yet a variant of interest or concern, based on WHO definitions, but one that is being watched closely.

This is not the first variant to have sub-lineages. Late last year, Delta “plus” or AY.4.2 was reported widely, then Omicron came along.

What’s different about BA.2?

While the first sequences of BA.2 were submitted from the Philippines – and we have now seen thousands of cases, including in the United States, the UK and some in Australia – its origin is still unknown.

The exact properties of BA.2 are also still being investigated. While there is no evidence so far that it causes more severe disease, scientists do have some specific concerns.

1. It’s harder to differentiate

A marker that helped differentiate Omicron (BA.1) from other SARS-CoV-2 variants on PCR tests is the absence of the the S gene, known as “S gene target failure”. But this is not the case for BA.2.

The inability to detect this lineage in this way has led some to label it the “stealth sub-variant”.

But it doesn’t mean we can’t diagnose BA.2 with PCR tests. It just means when someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2, it will take us a little longer to know which variant is responsible, through genome sequencing. This was the case with previous variants.

Read more:
Where coronavirus variants emerge, surges follow – new research suggests how genomic surveillance can be an early warning system

2. It may be more infectious

Perhaps most concerning is emerging evidence BA.2 may be more infectious than the original Omicron, BA.1.

A preliminary study from Denmark, where BA.2 has largely replaced BA.1, suggests BA.2 increases unvaccinated people’s susceptibility of infection by just over two times when compared to BA.1.

The researchers suggest fully vaccinated people are 2.5 times more susceptible to BA.2 than BA.1, and those who were booster vaccinated are nearly three times more susceptible.

The study examined more than 2,000 primary household cases of BA.2 to determine the number of cases that arose during a seven-day follow up period.

The researchers also estimated the secondary attack rate (basically, the probability infection occurs) to be 29% for households infected with BA.1 versus 39% for those infected with BA.2.

This Danish study is still a preprint, meaning it’s yet to be checked by independent scientists, so more research is needed to confirm if BA.2 is truly more infectious than BA.1.

We’re likely to see new variants

We should expect new variants, sub-variants and lineages to continue to emerge. With such high levels of transmission, the virus has abundant opportunity to reproduce and for errors or mutations to continue to arise.

The way to address this, of course, is to try to slow transmission and reduce the susceptible pool of hosts in which the virus can freely replicate.

Strategies such as social distancing and mask-wearing, as well as increasing vaccination rates globally, will slow the emergence of new variants and lineages.

Read more:
Are new COVID variants like Omicron linked to low vaccine coverage? Here’s what the science says

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

– ref. BA.2 is like Omicron’s sister. Here’s what we know about it so far – https://theconversation.com/ba-2-is-like-omicrons-sister-heres-what-we-know-about-it-so-far-176137

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Cavosie, Senior research fellow, Curtin University

Are we alone in the Universe? Billions of dollars are being spent trying to answer that simple question. The implications of finding evidence for life beyond Earth are staggering. The “before and after” mark would punctuate human history.

Mars is currently the most popular exploration target to search for evidence of life elsewhere. Yet little is known about its early history. Our research on a Martian meteorite provides new clues about early surface conditions on the red planet.

Windows into the past

Today Mars is cold and inhospitable. But it may have been more Earth-like and habitable in a bygone era. Landforms on Mars record the action of liquid surface water, perhaps as early as 3.9 billion years ago.

Like Earth, early Mars was subject to a global bombardment from chunks of rock and ice floating around the Solar System. Giant impacts both destroy and create favourable environments for life. So to untangle when conditions suitable for life may have arisen on Mars, we have to track the history of both water and impacts.

A flotilla of rovers and orbiting spacecraft have been dispatched to Mars, with two NASA rovers specifically exploring impact craters for evidence of past life. Samples collected by rovers will be returned in future missions.

Read more:
Perseverance Mars rover: how to prove whether there’s life on the red planet

For now, meteorites are the only samples of Mars available to study here on Earth. Martian meteorites are born when an impact on Mars ejects rocky fragments that later intercept Earth’s orbit. Most Martian meteorites are igneous rocks, such as basalt. One meteorite, NWA 7034, is different, as it represents a rare sample of the surface of Mars.

Sending shock waves

The NWA 7034 meteorite, weighing about 320g, was found in the desert of northwest Africa and first reported in 2013. Unique oxygen isotope signatures reveal its origin from Mars. Other meteorites blasted off of Mars during the same event have since been found.

NWA 7034 is a complicated rock made of broken rock and mineral shards called “breccia”. Its various fragments record different snippets of Martian history.

Tiny grains of the mineral zircon occur in NWA 7034. Zircon is a “geochronometer”, meaning it records (and reveals to us) how much time has passed since it crystallised from magma. Prior studies of NWA 7034 found it contains the oldest known zircons from Mars – some up to 4.48 billion years old.

Zircon is quite useful for studying meteorite impacts. It preserves microscopic damage caused by the passage of shock waves, and these “shocked grains” provide a solid record of impact. However, no zircons with definitive shock damage had been identified in previous studies of NWA 7034.

NWA 7034 is similar to a type of sedimentary rock on Earth called conglomerate. In such rocks, every mineral can have a different origin. With that in mind, we set out to survey additional zircon grains in NWA 7034 to see if we could find any that recorded evidence of impact.

We looked at more than 60 zircons, but found only one shocked grain. This means the impact occurred before the grain was mixed into the pile of fragments that became a rock.

