Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Edmond, Professor of Economics, University of Melbourne

Former prime minister Paul Keating isn’t alone in wanting the Reserve Bank to do much more to ensure economic recovery.

In an opinion piece for major newspapers he has said it ought to be directly funding government spending rather than indirectly by buying government bonds from third parties.

But we think there’s something else the Reserve Bank can do.

Governor Philip Lowe is right to call on governments to spend more, creating “fiscal stimulus”.

But we don’t think that absolves the Reserve Bank of the need to provide more “monetary stimulus”.

Simply put, the Reserve Bank needs to create more inflation. Quite a lot more.

For years now, the bank has chronically undershot its inflation target of 2% to 3% per year. This has to stop.

Consumer price inflation since the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target

Inflation plays a vital role in government finances, through its influence on nominal income growth. Higher nominal income growth lowers outstanding debt as a fraction of income.

To appreciate the size of the effect, if average inflation runs at 1.5% per year rather than 2.5% per year (the bank’s central target), after a decade prices will be roughly 10% lower.

Read more: No big bounce: 2020-21 economic survey points to a weak recovery getting weaker, amid declining living standards

As a consequence, public debt as a fraction of national income will be 10% higher, and that’s before taking into account the revenue implications of lower inflation.

Too much inflation creates its own problems, but so does too little.

Of course, the Reserve Bank’s options are limited right now. Short term interest rates are effectively zero and can’t go much lower without turning negative, an idea the bank has so far resisted.

The bank needs to commit to “too much” inflation

But there are things the bank can do, and they involve making clear its plans for when inflation recovers.

When economic growth revives, be it in 12 or 24 months, the bank will face a choice between raising rates to more normal levels, or continuing to keep them extraordinarily low.

The RBA should do the latter and promise serious inflation, more than it is comfortable with, for some time to come.

Read more: Price-level targeting: how inflation-focused central banks can squeeze more from interest rates

Promising to overshoot its target band will raise inflation expectations and then inflation itself, lowering the real interest rate.

This will buttress the recovery, supporting economic growth. It will also greatly improve the state of government finances.

How much inflation should the RBA generate?

It should aim for average inflation of 2-3% over a long window, at least ten years.

This will place a clear upper bound on how much inflation is appropriate over the long term, while requiring substantial inflation for some time to make up for the sustained undershooting of its target.

It’s being tried in the United States

Such a policy might sound unusual. And there would be protests about credibility and the risks of changing institutional arrangements during a crisis.

But the United States Federal Reserve recently adopted such a policy after an extensive review.

There’s no reason Australia’s Reserve Bank couldn’t do the same.

As it happens, hardly any formal change is required. Its Statement on the Conduct of Monetary Policy says its goal is 2 to 3% inflation “on average, over time.”

So there’s no need to change the wording, merely the interpretation.

It could make clear that a practical change had taken place by referring to the new regime as a “price-level target”, since targeting inflation over a long time is equivalent to targeting a path for the overall level of prices.

It’d hold the bank to account

Regardless of the label, such a clearly enunciated approach would make monetary policy more effective and help the government with its finances.

And that’s not all. An average inflation target would provide a clearer benchmark against which to assess the bank’s performance and thus strengthen the accountability of one of our most important institutions.

Too often in the past the bank has excused its failure to hit its inflation target by appeals to a vague and shifting list of factors outside of its control.

Read more: Vital Signs. Yet another year of steady rates. What’s the point of the RBA inflation target?

While some excuses may have merit, the existing regime does not well communicate how such undershooting determines what the bank will do in the future.

By contrast, an average inflation target would clearly communicate that whatever the excuses for undershooting, future policy will be set to overshoot until average inflation is back on target.

It’s appropriate for fiscal policy to take the lead right now. But monetary policy has to be ready to do its job too.

– ref. Keating is right. The Reserve Bank should do more. It needs to aim for more inflation – https://theconversation.com/keating-is-right-the-reserve-bank-should-do-more-it-needs-to-aim-for-more-inflation-146393

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

John Frydenberg has painted a sombre picture of the outlook for the Australian economy, saying that by mid next year it is set to be 6% smaller than at the end of last year.

The treasurer also warned wages growth will be subdued for years, in a Thursday speech setting the scene for the October 6 budget.

While reaffirming that the government’s temporary COVID measures needed to be phased out, in a message designed to reassure Frydenberg indicated the government’s focus would be economic recovery rather than budget repair until unemployment was back “comfortably” under 6%.

“Only through repairing the economy can we repair the budget,” he said.

Frydenberg said the pandemic would have long lasting effects on the economy and the budget.

“Our economy will be persistently smaller as a result of the pandemic than forecast in the 2019-20 MYEFO [December budget update], both in real and nominal terms.

“In the near term, real GDP is forecast to grow strongly, but this growth will come off a lower base.

“By the end of 2020-21, Australia’s real economy is expected to be around 6% per cent smaller than forecast in the 2019-20 MYEFO,” he said.

The recession put pressure on three key drivers of growth – population, participation and productivity, Frydenberg said.

“Australia’s future population will be smaller, and older, than we previously assumed because of the sharp drop we are seeing in net overseas migration,” he said.

Population growth was expected to slow to its lowest rate in more than a century.

The budget was expected to show net migration outflows were now likely in both 2020-21 and 2021-22.

“While migration will eventually return to the levels we are accustomed to, lost migrants will not be replaced.

“And given our migrant workers tend, on average, to be younger, this will lower labour force participation and average hours worked across the economy into the future.”

As with past recessions, here and abroad, the unemployment rate would take time to return to pre-crisis levels. “This economic scarring, together with lower levels of business investment, is likely to dampen participation and productivity — the other two key elements of potential growth,” Frydenberg said.

“The other key change in our economy, will be a persistently lower level of prices and wages.

“With high levels of spare capacity in the economy, it will be some time before inflation returns to the mid-point of the Reserve Bank’s target range.

“And wages growth is also likely to remain subdued for at least the next few years, until the jobs market tightens,” Frydenberg said.

The changes to the economy would weaken the medium term budget position, despite targeted support being phased out.

“A smaller economy, with lower price and wage growth, will generate less income for the government over the medium-term.

“Income taxes will grow more slowly, reflecting a smaller wages bill.

“Corporate taxes will also grow more slowly, reflecting lower profits and economic activity.”

Frydenberg said that in the near term, government payments would spike, from the big temporary support.

“Over the medium term, the level of payments, in dollars, is likely to remain broadly comparable to our estimates at MYEFO, once our temporary fiscal support has finished.

“However, this level of payments will represent a larger share of a smaller economy.

“By the end of the medium-term period, payments are still expected to be materially higher than pre-COVID levels as a share of GDP.

“So … the changes to our economy that flow from this COVID recession will have a lasting impact on our budget position, even as our targeted policy support is unwound.

“Lower tax receipts and higher spending as a share of the economy will impact our fiscal position for many years to come. Even as the economy recovers.

“This is the nature of this unprecedented COVID-19 recession.”

Frydenberg said the budget would recalibrate the fiscal strategy to reflect the new circumstances.

There would be two phases.

The first phase, focused on boosting business and consumer confidence and boosting jobs and growth, would have three elements.

“First, we will continue to allow the automatic stabilisers to work freely to support the economy.

“Second, we will continue to provide temporary, proportionate and targeted fiscal support, including through tax measures, to leverage private sector jobs and investment.

“Third, we will continue to push ahead with structural reforms that position the economy for the jobs of the future and which improve the ease of doing business.

“The first phase of our strategy will remain in place until unemployment is on a clear path back to pre-crisis levels” – comfortably under 6 %.

Phase 2, focused on restoring the fiscal position, would also have three elements.

“First, we will maintain our central focus on jobs and growth, combined with structural reforms that increase our economy’s potential.

“Second, there will be a deliberate shift from providing temporary and targeted support for the economy to stabilising gross and net debt as a share of the economy.

“Our 23.9 % cap on the tax to GDP ratio will be retained.

“Third, we will start the hard work of rebuilding our fiscal buffers, so that we can be prepared for the next economic shock,” Frydenberg said.

“Our revised fiscal strategy is consistent with our core values. These have not changed.

“It will maintain our emphasis on fiscal discipline, lower taxes, containing the size of government and investing in a strong economy.

“But as we should, we will place greater weight on supporting the economic recovery in the near term and on economic reforms that lift potential growth in the medium term.”

– ref. COVID will leave Australia with smaller economy and older population: Frydenberg – https://theconversation.com/covid-will-leave-australia-with-smaller-economy-and-older-population-frydenberg-146848

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jude McCulloch, Professor of Criminology, Monash University

The state of emergency that has been issued in Victoria during the pandemic is to be taken seriously. Police are undoubtedly one component of the state’s health response, needed to enforce measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 such as restrictions on group gatherings and curfews.