Reassessing Mars’s timelines

The type of shock features we found are called “deformation twins”. High pressure shock waves squeeze zircon like an accordion. This process can reorganise atoms within the crystal, to form a duplicated “twin” of zircon, which we can detect.

We determined the zircon crystallised 4.45 billion years ago, making it one of the oldest zircons known from Mars – even older than the oldest known piece of Earth (also a zircon).

We don’t know what kind of rock the shocked zircon originally formed in. The original igneous host rock was ripped apart during impacts on Mars. The zircon is a broken fragment from a larger grain mixed in with the matrix of the meteorite.

We do, however, know where shocked zircons like this are made. On Earth, shocked zircons with deformation twins are only found at impact craters. Moreover, they occur at all of Earth’s largest asteroid strikes.

Zircons with shock features have been found at Vredefort in South Africa, Sudbury in Canada and Chicxulub in Mexico. The Mexican crater formed about 65 million years ago, and has been linked to the extinction of the dinosaurs. In this case, shocked zircons were one product of an impact large enough to cause a mass extinction.

Prior studies cited an absence of shock features in zircon from NWA 7034 to indicate a decline in catastrophic impacts on Mars by 4.48 billion years. It was further proposed that habitable conditions existed as of 4.2 billion years ago.

However, the shocked zircon we found crystallised 4.45 billion years ago. The shock event would have had to have occurred at least 30 million years after Mars had supposedly stopped being bombarded.

When exactly was the impact?

Although determining the precise age of impact is difficult, geochemical studies of NWA 7034 reveal its main components were subject to meteorite impacts before roughly 4.3 billion years ago. In this scenario, the zircon may have been shocked during this time, somewhere between 4.3 and 4.45 billion years ago.

Alternatively, it may have formed more recently, but before a decline in the rate of impacts earlier than 3 billion years ago. Both land forms and water-bearing minerals argue for early surface water on Mars, possibly by 3.9 to 3.7 billion years ago. This may be the best indicator for when habitable conditions existed.

Our findings raise new questions about the early impact history of Mars. Determining the origin of the shocked zircon, and time of impact, will provide better context for interpreting the planet’s history as archived in meteorite NWA 7034 – and potentially a timeframe for when conditions for life may have emerged.

Read more:
As new probes reach Mars, here’s what we know so far from trips to the red planet

Aaron J. Cavosie receives funding from the Australian Research Council

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

– ref. We’ve found the first ever ‘shocked’ zircon crystal from Mars. It provides a new view on when conditions for life may have arisen – https://theconversation.com/weve-found-the-first-ever-shocked-zircon-crystal-from-mars-it-provides-a-new-view-on-when-conditions-for-life-may-have-arisen-176139

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Vaux, Medical Researcher, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute

The Swedish government established a national Research Misconduct Board in 2020, after concluding institutions couldn’t be trusted to investigate allegations of serious research misconduct themselves. This followed botched investigations into the conduct of surgeon Paolo Macchiarini, who transplanted experimental artificial tracheas into 20 patients, 17 of whom later died. His employer, the Karolinska Institute, had initially cleared him. Later independent investigations found he had committed misconduct.

Ultimately, both the vice chancellor and dean of research at the institute lost their jobs. The secretary-general of the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska, which issues the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, also resigned. The government dismissed the entire university board. But Macchiarini’s patients paid the heaviest price.

Sweden is just the most recent of more than 20 European nations that have national offices for research integrity. So do the UK, US, Canada, Japan and China. Australia, which still lacks an Office for Research Integrity, is being left behind.

Multiple recent reports of allegations of research fraud in Australia show the urgent need for an independent national regulator.

How does Australia handle research misconduct?

Australia’s system for handling allegations of research misconduct resembles the one Sweden abandoned. We persist with a self-regulation model. Yet royal commission after royal commission has shown self-regulation does not work in the financial sector, with institutions that care for children, or for police forces.

Read more:
‘There is a problem’: Australia’s top scientist Alan Finkel pushes to eradicate bad science

Research in Australia funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) or the Australian Research Council (ARC) must comply with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.

The 2007 version of this code required independent, multi-person inquiry panels to handle allegations of serious misconduct. Findings were to be made public. Appeals could be made if new evidence arose.

In 2018 the code was changed. The changes meant:

• a single person from the same institution can now carry out inquiries
• secrecy must be maximised, with no requirement for public reports
• appeals can only be considered based on process and not on evidence, substance or merit.

One stunning change to the code – worthy of the political satire Yes Minister – was to make the term “research misconduct” optional. Institutions can now make up their own definition or dispense with the term entirely – and thus be rendered free of research misconduct in perpetuity!

Scientists are human, and there will be ones who do the wrong thing, just as there are dishonest individuals in all professions. And Australian scientists are no more honest or dishonest than those in other countries. However, we rarely hear of cases of research misconduct, because the reflex action of institutions is to try to protect their reputations by covering things up.

What needs to be done?

What institutions should do instead is enhance their reputations by handling cases rigorously, fairly and openly. At the 2010 World Conference on Research Integrity, a panel member was asked if she would ever consider joining a university that had had a case of research misconduct. The eminent expert said she would never join a university that had not had a case, because that meant they were either ignoring cases, or were not doing enough research.

We need to recognise and applaud the whistle-blowers who report research misconduct and those institutions that do take a rigorous stand. The University of Queensland and QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute have set the example in recent cases. But their tasks would be much easier if they could refer cases to an independent national Office for Research Integrity.

Australia needs an Office for Research Integrity to handle cases in all kinds of scholarly practice, not just in biomedical research, but also in physics, engineering and the humanities. In his comprehensive book Scholarly Misconduct: Law, Regulation and Practice, Ian Freckelton QC concluded:

“What has become clear is that the maladies afflicting scholarship cannot be dealt with wholly internally within universities and research bodies […] What is required is the creation by government of external bodies.

“Assertions that [allegations of research misconduct and conflict of interest] can be dealt with adequately by internal investigations are not credible given what has occurred in the recent past. Legal and health professions are no longer permitted in many countries to self-regulate. External, independent decision-making is necessary for community confidence.”

Read more:
Research fraud: the temptation to lie – and the challenges of regulation

Take the best from overseas

There is no need for Australia to re-invent the wheel. We should take the best from the various offices for research integrity and ombudsmen overseas, and construct the very best office here in Australia. This office would:

• allow whistle-blowers to be heard
• have no conflicts of interest
• be able to draw on the necessary experience and specialist expertise
• be able to act rapidly and transparently.

What is unusual about the call for such a watchdog in Australia is that it is coming from the researchers themselves. They range from whistle-blowers who have direct experience, early career researchers who struggle to get funded, to established scientists such as those in the Australian Academy of Science who are now leading the push.

Sport Integrity Australia manages misconduct in sport. We now need bipartisan support for an Australian Office for Research Integrity to handle the Lance Armstrongs of Australian research.

David Vaux has received grant funding from the NHMRC. He is currently an Honourary Fellow of The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, and a member of the Center for Scientific Integrity (NY), which functions as the board for Retraction Watch.

– ref. Australia needs an Office for Research Integrity to catch up with the rest of the world – https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-an-office-for-research-integrity-to-catch-up-with-the-rest-of-the-world-176019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

The leaking and use of text messages purportedly between former New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian and a member of federal cabinet, in which Prime Minister Scott Morrison is described as “a horrible, horrible man”, “a complete psycho” and “a fraud” raise several serious ethical issues.

Peter van Onselen, the political editor of Network Ten, was the recipient of the leak, and dramatically made its contents public by reading them out in the form of a question to Morrison at the National Press Club on February 1.

He did not disclose the source of the leak, from which it can be inferred it was made in circumstances of confidentiality – in other words, on condition of anonymity.

This brings us to the first ethical issue. A person who provides information to a journalist on condition of confidentiality is entitled to expect that confidentiality will be honoured by the journalist.

This obligation is enshrined in Australia’s national journalists’ code of ethics, that of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance.

It is reinforced by the existence in all states except Queensland of what are called “shield laws”, which allow journalists to apply for a privilege against disclosing the identity of confidential sources in legal proceedings. Journalists in Australia have gone to jail rather than betray their source in court.

However, the same code requires that journalists should not enter into an obligation of confidentiality without first considering the source’s motives.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Morrison a ‘psycho’ – now who would have said that?

This brings us to the second ethical question: did van Onselen try to establish what the motive of this leaker was? If not, why not?

For instance, why are these texts only coming to light now – two years after they were reportedly sent? It strongly suggests they have been stored up as ammunition for a strike against Morrison at a time when someone or some faction in the Liberal Party thinks it will do the most damage. And who is likely to benefit?

Moreover, was it part of the deal with the source that the material would be published in the way it was: as a question to Morrison in front of the cameras and a roomful of journalists at the National Press Club?

He owes the public an explanation about this, without giving away the identity of the source.

The third ethical issue concerns what steps, if any, van Onselen took to verify the provenance of the texts before making them public. This too is a matter on which he owes the public an explanation.

In the fallout from his disclosures, Berejiklian has said she does not remember sending such a text. But this falls far short of denying that she did.

Had van Onselen at least obtained that much from Berejiklian, he could have included it in his question to the prime minister.

He would have added to the strength of his leak by demonstrating he had taken some steps towards verification.

It also would have equipped van Onselen or any of the other journalists present to tell Morrison that Berejiklian had not denied sending the text, so what did he have to say about that?

This would have undercut Morrison’s strategy of sweeping these epithets aside as mere anonymous sledging.

The fourth ethical issue concerns the extent to which van Onselen informed his editorial superiors at Network Ten about the leak, the circumstances in which he had obtained it and how he proposed to use it.

When journalists who work for a media organisation enter into an obligation of confidentiality, they bind not just themselves but their editor and their organisation.

Whether an editor will ask for the source’s identity is a matter of policy which varies from one organisation to another. Most generally will not, especially in a case like this where the journalist is a senior member of staff.

However, the editor is entitled to ask what steps the journalist has taken to establish motive, what the journalist’s assessment of the motive is, and what steps have been taken to verify the contents.

The objectives here are to be as sure as reasonably possible that the material is genuine, and to be as transparent with the public as possible without revealing the source.

Read more:
Is Morrison gaining a reputation for untrustworthiness? The answer could have serious implications for the election

This is at least a partial antidote to the anonymity problem. Morrison has understandably seized on this, using the anonymous nature of the leak to try to detract from its damaging contents.

There is absolutely no question that the contents of the leak are of very significant public interest. Van Onselen was entirely justified in publishing them on public-interest grounds.

One final ethical question remains: has van Onselen been used as a catspaw by Morrison’s factional enemies and even if he has, does it matter? After all, many leaks of high public interest come from people with axes to grind.