However, a bill before the Victoria parliament to expand the police’s authority during the emergency is a worry.

This bill would provide police and other “authorised officers” with unprecedented, extraordinary powers and rely too heavily on a punitive approach to controlling the coronavirus, with too few checks and balances.

The government maintains these powers are necessary in the context of the COVID-19 health emergency to “keep protecting Victorians” and “enforce laws that kept case numbers low”.

Responding to human rights concerns raised by legal groups, Premier Daniel Andrews maintains the bill “strikes the right balance”.

But the bill is out of balance, even in a time of emergency.

Powers to detain people on ‘reasonable belief’ alone

There are three key concerns with the bill:

• the breadth of the powers authorised under it

• the expertise of those authorised to use the powers

• the lack of independent oversight and review.

Among other things, the bill provides police and other authorised officers with the power to preemptively detain “high-risk” Victorians, defined as those who have COVID-19 or are a close contact of a person with the virus.

Perhaps most worrisome is this power can be applied in cases where the authorised officer has a “reasonable belief” a person “is likely to refuse or fail to comply with” an order to self-isolate.

There is no direction in the bill as to what would constitute “reasonable belief” or how this would be assessed.

The other concerning element of this is the open-ended timeframe of detention, which the bill only specifies as the

time period reasonably necessary to eliminate a serious risk to public health.

Again, this is linked to the same unspecified reasonable belief that a person is likely to be non-compliant with orders to self-isolate.

This extraordinarily wide discretion for authorised officers to decide who to detain and for how long appears contrary to Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights, which states

a person must not be subjected to arbitrary […] detention.

Authorising officers without health expertise

The bill dramatically expands the types of people who can be appointed as authorised officers, including state officials, non-government workers, WorkSafe inspectors and protective service officers.

The breadth of these discretionary powers becomes more problematic when you consider these authorised officers are to be appointed on broad and generic criteria and are not necessarily health experts.

People should not be detained on the basis of a non-expert belief they are likely to be non-compliant with a health direction.

Health-led responses that provide people with the necessary information, support and services to stay safe and self-isolate have proved more than effective.

Read more: Pandemic policing needs to be done with the public’s trust, not confusion

Police discretion and accountability

Research consistently demonstrates such broad discretion and preemptive powers are fertile ground for discriminatory policing.

There is a long history in Australia of over-policing of minorities and marginalised groups, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, other people of colour, young people and public housing tenants.

The police enforcement of COVID-19 rules has broadly followed this pattern, with a disproportionate focus on lower socio-economic areas.

Read more: Melbourne is using pop-up police spy stations to find people breaking COVID rules – what does the law say?

There is also the issue of police brutality and excessive use of force against suspected rule-breakers and those suffering mental health crises.

The proliferation of mobile phone cameras, body-worn cameras for police officers and CCTV cameras has brought a new, confronting visibility to these incidents. This includes the recent case in suburban Melbourne of a man suffering from a mental illness who was hit by a police car and then appears to have had his head stomped on by an officer.

There is a lack of substantive, robust, independent oversight of police in Victoria. Currently, the police investigate complaints of corruption and misconduct (including use of force) by their own officers in 98% of cases. This contributes to a situation where there are few effective avenues to hold police to account.

A parliamentary committee has recommended the state anti-corruption watchdog investigate allegations of serious police misconduct instead. But Andrews government has yet to respond to the 69 recommendations in the report, which was tabled more than two years ago.

Read more: New body for complaints against police in Victoria is a good move, with some caveats

The new bill to expand emergency policing powers provides no mention of police oversight or a review of the powers, which is also troubling.

In a letter outlining its concerns with the bill, the Victorian Bar argues any use of the “extraordinary and personal detention” powers be reviewed by the chief health officer (or a senior delegate) within 24 hours. The letter read, in part,

unconstrained and undefined subjective powers naturally invite the tendency to exercise them to the fullest, and in breach of human rights.

Little evidence of the need for expanded measures

The state of emergency in Victoria is unprecedented and has required extraordinary sacrifices from millions of Victorians. These sacrifices, unwelcome and as painful as they are, have had the support of the majority of Victorians.

But these proposed powers are qualitatively different. There has been little if any evidence of the rationale for these measures, only broad and generic statements from government. The measures are a dangerous threat to the health of democracy.

– ref. Expanding Victoria’s police powers without robust, independent oversight is a dangerous idea – https://theconversation.com/expanding-victorias-police-powers-without-robust-independent-oversight-is-a-dangerous-idea-146758

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jagadish Thaker, Senior Lecturer, School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, Massey University

New Zealand’s top 30 corporations do a poor job reporting on climate change compared with similar Australian and Fortune Global 500 companies, according to our research.

The fact that most big businesses in New Zealand provide limited or no information on climate change was one of the drivers for a proposed policy to introduce mandatory reporting of climate risk across the financial system.

The policy’s focus on large financial institutions will have knock-on effects on the private business sector as banks and insurers will require companies to assess their own climate risk and improve reporting.

This will create a more accurate, consistent and transparent climate change reporting infrastructure.

Corporations ignore climate change

Top businesses in New Zealand, Australia and those in the Fortune Global 500 group generally don’t report well on climate change. Our study shows a minority report on observed or future patterns of greenhouse gas emissions (17%), business greenhouse gas contributions (25%) or business responsibility to respond to climate change (32%) and whether their emission reduction targets are aligned with science (14%).

We studied New Zealand’s top 30 corporations — including Fonterra, Air New Zealand, The Warehouse, Fletcher Building — and found they use key terms such as climate change, carbon, greenhouse gas and global warming 13 times on average, compared with an average of 48 times by Australian and Fortune Global 500 companies. The low frequency is an indication that climate change is not a priority for New Zealand businesses.

A previous study also shows only 5–16% of the 200 largest corporations in New Zealand report climate risks, emission-reduction targets or climate-related initiatives in their annual reports or financial statements.

This suggests a gap between the scientific evidence and business planning and a lack of strategic alignment between corporations’ pledges and performance.

One of the most important factors that shapes corporate action on climate change is regulatory uncertainty. Chief executives who want to introduce measures to reduce emissions are discouraged because their efforts are not rewarded internally or by external stakeholders.

Read more: A bit rich: business groups want urgent climate action, after resisting it for 30 years

What’s in it for businesses

Last month, New Zealand’s first national climate change risk assessment identified ten areas that need urgent action.

The risk assessment provides an overview of how New Zealand may be affected by climate change hazards. The three risk areas most significant to the business sector are:

• risks to the financial system from instability caused by extreme weather events and ongoing, gradual changes

• risks to governments from economic costs associated with lost productivity, disaster relief expenditure and unfunded contingent liabilities

• risks of maladaptation due to practices, processes and tools that do not account for uncertainty and change over long time frames.

We rightly focus on physical and transitional risks associated with climate change for businesses, but reputational risks are equally important.

Consumer activism on climate change is on the rise, particularly among a new generation of consumers and investors.

Litigation risks associated with inaction are likely to become more prominent in the future.

Read more: New Zealand will make big banks, insurers and firms disclose their climate risk. It’s time other countries did too

Public support for climate action

Our recent national survey shows most New Zealanders support a green COVID-19 economic recovery. More than 70% agree industries receiving substantial emergency financial assistance should be required to lower their carbon emissions.

More than half of New Zealanders say they are likely to shift to more environmentally friendly behaviours in the next 12 months, even if it costs more or is inconvenient. A majority also say they are confident people like them, working together, can affect business and government action on climate change.

Another survey conducted by the IAG insurance company shows most New Zealanders want businesses to talk about risks climate change poses to their business and customers. Many believe corporations are responsible for climate action.

Only ten out of 90 top corporations we analysed reported on the scientific consensus about climate change. Of the New Zealand corporations, only 3% did so, compared to 13% of Australian companies and 17% of those among the Fortune Global 500.

Read more: Super funds are feeling the financial heat from climate change

This lack of acknowledgement is a missed opportunity to instil public confidence, manage stakeholder expectations and institutionalise corporate social responsibility.

Communicating the fact that experts agree on climate change increases public support for mitigation policies. Businesses can reinforce this message to increase consumer support for ambitious, even costly, climate actions.

Reporting on climate risks is important but not sufficient. Traditionally, businesses have highlighted climate risks more than their responsibilities, thereby portraying themselves as victims fighting to protect the economy.