Only the people involved will know whether he has been, and it does matter because journalists should take care not to be used as a catspaw.

That is why the questions of motive, verification and timing are so important in cases like this. It is a further reason why van Onselen and Network Ten owe the public as transparent an explanation for their conduct as possible without betraying the source.

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

– ref. Texts reportedly referring to Scott Morrison as a ‘psycho’ are in the public interest – but ethical questions remain – https://theconversation.com/texts-reportedly-referring-to-scott-morrison-as-a-psycho-are-in-the-public-interest-but-ethical-questions-remain-176243

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

A flurry of categorical denials by senior ministers has followed the report that a current Liberal cabinet minister described Scott Morrison as a “psycho” in a text exchange with then NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian during the summer bushfires of 2019-20.

Two prominent NSW Liberal moderates, Marise Payne and Paul Fletcher (through a spokesman) were among those who said on Wednesday they weren’t the minister. Others included Sussan Ley, Simon Birmingham, Anne Ruston, Linda Reynolds, and Greg Hunt.

Payne said in her statement she had never had such an exchange with Berejiklian, “nor have I ever used such language”, She also rejected the descriptions of the PM “in the purported messages”. She wasn’t the only one raising a question about the authenticity of the messages.

Meanwhile Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce – quick to point out the culprit wasn’t from the Nationals – inadvertently injected confusion when his comments were wrongly reported as suggesting the minister was a woman. He quickly had to clarify he wasn’t saying that at all.

Joyce said he didn’t know the identity of the minister but they should out themselves and give an explanation before they were named.

It was just a “good rump steak with horseradish sauce, vegetables and chips, two bottles of red wine” away from some journalist saying “blah, blah, blah”.

The great guessing game followed Ten’s Peter van Onselen asking Morrison at the National Press Club on Tuesday about the exchange.
Van Onselen quoted the text comments in his Press Club question and on the Ten news.

He said Berejiklian’s comments included describing Morrison as “a horrible, horrible person” who was “just obsessed with petty political point scoring” when lives were at stake.

According to van Onselen, the other person condemned Morrison as “a complete psycho”, “desperate and jealous”, and said: “The mob have worked him out and think he’s a fraud”.

At the Press Club, a startled Morrison replied: “I don’t know who you’re referring to or the basis of what you’ve put to me, but I obviously don’t agree with it, and I don’t think that’s my record.”

Berejiklian immediately issued a statement that she had “no recollection of such messages”, thus falling short of a denial. She reiterated her “very strong support” for Morrison, even though the two are known to have had differences.

Read more:
Newspoll has Labor’s biggest lead since Turnbull’s ousting as Coalition damaged by COVID

NSW treasurer Matt Kean quickly found himself in the frame, as speculation about the leaker gathered momentum. Kean has just had a row with the federal government over Morrison’s refusal to provide money for the state government’s small business package.

He is also close to Berejiklian, and it has been assumed she would only be so frank with someone she trusted.

But Kean, who said he had checked his records, denied being the source. And van Onselen made it clear the minister involved was a federal Liberal (and a current minister, so his friend, former minister Christian Porter, wouldn’t be fingered).

Hunt challenged van Onselen to name his source.

The van Onselen question, together with the PM’s failure to know the price of bread and milk in response to another question, had turned Tuesday’s appearance into something of a train wreck for Morrison.

The mystery of the minister ensured the story dragged on to distract another day.

Morrison tried to play the whole thing down, saying on Wednesday, “I’m not fussed”, though that wasn’t credible. Asked whether he was confident the minister involved wasn’t sitting in his cabinet right now, he said “yes”. No one had come forward to confess.

Morrison might not know who his alleged forthright cabinet critic is but by Wednesday he was able to prattle on about all sorts of breads and milks. As for him, “I’m just normal white bread, white bread toast. That’s me.”

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Morrison a ‘psycho’ – now who would have said that? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrison-a-psycho-now-who-would-have-said-that-176259

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thea van de Mortel, Professor, Nursing and Deputy Head (Learning & Teaching), School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University

With the surge in Omicron cases, doctors are finding presentations of croup in children seeking hospital care for COVID in Australia and internationally.

In some cases, children presenting to hospital with croup are infected only with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

In other cases, they’re co-infected with SARS-CoV-2 and another virus that typically causes croup.

What is croup and what are the symptoms?

Croup (laryngotracheobronchitis) occurs when there is inflammation and swelling in the upper respiratory tract of young children (usually aged under five years) in response to a viral infection.

The most common cause is the parainfluenza virus. Other culprits include adenoviruses and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

Read more:
Move over flu, there’s more than one respiratory virus around

A typical sign of croup is a barking cough, which sounds like a seal or barking dog.

Croup is more common in boys and typically lasts about three to five days.

Croup often presents initially as a respiratory tract infection, with a runny nose, sore throat, cough and fever.

As the inflammation progresses, the inflammatory chemicals that are produced cause capillaries (small blood vessels) to leak fluid, leading to swelling of air passages in the larynx (voice box), trachea (windpipe) and the bronchi (upper airways of the lungs).

Because young children have narrower airways than older children and adults, this swelling can lead to partial airway obstruction, particularly in younger or smaller children.

This may lead to inspiratory stridor (a high pitched noise when breathing in) and increased work of breathing.

Their respiratory rate (number of breaths per minute) may increase and they may show signs of increased respiratory effort, for example, their nostrils flaring when taking a breath, and the area at the base of the throat sucking inwards when breathing in (tracheal tug).

As it gets more difficult to breath, the child uses their tummy muscles and muscles between their ribs to help them breath. They may also become anxious or distressed.

Why might croup be related to COVID?

Anything that causes inflammation and swelling in the upper airways of small children can lead to croup symptoms.

The Omicron variant, like the typical viruses that cause croup, is also a respiratory virus.

And unlike the Delta variant, Omicron causes causes most of its inflammation in the upper airways rather than the lungs.

Read more:
Got a child with COVID at home? Here’s how to look after them

Croup from illnesses other than COVID is typically more common in autumn and winter.

How is croup treated?

Mild croup – where your child does not have breathing difficulties and is able to eat and drink – can be managed at home.

Fevers and sore throats can be treated with ibuprofen (in children over three months of age) or paracetamol. Your doctor may also prescribe a steroid medication to reduce inflammation.

Make sure your child has plenty of fluids as they will lose fluid through fever.

Keep your child as calm as possible as crying and distress make the condition worse.

If the symptoms become worse, in moderate croup, steroids are used to reduce inflammation and swelling.

In more severe cases, children are given nebulised adrenaline, which works rapidly to reduce airway swelling.

Prevention of croup relies on preventing viral infections, so practice good hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette (coughing into your elbow).

Other measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection include vaccination of eligible family members, good ventilation at home (get a good through draft with doors and windows open where possible), and having kids play outdoors.

When to see a doctor or call an ambulance

Seek immediate medical advice if your child is having trouble eating or drinking, showing signs of respiratory distress, is sick for more than four days, or aged less than six months of age. Or if you’re concerned for another reason.

(For a more complete list of when to see a doctor for croup, see the government’s Healthdirect fact sheet).

Call an ambulance if your child is struggling to breathe, becomes pale and drowsy, looks very sick, starts drooling or can’t swallow, or develops cyanosis (blue lips).

Thea van de Mortel teaches into the graduate infection prevention and control program at Griffith University.

– ref. My child has croup. Could it be COVID? What do I need to know? – https://theconversation.com/my-child-has-croup-could-it-be-covid-what-do-i-need-to-know-176141

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

Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe has painted an optimistic view of where the Australian economy is heading after a turbulent 2021.

Just how crazy last year was is highlighted by the differences between the bank’s forecasts at the start of last year and what has actually happened.

Despite the Delta and Omicron waves of COVID, which were unexpected and knocked things around, economic growth has been much higher and unemployment much lower than expected in February 2021.

The bank expected economic growth of 3.5% and might have got 5%. It expected unemployment of 6% and got 4.2%.

It has been a superb economic performance, offset by a higher than expected inflation with a headline rate of 3.5%.

While this looks as if we might be on the road to the high inflation seen in the rest of the developed world (in the US inflation is 7%), at a touch under 2.7% Australia’s so-called underlying rate of inflation is much lower than in the US, UK or New Zealand. It also happens to be in the middle of the bank’s 2-3% target band.

This might be because inflation has been well below the Reserve Bank’s target band for the past half decade.

Underlying inflation

Addressing the National Press Club on Wednesday, Philip Lowe said he expects Australia’s gross domestic product to continue growing at a rapid rate in the year ahead, around 4.5%. He also sees unemployment to continue falling – down to as little as 3.75% by the end of this year.

He expects underlying inflation to peak at just over 3%, before returning to the 2-3% target band.

Better than before

What explains this optimistic outlook? In many ways, the economy of 2022 resembles a return to normality.

Experts expect the Omicron wave to continue to diminish and the rollout of vaccine boosters and new anti-viral drugs to push COVID into Australia’s rear-view mirror.

This means Australia slowly returning to its pre-pandemic state with open borders and no lockdowns and restrictions.

It would also mean returning to the sub-par economic growth of 2-2.5% we had before COVID, were it not for two things.

One is what the crisis did in forcing the government to end its budget surplus fetish and spend to support the economy.

The other is what it did in persuading the Reserve Bank to rekindle its pursuit of full employment.

Before the pandemic, the bank worried excessively about the risks low interest rates posed to financial stability. Today, it rightly prioritises supporting the labour market.

These twin developments mean the 2022 economy is being supported by two coordinated boosters.

Combined, monetary (interest rate) stimulus and fiscal (budget spending) stimulus has pushed the unemployment rate well below 5% and will continue pushing it down over the months to come.

Read more:
Unemployment below 3% is possible for the first time in 50 years – if Australia budgets for it

Dr Lowe finished his speech turning to monetary policy and how it might unfurl over the year to come.

The bank has finished its use of unconventional monetary policies – bond-buying measures such as “yield curve control” and “quantitative easing”. But it remains committed to keeping its cash rate at the current low of 0.1% for a while yet.

So why keep interest rates low?

Why keep interest rates so low if the outlook is so positive? The governor put forward two reasons.

One is that, while the bank has an optimistic outlook for 2022, there is still a great deal of uncertainty around what the year will bring.

The bank wants to make sure these gains are locked in before it takes its foot off the accelerator. The costs of overheating the economy are relatively minor compared to what would happen if it hit the brakes too early and a new variant of COVID tipped the economy back into a recession.

Read more:
Top economists expect RBA to hold rates low in 2022 as real wages fall

The second is that wage growth remains very weak. The economy won’t be on a stable upward trajectory until wage growth picks up from its historic lows.