Between 1990 and 2018, New Zealand’s net emissions increased by 57%. The Zero Carbon Act aims to reduce net emissions from all greenhouse gases to zero by 2050, except for methane from animals, which it aims to reduce by 24-47% (below 2017 levels).

Communication is a commitment to act. New Zealand corporations have a long road ahead to match the “clean” image of the country with their own communication on climate change.

– ref. New Zealand companies lag behind others in their reporting on climate change, and that’s a risk to their reputation – https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-companies-lag-behind-others-in-their-reporting-on-climate-change-and-thats-a-risk-to-their-reputation-145305

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Chand, Lecturer in Visual Communication Design and Creative Industries, University of Newcastle

Images are all around us. But what about the images you may never have seen, which influence the storytelling you watch every day?

Storyboarding often forms a crucial part of the pre-production process of film, television, animation, game design, advertising, comics, children’s book illustration, even UX Design and other forms of visual communication.

Developed at Disney Animation Studios in the 1930’s, it was first used in live action film for Gone with the Wind (1939). As film critic Fionnuala Halligan has written:

The unsung heroes of film, storyboard artists are the first to give vision to a screenplay, translating words on the page into shots for the screen.

Directors employ storyboard artists to visualise their scripts for large crews. They guide visual language, scene transitions, action sequences, cinematography, lighting design, location scouting, costume development, production design, art direction, computer generated effects and different phases of animation.

Art of the plan

An applied use of drawing, storyboarding is an illustrative art that communicates context.

Legendary director Ridley Scott always begins his films with the drawing board, using the pencil to inform the visual tone of his direction and discuss scenes with actors.

It limits the potential of the story and script, defining a scene visually to reduce the shooting of excess scenes.

Traditionally each cell — or film frame in the narrative — is drawn by hand, artists rapidly refining the story. Large amounts of sketches are discarded. Small thumbnail sketches are reworked until the drawings move to final polished boards.

Storyboards often collect in archives, unreleased works bound by studio copyright. They are occasionally collated in book form, as in The Art of Movie Storyboards: Visualising the Action of the World’s Greatest Films.

Although pencil is still predominant, many artists now employ digital approaches. Storyboards don’t require the artist to embed lots of detail. The focus is how the boards communicate the camera angle, movement, timing, gesture and staging of characters.

Some artists produce mock sequences to get employed. Heidi Jo Gilbert’s mock sequence landed her a job at DreamWorks Animation.

Read more: 21st-century character designs reflect our concerns, as always

Aspects and ratio

Each panel or frame represents what the camera and eventually the audience will see. The shape of the rectangle is usually based on the planned shooting aspect ratio (width to height of frame).

Storyboards can help the cinematographer make choices about lighting, depth of field, locations and camera angles. Arrows indicate where the movement of the character or object is headed. Although the script is important for direction and dialogue, storyboards become a visual script.

Storyboard artists need a diverse but traditional skillset.

Not only do they need the drawing skills — whether pencil or pixel, but they need to be able to negotiate visual observation, visual representation, metaphor, allegory and aesthetics.

Being highly skilled in realism is not necessary, communicating the idea of story is the most important. In fact, something realistic may not best communicate meaning.

Some key drawing conventions and features include:

• Anatomy
• Shapes
• Composition
• Scale
• Viewpoints
• Frame division
• Depth of field
• Light and tonality
• Horizon lines, vanishing points and perspective.

Storyboards allow artists like Aaron Blaise to embed emotion, gesture and movement into a scene.

This artistic process helps the director make choices. The panels of the storyboard are propped up against a wall or shown onscreen during production. Members of the production crew refer to them to discuss and see where the visual narrative will lead.

Read more: Long days, heavy loads: what the best boy does on a film set

Sharing a vision

Storyboards are a great way for people working together to visualise their ideas and brainstorm new ones. It’s fascinating to see how simple line drawings can spark and move through to the final idea. Here is an example of the storyboard side-by-side with the final product from UP (2009).

What’s evident is a honed approach to drawing skills still playing a role in creating the film’s visual direction.

These days not all film directors employ this technique. But many in the creative industries still start with the drawing board as a source of communicating concepts, ideas and story.

Like a compass steering a ship, drawings were probably the starting point for your favourite show or movie.

Read more: Explainer: what is production design?

– ref. Explainer: what is storyboarding for film? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-storyboarding-for-film-131205

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Taylor, Early Career Research Leader, Emerging Viruses, Inflammation and Therapeutics Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University

Australia’s A$123 million contribution to a global vaccine initiative, announced earlier this week, means the country would have access to a wider pool of COVID-19 vaccines, should they pass clinical trials.

The agreement with the World Health Organisation-backed COVAX initiative currently covers nine vaccines, with another nine being considered. These are to be shared with other member countries, rich and poor, by the end of 2021.

However, the agreement may only cover up to half the doses Australia needs, if each person needs two doses. So countries are still free to negotiate their own vaccine deals with individual manufacturers, as Australia has done.

Here’s what you need to know about the nine vaccines COVAX is currently backing, which are at various stages of development. These include pre-clinical animal testing and human clinical trials, which move through three phases. During the pandemic, some of these phases have been combined.

Read more: Why ‘vaccine nationalism’ could doom plan for global access to a COVID-19 vaccine

1. INO-4800 comes with a zap

INO-4800 is a DNA vaccine being developed by US company Inovio.

After the vaccine is injected, a hand-held device delivers a short electrical pulse. This pulse opens small pores in your cells to allow the vaccine to enter.

Once inside your cells, instructions in the vaccine’s DNA are used to make copies of the full spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Your body mounts an immune response against this, ready to protect you the next time you encounter the virus.

Phase 2/3 trials are expected to begin soon. No serious side effects were reported from clinical trials so far.

2. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 is in phase 3

The mRNA-1273 vaccine is developed by US company Moderna with the US National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The genetic material in this RNA-based vaccine also codes for the full spike protein.

There have been promising results from trials so far. The vaccine is in phase 3 clinical trials.

3. Germany’s CVnCoV may have one or two doses

CVnCoV is another RNA-based vaccine and is made by German company CureVac. It also codes for the virus’ spike protein.

The vaccine has entered phase 2 trials, which is testing one and two doses.

4. TMV-083 uses a version of the measles vaccine

TMV-083 is being developed by Institut Pasteur and American company Merck. It is in phase I trials.

The vaccine uses a live-attenuated (weakened) measles vaccine to deliver and express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The virus is still viable (live) but cannot cause disease.

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

5. AZD1222, the Oxford vaccine

AZD1222 is being developed by AstraZeneca with the University of Oxford. It uses a modified chimpanzee adenovirus to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

There have been good antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 and no severe side effects in early clinical trials.

Phase 3 trials have started in multiple countries. However, these were suspended recently after a study participant developed an immune complication. The trials have since resumed.

Australia has already entered an agreement to supply this vaccine should phase 3 trials prove successful. This deal is independent of the COVAX agreement.

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

6. Modified flu vaccine delivered up the nose

Hong Kong University has developed a flu-based vaccine, which was recently approved for human clinical trials with Chinese company Beijing Wantai.

It will be the first nasal spray COVID-19 vaccine to be tested in humans.

The weakened flu virus delivers a part of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which elicits a highly targeted immune response.

7. NVX-CoV2373 was tested in Australia

NVX-CoV2373 is a protein subunit vaccine developed by US company Novavax. It is made from purified pieces of the virus (full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein). It also contains an adjuvant — an extra molecule that boosts the immune response.

The vaccine was safe and stimulated a strong immune response in early clinical trials in Queensland and Victoria. Phase 3 trials are expected to start soon.

Read more: The vaccine we’re testing in Australia is based on a flu shot. Here’s how it could work against coronavirus

8. SCB-2019 is another protein subunit vaccine

SCB-2019 is another protein subunit vaccine, this time developed by Chinese company Clover Biopharmaceuticals. It is also based on the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, purified in the lab, and also uses an adjuvant to stimulate the immune system.

Phase 1 trials have started in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline and Dynavax Technologies.

Read more: 5 ways our immune responses to COVID vaccines are unique

9. University of Queensland’s ‘molecular clamp’ vaccine

This vaccine is another protein subunit vaccine. It uses a “molecular clamp” to stabilise the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the configuration thought to elicit the best protective immune response.

A phase 1 trial, in partnership with CSL, started in July.

The Australian government has already entered into a deal to supply this vaccine should it progress through phase 3 trials. This deal is independent of the COVAX agreement.

Read more: Putting our money on two COVID vaccines is better than one: why Australia’s latest vaccine deal makes sense

– ref. Australia’s just signed up for a shot at 9 COVID-19 vaccines. Here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/australias-just-signed-up-for-a-shot-at-9-covid-19-vaccines-heres-what-to-expect-146750

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Clarke, Professor, UTS Business, University of Technology Sydney

Westpac is to pay A$1.3 billion, by far Australia’s biggest-ever corporate fine for breaches of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act.

The 93-page statement of agreed facts and admissions prepared by Westpac and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) says Westpac contravened the Act more than 23 million times exposing Australia’s financial system to criminal exploitation.

It failed to pass on information to authorities about the origin of international funds transfers, and failed to pass on information to other banks in the transfer chain who needed to manage their own money laundering and terrorism financing risks.

“Westpac failed to identify activity potentially indicative of child exploitation risks by failing to implement appropriate transaction monitoring detection scenarios,” the agreed statement says.

“Three of the customers the subject of these proceedings had prior convictions relating to child exploitation offences.”

“One of these customers has been arrested in relation to further child exploitation offences since the commencement of these proceedings.

In reaching the agreement, Westpac also admitted to 76,000 additional contraventions relating to information that came to light after AUSTRAC launched proceedings last year, some which also relate to “failures to reasonably monitor customers for transactions related to possible child exploitation”.

The action triggered the departures of Westpac chief executive Brian Hartzer and chairman Lindsay Maxsted late last year.

Read more: How Westpac is alleged to have broken anti-money laundering laws 23 million times

The A$1.3 billion fine dwarfs the Commonwealth Bank’s A$700 million settlement with AUSTRAC for serious breaches of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws in 2018.

The Westpac debacle is far from an isolated instance of international banks demonstrating indifference to their potential involvement in organised crime.

Documents released by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists on Monday show that major banks around the world conducted US$2 trillion of suspicious transactions in the eight years between 1999-2017.

Australian banks on the international stage

Of a limited sample of transactions assessed, Australian banks received US$3.8 million of suspicious funds and sent out $167.9 million.

The Macquarie Bank was responsible for US$122.1 million of the US$167.9 million, the Commonwealth Bank for US$42.1 million.

The reports relating to Australian banks were filed by the US banks which dealt with them.

The Australian banks themselves might have also filed their own reports.

There’s little to suggest much was done about the reports by US banks at the time, either by the banks themselves or by the regulators they filed them to.

Indeed, the long timespan suggests the banks not only didn’t close suspicious accounts (which might have alerted account holders to suspicions) but also continued to open new ones.

The crime that makes other crimes possible

BuzzFeed, which obtained the documents, said money laundering was a crime that made other crimes possible, and had itself become an integral part of the financial system.

The networks through which dirty money traverse the world have become vital arteries of the global economy. They enable a shadow financial system so wide-ranging and so unchecked that it has become inextricable from what is regarded as the legitimate economy. Banks with household names have helped to make it so.

Certainly after the 2019 report of the banking royal commission it is reasonable to expect Australian banks to do more.

Commissioner Hayne held banks to higher standard than merely abiding by the law. He referred to “the kind of behaviour the community not only expects of financial services entities but is also entitled to expect of them”.

Read more: Westpac’s scandal highlights a system failing to deter corporate wrongdoing

This week’s shocking evidence suggests there’s work to do.

From the wreckage of the global financial crisis the G20 Financial Stability Board erected a new regulatory order requiring banks to have adequate capital.

To this was added a Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures.

It’s time for a third set of reforms, to ensure the financial system doesn’t serve as a conduit for serious crimes.

– ref. It’s not only Westpac. What’s behind the biggest fine in Australian corporate history – https://theconversation.com/its-not-only-westpac-whats-behind-the-biggest-fine-in-australian-corporate-history-146667

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Buchanan, Professor, Discipline of Business Information Systems, University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney

Our universities actively helped with reconstruction after two world wars and supported recoveries in recent recessions. The Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme of 1944 – 1951 was set up to offer academic training to men and women who had served with the Australian armed services during the second world war.

By 1953 nearly 95,000 ex-service men and women had completed their university and technical training courses. Historian Stuart Macintyre wrote that in 1949 students supported by this scheme “provided four of the country’s six Rhodes scholars … an agricultural scientist, a linguist, a historian and a theologian”.

Australia’s vocational education system has played a similar role. What we now call TAFE was central to post-war reconstruction in the 1920s and 1940s. In midst of the early 1980s recession, group training (ethical labour hire for apprenticeships) emerged to expand trade training.

Previous generations of Australians have bequeathed our nation with strong post-school education institutional legacies that can help with recovery from the current crisis. We can build on these legacies, or undermine them. The federal government is choosing the latter path.

Radical changes proposed by the Coalition government and currently before federal parliament in the form of the so-called “job-ready graduates” legislation, mean the future of universities in particular is in the balance.

The government’s reforms undermine recovery

The “job-ready graduates” bill is with a Senate Committee for inquiry, with the report due tomorrow, September 25. The bill was referred to the committee on September 3, with submissions closing on September 10. In that short period of time, the inquiry has received 277 submissions, many of which point out its many flaws.

The government says the package will create 100,000 new university places by 2030. In reality, the package wants universities to take 100,000 students by 2030 — at no extra cost to the Commonwealth. If the legislation is passed, The University of Sydney estimates universities will get around 6% less for each new student from 2021. It estimates on average, student fees will increase by 7% while average Commonwealth funding per student will fall by 15%. The value of the cut will likely grow over time in the absence of any additional public investment.

Analyst Mark Warburton has calculated the package will save the government more than A$700 million by the time it is fully in place in 2024.

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

Education Minister Dan Tehan wants to encourage students to take what he describes as “job ready degrees” in fields such as science and engineering, by reducing their fees and doubling costs for some humanities courses. The University of Sydney estimates a funding cut of A$27 million for its science, engineering, medicine and health courses once the transition arrangements end in 2024. This is because the extra money paid by humanities students will not be enough to offset the reduced fees students will pay for the more “job-ready” courses, which are more expensive to deliver.

And this is at a time of collapsing revenues from international students. The legislation will make a bad situation worse. It may entrench perverse incentives for universities to load up more students in the higher paying humanities courses – potentially graduating more students in the very fields the government wants to de-incentivise.

Australia’s tertiary education system needs an overhaul. The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the unsustainability a university system based on falling public investment offset by increasing dependence on international student fees. Even before COVID, the deep flaws in Australia’s vocational education system were highlighted with the VET FEE-HELP debacle.

This is the end point of the small government, market-inspired post-school reforms that started in the late 1980s.

Another way is possible

Other leading nations are upgrading their tertiary education systems to help with recovery. For instance, the UK is bringing £100m of public funding forward to this academic year to help protect university research activities. It is also bringing an estimated £2.6bn of tuition fee payments to help universities better manage financial risks.

And while our investment in research and development is below the OECD average, China is reportedly closing the innovation gap with the US — the country that spends the most on scientific research.

Read more: $7.6 billion and 11% of researchers: our estimate of how much Australian university research stands to lose by 2024

For 2021, the government should provide extra resources to support new Commonwealth Supported Places under current funding arrangements — not just increase student fees. This is, however, only a holding operation. Any long-term solution will require higher education reform, but also a rebalancing with, and upgrading of, vocational education.

Lessons from the crisis of the 1930s and recovery of the 1940s are helpful. Initially public funding to education was cut as part of the general deflationary policy stance of the time. The war experience — combined with the insights of Keynesian economics — established active government intervention could make a huge difference.

Thus came the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme, which helped ex-service men and women study the degree of their choice. Most also received a Commonwealth wage subsidy to help them find a way to work on completion.

Education was respected as having distinctive role to play in educating young Australians in a broad range of disciplines. It worked with other initiatives in industry, along with social and macroeconomic policy to create a better Australia.

It is now clear the 30-year experiments with markets and privatisation in post-school education have failed. At the heart of a modern approach needs to be renewed public investment in education institutions. This will involve working with interested businesses and community organisations committed and able to deliver quality education and research.

Out of the crises of the 1890s and 1940s Australia created quality, enduring legacies in post-school education. We now have a chance to upgrade these legacies to aid economic and social renewal. Let’s not waste this opportunity.

– ref. Universities can help Australia’s economic recovery, but that’s all at risk if the ‘job-ready graduates’ bill passes – https://theconversation.com/universities-can-help-australias-economic-recovery-but-thats-all-at-risk-if-the-job-ready-graduates-bill-passes-146582

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wallace, Associate Professor, 50/50 By 2030 Foundation, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of Canberra

COVID-19 times have brought sober realisations about deep shifts in Australian society. Encroaching steadily over the past half-century, these have been largely submerged from daily view, until now.