Although the bank expects wage growth to lift, it believes it will be a while yet before it climbs above the minimum of 3% needed to keep inflation within the target band.

Australia’s economy survived 2021 better than most expected. On Wednesday, Dr Lowe gave us good reasons to believe that this year it will do better still. And he has committed the bank to supporting households and businesses to try and ensure it does. He wants to deliver on his great expectations.

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

– ref. Building back better: how RBA Governor Philip Lowe sees the year ahead – https://theconversation.com/building-back-better-how-rba-governor-philip-lowe-sees-the-year-ahead-176006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Mountain, Director, Victoria Energy Policy Centre, Victoria University

Is it possible to have your cake and eat it too? Federal Labor is certainly giving it a go by supporting government plans for a fossil gas/diesel peaking plant in the Hunter Valley currently under construction – as long as the plant switches to green hydrogen by 2030.

This is disappointing for three reasons.

One, we don’t actually need the Kurri Kurri power station. It will be a government-built white elephant.

Two, retrofitting it to burn hydrogen would be so expensive as to be unrealistic.

And three, burning hydrogen for power is about the least useful thing you can do with it.

The gas/diesel plant under construction and Labor’s hydrogen proposal came from the realm of politics. It should have stayed there.

Why did Labor switch its position?

Labor has long been split on the Kurri Kurri power station, which has been touted as a way to augment dispatchable generation. At first, Labor denounced the Morrison government’s plans, with climate change spokesman Chris Bowen describing it as a “cynical attempt to pick a fight on gas and continue the climate wars, or to reward the major Liberal donor who owns the Kurri Kurri site”.

Now they say it will create jobs and help provide reliable and affordable electricity.

Read more:
Government-owned firms like Snowy Hydro can do better than building $600 million gas plants

As a nod to climate change action, Labor leader Anthony Albanese and climate spokesman Chris Bowen announced the switch with the caveat that Kurri Kurri will use green hydrogen to power 30% of its production when the plant enters service in 2023 and 100% by 2030. Labor says it is prepared to spend up to another $700 million on the plant.

It has been widely suggested the proposed plant is the government’s way to take advantage of Labor’s internal divide.

When the plant was first proposed for the small town 35 km inland from Newcastle, Energy Security Board chair Kerry Schott questioned its viability. “Nobody is going to build it from the private sector because it doesn’t stack up,” she said.

She’s right. It didn’t stack up then and doesn’t stack up now, regardless of how it’s powered.

The power plant no one needs

When my colleagues and I took a deep dive into this proposed power station, we found there was no need for it until at least 2030. That’s the best case. But as time goes by it is increasingly unlikely it will ever be needed as much cheaper and more efficient alternatives including batteries come to meet the increasing demand for stored energy.

That’s to say nothing of the fact the initial proposal would only have had enough gas stored to run for six hours and then take a day to recharge. Snowy Hydro has since upped these plans to 10 hours of storage.

And Snowy Hydro’s price tag of $600 million? Fiddlesticks. It will cost vastly more. We estimate well over $1bn when costs of the pipelines, storage and other infrastructure are included, even without hydrogen. As a result, there is no way Kurri Kurri would attract enough income to recover its costs. It’s hardly surprising private investors are steering clear. Why bankroll a dud?

But isn’t it good to make gas plants greener?

You can add up to 10% of hydrogen to conventional gas fired turbines without trouble. And you can use hydrogen as the primary fuel in turbine-based power plants, as South Korea has done using hydrogen produced as a by-product in the process of refining oil.

The problem is the two Kurri Kurri turbines ordered by the government can run on a maximum of 15% hydrogen. Snowy Hydro suggests the turbines could be extended to a maximum 30% hydrogen mix, with changes to the internal equipment and piping. But the gas lateral pipeline/storage system is only being constructed to accommodate a 10% mix, and would need to be completely rebuilt to transmit a higher blend.

In short, converting Kurri Kurri to hydrogen means completely rebuilding the plant and its pipeline and storage infrastructure. These are not minor changes.

Let’s imagine Labor is elected and proves determined to press ahead with these plans. Where, exactly, will they get the green hydrogen from and how will it be stored to run the plant? At present, the world has no large scale source of climate-safe hydrogen produced from water. While there is a great deal of interest in large scale electrolysis – the process where we split water to get hydrogen and oxygen – there is a long road ahead.

Let’s not waste time on distractions

Is that the end of the issues plaguing this plant? Nope. Even if we get to the point where green hydrogen is plentiful, burning it in a combustion turbine is one of the most wasteful ways to use it.

Read more:
International Energy Agency warns against new fossil fuel projects. Guess what Australia did next?

That’s because combustion turbines are very inefficient ways to produce electricity. They waste half the energy they consume in the form of heat vented to the atmosphere. That alone makes the use of hydrogen in turbines uneconomic. In fact, we doubt hydrogen will ever be used in combustion turbines to produce electricity. There is absolutely no need to bother doing so, given much better alternatives already exist. Batteries already dominate the market for new storage in Australia and elsewhere and this will surely continue.

We’d be much better off using green hydrogen to decarbonise more difficult industries, such as the production of fertiliser, in industrial processes and chemical manufacturing, and for long-distance land or sea heavy freight where hydrogen still has a weight advantage over batteries.

There are enormous challenges to be met in the transition towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels. These kinds of obviously economically and technically infeasible proposals serve only to set us back. We should give these plans short shrift.