Decades of cumulative attacks on the public sector have made privatisation and contracting out an unthinking government reflex. This includes areas the pandemic has revealed as highly unsuitable, including aged care and quarantine security.

Workplace deregulation has gone hand in hand with an enormous rise in casualisation. The pandemic has highlighted how many workers stitch together jobs at multiple workplaces to earn enough to survive, multiplying the chances of community COVID-19 transmission.

Denied the paid sick leave enjoyed by people in permanent jobs, casuals have to keep working, healthy or not. Precarity has turned out to be flexibility’s flipside, with unequivocally bad consequences for public health.

Women are more affected

The pandemic’s gendered impact has been especially stark. Under pressure, dynamics many people thought were in deep retreat visibly sprang back into action.

More likely to occupy low-paid, precarious jobs than men, women suffered first and disproportionately from pandemic job losses.

During lockdown, domestic violence — mostly committed by men against women — has spiked, and is even more difficult to escape than usual.

Read more: Coronavirus and ‘domestic terrorism’: how to stop family violence under lockdown

Women perform the vast share of lockdown-driven homeschooling, compounding their pre-pandemic burden of an unfairly large share of domestic labour generally.

The Morrison government provided free childcare early in the emergency, giving many families their first experience of relief from worry around this fraught aspect of family life. But it was snatched away again in the government’s first act of pandemic policy rollback. This doubly impacted on women as workers as well as parents, given the overwhelming bulk of childcare employees are female.

In contrast, many businesses received massive handouts with, it emerged later, highly variable flow-on to the workers the handouts were supposed to keep in their jobs. With little accountability attached to the government assistance, some employers were accused of outright rorting it. The contrast with tight accountability provisions attached to government welfare for individuals who need help is stark.

Further, the Morrison government’s positive job initiatives, such as they are, favour men, with job-creation plans focused on male-dominated industries.

Good morning, ma’am, is your husband home?

That this approach is based on, and reinforces, the idea of men as primary breadwinners is barely disguised. This is despite the fact women can be – and are in large numbers – primary breadwinners too and deserve the same opportunities.

Even the government’s tax cut bring-forward mooted for the October budget is heavily gendered: men are set to get more than twice the benefit women receive on average from the tax cuts, according to Australia Institute modelling.

One unequivocal boon of the pandemic has been the widespread, high-quality analysis and reporting of its gendered impacts.

Equally striking has been the expectation among many of these analyses’ authors that their findings would make the Morrison government change course, on the assumption that either the government did not realise its policies’ gendered impacts or because it would be shamed into adjusting them once these were revealed.

If you want to understand a government’s priorities, look at where it puts its money. The Morrison government is not just indifferent to the gendered impacts of COVID-19. The pattern of its pandemic policy decision-making suggests an active if not explicit “men first, women and children second” approach.

This is disappointing but not unexpected, given the male dominance of the Liberal and National parties’ federal parliamentary ranks: 73.2% of Morrison government MPs are men. Let that sink in for a moment. Only one in four federal Coalition MPs is a woman.

Around the Morrison government cabinet table the picture is the same: 73.9% of LNP cabinet ministers are men. There are just six women in the 23-person cabinet.

In the House of Representatives, from which the prime minister is drawn and where policy must initially be fought for and won to have the chance of being turned into law, 80% of Morrison government MPs are men. Again, it is worth pausing to reflect on this: four out of every five lower house LNP politicians is a man.

A ‘men first’ approach to the pandemic

It is not such a surprise, then, that the government pursues “men first” policies.

While some – perhaps many – LNP women may support this stance, a reasonable assumption is that fairer shares of parliamentary LNP seats for women would redress this skewed approach at least somewhat.

Anyone supporting fair shares for men and women in life’s burdens and benefits would surely support fair shares for men and women in terms of parliamentary power.

The Australian Labor Party long ago faced up to and solved this problem with an initially controversial, now unremarked upon, preselection quota system for winnable seats.

Today men and women are almost equally represented in the federal Labor caucus: a bare majority (52.1%) of federal Labor MPs are men.

In contrast, the Liberal Party in 2016 adopted a ten-year plan without quotas to increase its female representation in federal parliament. It has visibly failed.

The problem has been compounded by the retirement from politics of senior female Liberal ministers like Julie Bishop and Kelly O’Dwyer at the 2019 election, as well as the loss of emerging talent such as businesswoman Julia Banks who resigned from the party in disgust at its sexist culture.

Read more: Quotas are not pretty but they work – Liberal women should insist on them

More than just numbers

Longtime activist for women in politics, Ruth McGowan, says the extra pressures arising from the pandemic could well discourage women who might otherwise have considered a run from doing so. Women’s burgeoning domestic labour burden during the pandemic is likely to literally keep women in the home and away from the House of Representatives, McGowan suggests. To the extent this could further depress women’s share of Coalition seats in parliament, this is very bad news.

A senior cabinet member, Environment Minister Sussan Ley, last year called on the Liberal Party to introduce quotas for women. Her cabinet colleague, Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne, said “all options [should be] on the table”, adding she was as yet undecided about quotas. Others, such as Victorian Liberal senator Jane Hume, support a “Liberal alternative” to quotas to address the party’s skewed representation.

The gendered nature and impact of the Morrison government’s pandemic policy responses makes the domination of men within the coalition cabinet and party room a matter of national significance.

The Liberal and National parties’ preselection processes are broken and need fixing. The fact that only one in four coalition MPs in the Morrison government’s cabinet and party room is a woman is proof.

Read more: A ‘woman problem’? No, the Liberals have a ‘man problem’, and they need to fix it

Until the structural sexism within the Liberal and National parties’ ranks is fixed, the Coalition’s “men first” policies will likely continue.

Women and children need the Morrison government’s “senior six” female cabinet ministers to person up and get their parties to adopt quotas for women in winnable Liberal and National party seats. It’s the only thing proven to work and it’s way past time the problem was fixed.

– ref. It’s a man’s (pandemic) world: how policies compound the pain for women in the age of COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/its-a-mans-pandemic-world-how-policies-compound-the-pain-for-women-in-the-age-of-covid-19-144796

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Pfitzner, Postdoctoral Research fellow with the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, Monash University

At the first sign of lockdown due to COVID-19 in Australia and across the globe, there were concerns domestic and family violence would increase in prevalence and intensity. It was also feared that, at the same time, conditions would prevent women from coming forward.

We have now gathered data showing these fears were well founded.

But what of the specific situation of temporary visa holders?

Our study of 100 cases during the first Victorian lockdown has illuminated the urgent need to remove barriers to support for temporary visa holders. It has also highlighted the need for changes to Commonwealth law and policy, so perpetrators are no longer able to use migration status as a means to control and abuse women.

This propensity is captured in the quote from one of the women in our study, Aruna, whose partner threatened to send her back to her country of birth if she called 000 for help.

Previous research has demonstrated that for women without permanent residency or citizenship, the experience of domestic and family violence is compounded by immigration threats and their exclusion from many of the supports available to victims. These can include income, housing, medical and legal services.

The pandemic has intensified the impact of exclusion, while also highlighting the persistent use of migration status as a threat.

In our latest report released today, 70% of perpetrators of violence against the women were Australian citizens or permanent residents. Threats to have women “deported by immigration” were noted in 55% of cases. Threats to withdraw sponsorship (for women holding temporary partner visas) were made in 60% of cases.

Women said their greatest fear was being killed or harmed by the perpetrator (70%). But they also feared being forced to leave the country, including leaving Australian-born children with their Australian father (31%).

The fear of returning home is potent for some women. One of those surveyed, Tasneem, said she feared the perpetrator would follow her. A note from her file reads:

[Tasneem] is also extremely concerned that her abusive partner will force her to return to [country of origin] where he will hurt and/or kill her. Tasneem has separated from him, but they remain legally married and she is dependent on him for her visa. She is not entitled to Centrelink payments and has no source of income. She has no friends or family in Australia and the perpetrator refuses […] to allow her to contact her family back home.

Tasneem’s case highlights the critical absence of support for women in this situation, including the impact of their exclusion from JobSeeker and JobKeeper.

In our study, 70% of women who had paid employment lost their jobs due to COVID-19. Lack of money is clearly linked to a lack of options in escaping family violence. Seeking security in these circumstances can mean remaining with an abusive partner to ensure children are fed and have beds to sleep in. This is also in part a consequence of the limited availability of safe housing options.

Recent Australian research on women experiencing domestic and family violence during COVID-19 has shown the shortage in safe housing options has been acute.

In our study, housing was a key issue for two-thirds of the women. The specific housing issues varied: for some women who lived alone, the accommodation was unsafe because the perpetrator had previously lived there, knew the address and had a key. In other cases, women were couch-surfing with their children, relying on friends who were also under financial and other pressures due to COVID-19.

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

Some women stayed with their abusive partners because they had nowhere else to go. When we spoke with case managers, we were told some clients had been offered the airfare home be other services because there were no available resources in Australia to help them.

What we have observed in our research is not particular to the pandemic. It is a manifestation of our society’s continued failure to address the support needs of female temporary visa holders who experience domestic and family violence.

This is not simply about money, though providing immediate access to ongoing income, housing and other support is critical. What we really need to do is reshape the conversation: put perpetrators using migration processes as threats in view and offer better support to those who are suffering.

No woman (or child) should have to compromise their personal safety because of a lack of access to support. Women have been described as the “shock absorbers” of the pandemic. As we emerge from this health crisis, we need a bold vision that achieves better outcomes for women, particularly those made vulnerable by their migration status domestic and family violence.

Read more: Coronavirus and ‘domestic terrorism’: how to stop family violence under lockdown

– ref. ‘If you call 000 … I will send you back to your country’: how COVID-19 has trapped temporary visa holders – https://theconversation.com/if-you-call-000-i-will-send-you-back-to-your-country-how-covid-19-has-trapped-temporary-visa-holders-146579

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karleen Gribble, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Western Sydney University

Many women find breastfeeding difficult and stop before they planned. Some women are relieved to stop. But others regret it.

If you regret stopping, you may be able to give it another go, even if you no longer have any milk. This may be possible even if it’s been weeks or months since you last breastfed.

Why? From COVID-19 to sick babies

Women want to start breastfeeding again for a variety of reasons. Some babies don’t do well on infant formula. Others become sick and their mothers want to give them breastmilk to help them recover.

If a mother found breastfeeding challenging the first time around, a change in circumstance, a little more sleep, or just the passage of time can bring a different perspective.

Women might also want to restart breastfeeding if they’re in an emergency situation without services like water or power, such as a bushfire or cyclone.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, mothers have contacted the Australian Breastfeeding Association about starting breastfeeding again because they wanted to protect their babies from infection or were concerned about the availability of infant formula.

Read more: Evacuating with a baby? Here’s what to put in your emergency kit

Almost any mother who wants to start breastfeeding again can. There are only a small number of health conditions that make breastfeeding inadvisable for medical reasons.

However, relactation needs to be something you want to do because it is unlikely to succeed if your heart isn’t really in it.

How can I start breastfeeding again?

When you stop breastfeeding, a protein in the milk signals your breasts to stop making milk. This decrease in milk production usually takes weeks.

If there is still some milk in your breasts, you can start rebuilding your supply by removing milk from your breasts as often as you can. You can do this by breastfeeding, if your baby is still willing, or by expressing milk by hand or with a breast pump.

If your breasts aren’t making milk any more, you can restore your supply by relactation.

To start, you will need to stimulate your nipples frequently by encouraging your baby to suck at your breasts or by using a breast pump. This triggers the release of a hormone called prolactin that develops the milk-making structures in your breast to start producing milk. Once milk secretion begins, removing the milk from the breast signals your breasts to make more milk.

Read more: No, there’s no evidence cookies can help with lactation

If your baby is willing to suckle, this is the easiest way to relactate. The more frequently they do this, the stronger the message to your breasts to develop and start making milk again.

Providing extra milk to your baby at the breast while they suck can help them suck for longer. You can provide this milk using a breastfeeding supplementer. This is a container with a tube that carries expressed breastmilk or formula to your nipple. When your baby sucks at the breast, milk is drawn through the tube into your baby’s mouth, along with any milk from your breast.

Alternatively, you can drip milk over your breast while your baby sucks.

However, some babies used to bottle feeding may be reluctant to breastfeed at first. It’s important to not try to force your baby. A breastfeeding counsellor or lactation consultant can suggest ways to encourage them.

In the meantime, you can use a breast pump to stimulate the nipples and remove milk from your breasts. You can then give that expressed milk to your baby in a bottle or cup.

Read more: Want to breastfeed? These five things will make it easier

How long does relactation take?

You can start making milk within a few days or weeks. This depends on how long it has been since your baby last breastfed and how often you stimulate your nipples.

If your baby is willing to suckle, you will need to breastfeed at least eight times in 24 hours for the first few weeks to get milk-making started and to increase your milk supply.

Allowing your baby to breastfeed as often as they want to, even if they are only comfort-sucking, will speed up the process. It also helps to keep your baby close to your body as much as you can, day and night. This helps to maximise opportunities for suckling. Using a baby sling or carrier can help.

Read more: Is it safe to drink alcohol while breastfeeding?

If your baby isn’t ready to suckle yet, an electric breast pump that expresses both breasts at once is more effective than a single-electric (expresses one breast at a time) or manual pump. You’ll need to use the pump for 10-20 minutes, six to eight times in 24 hours.

Expressing milk by hand after breastfeeds or using a breast pump can help remove any remaining milk. The emptier the breasts, the stronger the message they receive to make more milk.

You can also ask your GP about using a medication to increase your body’s production of prolactin, which can make relactation a little quicker.

Does it work?

If your baby is willing to suck frequently, the process can be quite simple. But other mothers and babies find it more challenging. For instance, sometimes making milk is easy but it takes more time for your baby to be willing to breastfeed.

If you stopped breastfeeding because of a problem, such as persistent nipple pain or mastitis, you might need some help to prevent this recurring. Every situation is different.

Having a support network to cheer you on as well as practical support from family and friends — such as making meals, helping with housework, or entertaining older children while you’re occupied — will make the process much easier.

A lactation consultant or Australian Breastfeeding Association counsellor can support you to start breastfeeding again.

– ref. I regret stopping breastfeeding. How do I start again? – https://theconversation.com/i-regret-stopping-breastfeeding-how-do-i-start-again-143183

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marta Rychert, Senior Researcher in Drug Policy, Massey University

Much of the debate on New Zealand’s referendum on recreational cannabis legalisation has focused on health, the economy, criminal justice and the uncertainties about the impact on youth and adult use.

But one argument is oddly missing from the debate — personal freedom, autonomy and individual rights.

This is striking, because the issue of personal liberties has traditionally been at the forefront of cannabis reform activism. At the heart of all public health laws is the conflict between the powers of the state and the individual’s liberty, privacy and autonomy.

In the past two years, constitutional courts in several countries have ruled the prohibition of use, possession and private cultivation of cannabis interferes with an individual’s right to privacy. They’ve said protecting public health and security does not justify state punishment.

It may come as a surprise, but about half of the countries in Europe do not prohibit the use of drugs (as New Zealand does). Instead, they choose only to ban their possession.

The difference is more than academic. Prohibition of consumption may give police extraordinary powers, such as taking biological samples from people as evidence. Drug testing is intrusive and should only be done if there is a significant public interest to protect.

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

Some countries go even further. They ban possession and use of drugs, but only in public spaces, on the understanding that drug laws exist to prevent public nuisance.

In Spain, the distinction between use in public and private led to the so-called “cannabis social clubs”. Users grow and share cannabis among club members in private settings.

The rights and the risks

The fundamental personal right to ingest a substance that has little impact on others has long been argued by cannabis activists such as NORML (National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws).

With this argument largely absent from current debate in New Zealand (as well as many other jurisdictions contemplating reform), debate focuses instead on the potential to create jobs and tax revenue (Colorado), reduce arrests and discrimination (Illinois), address public security and drug-related violence (Uruguay) and restrict youth access to cannabis and enhance public health (Canada).

Read more: It could take 10 years to measure the impact of legalising weed – should New Zealand’s proposed law be even stronger?

The aim of New Zealand’s proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill is to apply market controls to reduce harms associated with cannabis and restrict access by young people. But, as we have argued before, the goal of reducing overall use over time will be hard to achieve via a commercial market.

The personal rights argument can struggle to win over people concerned about the health and social implications of legalisation, especially given their experience of other public health debates.

The alcohol industry, for example, pushed individual rights and consumer responsibility to undermine effective public health measures such as higher taxes and bans on advertising.

Personal choice vs public health

The assumption all adults can make responsible choices about using psychoactive drugs is also challenged. There are risks of dependency that could interfere with personal autonomy, and the psychological influence of marketing that targets vulnerable groups such as the young and poor.

There is a fine line between respecting people’s right to choose and facilitating the normalisation and commercialisation of something that could lead to poor public health.

The use of any psychoactive substance carries the potential to harm personal and family relationships, and cause unsafe driving or workplace accidents. This reinforces the argument that some degree of regulation and state intervention will always be necessary.