Independent engineer Ted Woodley contributed to this article.

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

– ref. Labor’s plan to green the Kurri Kurri gas power plant makes no sense – https://theconversation.com/labors-plan-to-green-the-kurri-kurri-gas-power-plant-makes-no-sense-176157

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Giuffre, Senior Lecturer in Communication, University of Technology Sydney

Joe Rogan is described on his website as “stand up comic, mixed martial arts fanatic, psychedelic adventurer, host of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast.” It’s the last of these that has really made his name, and for many audiences, made the medium of podcasting too.

An estimated 200 million people download Rogan’s podcast each month, making him the most popular podcaster in the US.

When Spotify signed a US$100 million (A$140 million) deal with Rogan in 2020 for the exclusive rights to his podcast the industry took notice. Before this, podcasts were everywhere, and their “platform agnostic” status was central to their appeal for creators and audiences.

The deal was a gamble, but one based on the numbers. As music journalist Ted Gioia put it in May 2020, “Spotify values Rogan more than any musician in the history of the world”. The reason? “A musician would need to generate 23 billion streams on Spotify to earn what they’re paying Joe Rogan for his podcast rights”.

Spotify can justify the spectacular outlay: there is a ton of advertising dollars to be made in spoken word audio, where podcasting is eating up what was once radio’s domain. Spotify’s other stellar podcast hosts include Barack Obama and Bruce Springsteen, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Read more:
Michelle Obama, podcast host: how podcasting became a multi-billion dollar industry

Why is Joe Rogan so popular?

What’s important about Joe Rogan is also the type of listener he attracts. Media Monitors says Rogan’s listenership is “71% male and evenly split between high school and post-secondary graduates. Some 57% of his audience reports earning over $50k per year, with 19% making over $100k”, with an average age of 24.

The Atlantic places gender at the heart of his appeal, suggesting “[Rogan] understands men in America better than most people do. The rest of the country should start paying attention.”

Prior to Rogan signing for Spotify, exclusivity in podcasting was unheard of. In 2001, US “media hacker” Dave Winer made public RSS, the Really Simple Syndication feed that could automatically “drop” a podcast episode online to a subscriber. Winer made the conscious decision to make RSS free and universal, in order to preserve a democratic ethos for podcasting similar to the recently created blogs he loved.

Signing an exclusive deal with Rogan could “make” Spotify as a podcasting platform of choice (and audio empire generally), or it could see Rogan lose fans who couldn’t be bothered to move with him. A study by The Verge showed Rogan gained fans when he first made the exclusive podcasting deal.

Part of Rogan’s appeal is his rawness – with episodes regularly two to three hours long and with minimal (if any) editing. He says what he thinks and feels in the moment, harnessing the compelling emotional power of the voice in a similar way to the great radio broadcasters of any age.

So, what’s the problem?

Rogan often makes pernicious claims. One ironic example occurred when Rogan circulated a fake ad made by Gruen to represent Australia’s pandemic propaganda – made funnier given the ad parodied people who relied on Rogan’s advice rather than medical professionals.

He added a correction, albeit a small one, and these types of mistakes have become memes since then.

Far more seriously, Rogan has peddled egregious conspiracy theories and disinformation. He amplified disgraced radio host Alex Jones’ lie the Sandy Hook massacre did not happen (apparently causing internal conflict at Spotify last year as a result).

According to a report by Media Matters, which studied the Joe Rogan Experience for a year, Rogan regularly trafficks misinformation and bigotry. The author drew particular attention to Rogan’s “right-wing misinformation and bigotry”, “anti-trans rhetoric” and “COVID-19 misinformation”.

A collection of medical professionals have campaigned against misinformation on the platform, and artists including Neil Young and Joni Mitchell have removed their work from Spotify.

Read more:
Neil Young’s ultimatum to Spotify shows streaming platforms are now a battleground where artists can leverage power

In response, Spotify have finally released some “platform rules”, but they are generalised statements that avoid infringing the freedom of creators such as Rogan.

Most important in all of this is the audience. Rogan maintains he is just a comedian having long form conversations. This sounds fine on the surface (and similar to the infamous “not a journalist, but an entertainer” claims made by Australian shock jocks John Laws and Alan Jones), but in practice Rogan’s words are heard by many more people than the average comedian just having a chat.

Podcasting’s wild west

Podcasting is still the relative wild west as an industry and medium. With ties to both the music industry and radio, podcasting remains mostly unregulated and diverse.

In a podsphere that now counts around three million titles, multi-million dollar projects with immaculate audio production and slick scripting co-exist alongside amateurs uploading rambling, barely audible chats. A near-global and cross-platform phenomenon, podcasting often evades the laws of any one jurisdiction.

Dave Winer’s open origin principle for podcasts has been at stake since Joe Rogan sold his name to Spotify. The question now is: where does editorial freedom sit? Should podcasters be regulated? And if so, how?

In response to the recent Spotify controversy Rogan says he is “not interested in only talking to people that have one perspective”. But as a public figure with such a large platform, should he really give equal weight to voices that clearly have unequal evidence to support them?

Read more:
Spotify’s response to Rogan-gate falls short of its ethical and editorial obligations

Siobhan McHugh received funding from the Australian Research Council to produce the podcast Heart of Artness, about crosscultural relationships in the production of Australian Aboriginal art.