The age-old question is how best to balance the powers of the state with individual rights to privacy and autonomy, while protecting public health and vulnerable groups.

The absence of recreational users’ voices

Society appears more receptive to the personal right to use medicinal cannabis.

Despite the (as yet) limited scientific evidence for the effectiveness of cannabis in medical treatment, greater legal availability of medicinal cannabis attracts good public support. This is largely based on respecting a person’s decisions about how to treat their illness.

The right to use cannabis recreationally requires decision makers to consider the benefits people get from its use, such as pleasure or relaxation. But this is often forgotten or avoided in drug reform debates.

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

Medicinal cannabis users have been actively involved in the cannabis law reform debate, with a representative on the Medicinal Cannabis Advisory Group. But recreational cannabis users seem to be largely absent from the public debate.

Including more voices from recreational cannabis users could provide new ways of thinking about balancing the powers of the state with individual rights.

Given the current uncertainties about the long-term health and social impacts of legalisation, the individual rights issue may actually be among the more convincing arguments for reform.

Q: What do you think? Do people have a right to use cannabis for recreational purposes, in public or private? Post your comment below and be part of The Conversation.

– ref. The missing question from New Zealand’s cannabis debate: what about personal freedom and individual rights? – https://theconversation.com/the-missing-question-from-new-zealands-cannabis-debate-what-about-personal-freedom-and-individual-rights-146304

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Llewelyn Hughes, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

“Picking winners” has been anathema to Australian policy-making for decades. The federal government’s technology investment roadmap bucks the trend, targeting public investments in specific low-emissions technologies.

The first low emissions technology statement, released on Tuesday by federal energy minister Angus Taylor, flags public investment in five areas: hydrogen, energy storage, low-carbon steel and aluminium, carbon capture and storage, and soil carbon storage.

It’s encouraging to see the government recognise its role in industry policy. Government support matters in the early stage of development for industries.

But it’s also important the government makes the right calls on technology investment. If not, we will lock in increases to carbon emissions, and lose potential economic benefits. So here’s a closer look at the good, the bad and the ugly of the low-emissions technology roadmap.

First, the good

The roadmap includes a series of specific targets for each priority technology. For example, the government wants hydrogen produced at A$2 per kilogram – a price research suggests is achievable in the coming years, even when renewable energy is used to produce it.

Each of these targets includes specific dollar figures – something experts recommended during the consultation process. Such targets can help the private sector gauge the government’s ambition, guiding their own investment choices. So we are pleased the federal government recognises its role here.

Read more: Angus Taylor’s tech roadmap is fundamentally flawed — renewables are doable almost everywhere

We also welcome the roadmap’s recognition that Australia is not a technological island. Australia is a laggard in public investment in low-carbon technologies; governments in China, Japan and Germany are investing heavily, as is the European Union. Australia must carefully choose the areas where we have a competitive advantage, and where we’re better off relying on importing from others.

Commendably, the government also says it will transparently monitor the impact of its investments and seek to identify which are underperforming, so it can calibrate its approach over time. It is crucial these evaluations can be assessed independently.

Next, the bad

While it is good to have numeric targets, their credibility is weakened by the absence of a time frame in which they should be met.

More generally, the roadmap provides no detail on how the government decided which technologies to target. There also is no information enabling an independent assessment of the expected reduction in carbon emissions and increased economic activity.

Without these crucial details, it is impossible to determine the wisdom of the government’s choices.

Read more: ‘A dose of reality’: Morrison government’s new $1.9 billion techno-fix for climate change is a small step

The roadmap is also firmly opposed to supporting technologies all the way to mainstream adoption. Yet a clear path to future market demand is exactly what’s needed to entice private enterprise to invest in a new technology. Germany encouraged widespread uptake of solar technology both by supporting technology developers and through generous government subsidies.

Demand creation is also needed to lift technological breakthroughs over the “valley of death” – the gap between invention and commercialisation, into which so many innovations fall.

Most controversially, the plan claims gas is a way to produce “clean” hydrogen, in combination with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. But this method is unproven at scale, and is not all that clean – substantial CO₂ will inevitably be released in the process.

The selection may have resulted from the guidance provided by the ministerial reference panel, which advised the government on its plan and featured a representative from the gas industry. Solar or wind – or any manufacturing industries that ought to benefit from green hydrogen deployment – were not equally represented.

And finally, the ugly

The roadmap states the Morrison government intends to take a hands-off approach to mature technologies such as coal, gas, solar and wind power. But this statement is misleading, because the playing field was never level to begin with.

The International Monetary Fund estimates Australia provides tens of billions of dollars in subsidies annually to support fossil fuels. The government’s economic recovery plan from the COVID-19 downturn involves subsidies for the gas industry. And the absence of a carbon price in Australia – which would force CO₂ producers to pay for their pollution – is effectively another fossil fuel subsidy.

The roadmap considers manufacturing using renewables-produced hydrogen to be competitive by 2040. This suggests gas-with-CCS will at best have a temporary emissions-reduction role in industry. So ultimately, this investment path offers false hope, and may be used by fossil fuel incumbents to further delay a genuine energy transition.

Winning at picking

Throwing fistfuls of dollars at early-stage technology can be risky. And public investment in innovation is best spent on technologies help make Australia’s low-carbon export industries competitive in the long term.

Through the roadmap, and associated low-emissions technology statement, the government has developed a useful way to embrace low-carbon “mission-innovation” through targeted support for specific technologies.

To make the roadmap work, ongoing, open and transparent evaluation of whether technologies are achieving this mission must be at its heart.

Most importantly, long-term technology roadmaps should not deflect attention from the most important mission of all: urgently accelerating emissions reduction to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, and minimise the risk of catastrophic climate change.

Read more: Japan is closing its old, dirty power plants – and that’s bad news for Australia’s coal exports

– ref. ‘The good, the bad and the ugly’: here’s the lowdown on Australia’s low-emissions roadmap – https://theconversation.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-heres-the-lowdown-on-australias-low-emissions-roadmap-146743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn Cox, Associate Professor of Literacy Education, University of New England

The government’s university funding reform package passed the lower house in early September and will pass the Senate if the Coalition succeeds in garnering enough crossbench support.

The plan would see fees for some humanities degrees rise by as much as 113%, while fees for courses in fields such as teaching, nursing and STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) would drop.

Education Minister Dan Tehan has said the bill aims to create more “job-ready” graduates, including teachers. But undergraduate education only degrees aren’t the only way to create brilliant teachers.

There’s no doubt demand is high for teachers with expertise in STEM subjects such as maths. But students also deserve expert English, history, civics or geography teachers too. Perhaps your favourite teacher at school did an arts or humanities degree, especially if they taught in one of those subjects.

An under-discussed aspect of the government’s proposal is it risks pushing many would-be teachers in these fields away from undergraduate humanities training, potentially at the expense of their future students.

Read more: Why degree cost increases will hit women hardest

Producing excellent teachers

We all know what makes a great teacher — someone who loves what they are teaching (their discipline) and is passionate about engaging students.

Research from the University of Melbourne suggests there is rich relationship between the teacher as a person and their teaching practice, which includes their subject knowledge. The attributes of effective teachers include personality, cognitive capability, self-efficacy (belief in one’s ability to get the job done), communication style, motivation, cultural competence and self-reflection, the researchers found.

But as anyone who has met a brilliant teacher can tell you, passion for the subject matter is also crucial.

If we want teachers (particularly secondary teachers) to know and love their subject, and we want brilliant English, history or civics teachers, why make it so costly for them to gain deep background knowledge in the disciplines they’re destined to teach?

What do teachers study at university?

There are commonly multiple routes into teacher education: one via a dedicated Initial Teacher Education (ITE) degree (typically a Bachelor of Education) and another via a postgraduate ITE degree (typically Masters of Teaching). However, a double degree, one that invites depth in both subject matter and educational expertise, is becoming increasing popular.

Research published in 2011 by the Australian Council of Educational Research said

Overall about 29% of primary teachers hold a qualification in a field other than Education, as do about 57% of secondary teachers […] The difference between primary and secondary proportions is mainly due to the fact that secondary teachers are more likely to complete a degree in an area like Arts or Science before undertaking a graduate qualification in Education.

In other words, many current teachers have arts degrees and current students are reaping the benefit of this in-depth knowledge.

In the almost 50 countries that contributed data to the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey in 2019, discipline knowledge took up the largest amount of initial teacher education, followed by pedagogy and classroom practice. Interestingly, across these OECD countries, teaching was the first-choice career for two out of three teachers.