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

– ref. Who is Joe Rogan, and why does Spotify love him so much? – https://theconversation.com/who-is-joe-rogan-and-why-does-spotify-love-him-so-much-176014

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

The mass appeal of creative, youth-oriented events such as snowboarding and freestyle skiing at the Winter Olympics is a virtual case study of how the once radical can go mainstream.

And while audiences have come to love these relatively new sports, the story of snowboarding’s inclusion in the Olympics also reveals the unintended consequences of “success” for the image of the sport itself.

When snowboarding first emerged in the late 1960s and ’70s in North America, most of its early pioneers were young people who rejected competitive, organised sport. Inspired by surfing and skateboarding rather than skiing, they were seeking something that offered fun, self-expression and an alternative identity.

Despite some initial resistance from skiers and resorts, snowboarding’s popularity grew during the 1990s. Television and corporate sponsors identified its huge potential to attract the elusive young male market. Increasingly, transnational media corporations and events likes the X-Games and Gravity Games controlled and defined snowboarding.

While some snowboarders initially resisted “selling out”, many embraced the opportunities to develop the sport and carve out new careers for themselves as “extreme sport” athletes.

Early resistance

Meanwhile, the Winter Olympics (always a more niche event compared with its summer counterpart) recognised snowboarding’s potential to attract younger viewers and international sponsors.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) first included snowboarding in the 1998 Winter Olympics, but under the governance of the International Ski Federation (FIS) rather than the International Snowboard Federation. The loss of autonomy and control infuriated many snowboarders.

The world’s best halfpipe rider at the time, Norwegian Terje Haakonsen, was particularly vocal, refusing to be turned into a “uniform-wearing, flag-bearing, walking logo”. Many other snowboarders echoed his sentiments.

Read more:
How the Winter Olympics expanded – and brought growing pains with them

And while snowboarding’s assimilation continued, the four events that debuted in 1998 – men’s and women’s halfpipe and giant slalom – were largely treated as a sideshow. The athletes were perceived and portrayed as interlopers in the Olympic program. As The Washington Post put it:

Snowboarders are the official curiosity of the Nagano Winter Games. They’re totally new to the Olympics. They look different, they sound different, they are different.

When Canadian Ross Rebagliati tested positive for marijuana after winning the first snowboarding gold medal, the IOC revoked his medal, only to return it a few days later when Rebagliati’s lawyers found a loophole in the IOC/FIS drug policies. The scandal confirmed the view – of snowboarders as well as mainstream commentators – that snowboarding was not ready to become an Olympic sport.

Acceptance and growth

By the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, however, the packaging of snowboarding had evolved and the sport’s second mainstream outing was deemed a resounding success. Nearly 32% of the US population (92 million people) watched the halfpipe competition in which Americans won gold, silver and bronze in the men’s event and gold in the women’s event.

Official broadcaster NBC reported a 23% ratings increase among 18-to-34-year-olds. For the IOC, the inclusion of snowboarding had become a game-changer, showcasing cool new sports celebrities for Olympic audiences, especially in the lucrative US market.

Read more:
Get caught up in the Olympic spirit, but keep your (political) eyes wide open

By the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, snowboarders were front and centre, with Shaun White from the US deemed the most “recognisable athlete”.

When White won his third gold in the halfpipe at the 2018 Olympics in Pyeongchang it attracted a record 22.6 million viewers in the US alone. Having qualified for his fifth Olympics, White will bring his star power to Beijing this year.

Women on board

Women snowboarders have competed in all Olympic events since 1998, expanding opportunities for women in the sport and industry.

Olympic snowboarders such as Kelly Clark, Hannah Tetter, Torah Bright and Chloe Kim build on the efforts of previous generations of female snowboarders, carving out new space for girls and women in the sport.

In the process of wowing audiences, they’ve also inspired the next generation of stars like New Zealand’s Zoi Sadowski-Synnott and Japan’s Ono Mitsuki.

It’s estimated women will make up 45% of the athletes competing in Beijing this year, including in the new mixed team snowboard cross event, added as part of a broader IOC initiative to achieve gender parity.

Victim of its own success?

While the IOC held the line with certain rules and regulations (no stickers on snowboards, no large corporate logos on clothing or equipment), it has been increasingly willing to accommodate snowboarders’ individuality – allowing more clothing choices and athletes to select their own music for halfpipe runs.

Snowboarding’s success has also helped open up the Winter Olympics to other youth-focused sports, particularly free-skiing disciplines, as well as influencing the Summer Olympics’ embrace of BMX, surfing, skateboarding, sport climbing and breaking.

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

But there’s an irony to snowboarding’s mainstream success, too. While it has become popular with broader audiences, and companies and athletes have done very well from Olympic exposure, it appears to have lost its appeal among younger people.

Participation has been declining steadily in recent years – to the point where former pro snowboarder and action sports agent Circe Wallace has said the sport’s commodification and institutionalisation have been “the death knell of the unique culture and beauty of snowboarding”.

It’s a familiar story – youth-culture cool incorporated by mainstream businesses and organisations for profit. As the IOC continues to search out the latest youth-oriented sports to help it stay relevant, bring back younger viewers and attract corporate sponsors, we would do well to ask who, ultimately, are the real winners and the losers.

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

– ref. How snowboarding became a marquee event at the Winter Olympics – but lost some of its cool factor in the process – https://theconversation.com/how-snowboarding-became-a-marquee-event-at-the-winter-olympics-but-lost-some-of-its-cool-factor-in-the-process-175053