The 2014 report Mapping the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences in Australia noted there were

[…] current debates regarding the importance of school teachers having substantial disciplinary backgrounds in the subject area they are destined to teach, rather than merely training in education […] data implies that there may be as little as 18% of the degree programme available for developing a disciplinary background in a [Field of Education or FOE] other than Education; if that is indeed the case, it would be hard to argue that this enables the acquisition of a substantial disciplinary background in another FoE.

That same report said:

In 2011 Education students received 82% of their teaching from the Education FoE, with the largest service teaching component coming from Society and Culture (9%). As noted earlier, this is much lower than one would expect or is desirable if, for instance, prospective high school teachers are expected to have majored in the discipline they wish to go on and teach.

Read more: The government is making ‘job-ready’ degrees cheaper for students – but cutting funding to the same courses

Inspiring teachers

Did you have an English teacher who studied literature, and imparted their love of it to you? Or a history teacher who brought stories from the past to life, because they’d studied them in depth as a history major? Perhaps you remember a geography teacher who instilled in you deep curiosity about culture and geopolitics, because they majored in this field at uni.

Doesn’t the next generation of school students deserve the same?

– ref. If we want brilliant English, history or geography teachers, why are we making humanities courses so costly? – https://theconversation.com/if-we-want-brilliant-english-history-or-geography-teachers-why-are-we-making-humanities-courses-so-costly-146319

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Gildersleeve, Associate Professor of English Literature, University of Southern Queensland

I sit at my kitchen table to write this essay, as hundreds of thousands of women have done before me. It is not my own room, but such things are still a luxury for most women today. The table will do. I am fortunate I can make a living “by my wits,” as Virginia Woolf puts it in her famous feminist treatise, A Room of One’s Own (1929).

That living enabled me to buy not only the room, but the house in which I sit at this table. It also enables me to pay for safe, reliable childcare so I can have time to write.

It is as true today, therefore, as it was almost a century ago when Woolf wrote it, that “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction” — indeed, write anything at all.

Still, Woolf’s argument, as powerful and influential as it was then — and continues to be — is limited by certain assumptions when considered from a contemporary feminist perspective.

Woolf’s book-length essay began as a series of lectures delivered to female students at the University of Cambridge in 1928. Its central feminist premise — that women writer’s voices have been silenced through history and they need to fight for economic equality to be fully heard — has become so culturally pervasive as to enter the popular lexicon.

Julia Gillard’s A Podcast of One’s Own, takes its lead from the essay, as does Anonymous Was a Woman, a prominent arts funding body based in New York.

Even the Bechdel-Wallace test, measuring the success of a narrative according to whether it features at least two named women conversing about something other than a man, can be seen to descend from the “Chloe liked Olivia” section of Woolf’s book. In this section, the hypothetical characters of Chloe and Olivia share a laboratory, care for their children, and have conversations about their work, rather than about a man.

Woolf’s identification of women as a poorly paid underclass still holds relevance today, given the gender pay gap. As does her emphasis on the hierarchy of value placed on men’s writing compared to women’s (which has led to the establishment of awards such as the Stella Prize).

Read more: Friday essay: science fiction’s women problem

Invisible women

In her book, Woolf surveys the history of literature, identifying a range of important and forgotten women writers, including novelists Jane Austen, George Eliot and the Brontes, and playwright Aphra Behn.

In doing so, she establishes a new model of literary heritage that acknowledges not only those women who succeeded, but those who were made invisible: either prevented from working due to their sex, or simply cast aside by the value systems of patriarchal culture.

Read more: Friday essay: George Eliot 200 years on – a scandalous life, a brilliant mind and a huge literary legacy

To illustrate her point, she creates Judith, an imaginary sister of the playwright Shakespeare.

What if such a woman had shared her brother’s talents and was as adventurous, “as agog to see the world” as he was? Would she have had the freedom, support and confidence to write plays? Tragically, she argues, such a woman would likely have been silenced — ultimately choosing suicide over an unfulfilled life of domestic servitude and abuse.

In her short, passionate book, Woolf examines women’s letter writing, showing how it can illustrate women’s aptitude for writing, yet also the way in which women were cramped and suppressed by social expectations.

She also makes clear that the lack of an identifiable matrilineal literary heritage works to impede women’s ability to write.

Indeed, the establishment of those major women writers in the 18th and 19th centuries (George Eliot, the Brontes et al), when “the middle-class woman began to write” is, Woolf argues, a moment in history “of greater importance than the Crusades or the War of the Roses”.

Male critics such as T.S. Eliot and Harold Bloom have identified a (male) writer’s relation to his precursors as necessary for his own literary production. But how, Woolf asks, is a woman to write if she has no model to look back on or respond to? If we are women, she wrote, “we think back through our mothers”.

Read more: #ThanksforTyping: the women behind famous male writers

Her argument inspired later feminist revisionist work of literary critics like Elaine Showalter, Sandra K. Gilbert and Susan Gubar who sought to restore the reputation of forgotten women writers and turn critical attention to women’s writing as a field worthy of dedicated study.

All too often in history, Woolf asserts, “Woman” is simply the object of the literary text — either the adored, voiceless beauty to whom the sonnet is dedicated or reflecting back the glow of man himself.

Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size.

A Room of One’s Own returns that authority to both the woman writer and the imagined female reader whom she addresses.

Stream of consciousness

A Room of One’s Own also demonstrates several aspects of Woolf’s modernism. The early sections demonstrate her virtuoso stream of consciousness technique. She ruminates on women’s position in, and relation to, fiction while wandering through the university campus, driving through country lanes, and dawdling over a leisurely, solo lunch.

Critically, she employs telling patriarchal interruptions to that flow of thought.

A beadle waves his arms in exasperation as she walks on a private patch of grass. A less-than-satisfactory dinner is served to the women’s college. A “deprecating, silvery, kindly gentleman” turns her away from the library. These interruptions show the frequent disruption to the work of a woman without a room.

This is the lesson also imparted in Woolf’s 1927 novel To the Lighthouse where artist Lily Briscoe must shed the overbearing influence of Mr and Mrs Ramsay, a couple who symbolise Victorian culture, if she is to “have her vision”. The flights and flow of modernist technique are not possible without the time and space to write and think for herself.

A Room of One’s Own has been crucial to the feminist movement and women’s literary studies. But it is not without problems. Woolf admits her good fortune in inheriting £500 a year from an aunt.

Indeed her purse now “breed(s) ten-shilling notes automatically”.

Part of the purpose of the essay is to encourage women to make their living through writing.

But Woolf seems to lack an awareness of her own privilege and how much harder it is for most women to fund their own artistic freedom. It is easy for her to advise against “doing work that one did not wish to do, and to do it like a slave, flattering and fawning”.

In her book, Woolf also criticises the “awkward break” in Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre (1847), in which Bronte’s own voice interrupts the narrator’s in a passionate protest against the treatment of women.

Here, Woolf shows little tolerance for emotion, which has historically often been dismissed as hysteria when it comes to women discussing politics.

A Room of One’s Own ends with an injunction to work for the coming of Shakespeare’s sister, that woman forgotten by history. “So to work, even in poverty and obscurity, is worthwhile”.

Such a woman author must have her vision, even if her work will be “stored in attics” rather than publicly exhibited.

The room and the money are the ideal, we come to see, but even without them the woman writer must write, must think, in anticipation of a future for her daughter-artists to come.

An adaptation of A Room of One’s Own is currently at Sydney’s Belvoir Theatre.

– ref. Guide to the classics: A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf’s feminist call to arms – https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-a-room-of-ones-own-virginia-woolfs-feminist-call-to-arms-145398

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

The Morrison government will make sweeping changes to the insolvency system to improve the chances of saving small businesses hit by the pandemic.

The reforms – which are described as the most significant for three decades – will cover three quarters of businesses currently subject to insolvency, almost all of which have less than 20 employees.

The measures include:

• a new process for restructuring debt for incorporated businesses with liabilities under $1 million

• moving from a one-size-fits-all “creditor in possession” model to a more flexible “debtor in possession” model – allowing eligible small businesses to restructure debts while remaining in control of their enterprise

• a rapid 20-business day period for the development of a restructuring plan by a small business restructuring practitioner (SBRP), followed by 15 business days for creditors to vote on the plan

• a simplified liquidation process for small businesses which will be quicker and cheaper

• measures to ensure the insolvency sector can respond effectively to increased demand.

The COVID crisis has put new pressures on the insolvency system, and highlighted problems that were there already.

More businesses are in financial distress, and the one-size-fits-all arrangement doesn’t take account of the varying complexities of businesses. The current high costs and lengthy procedures can stop distressed small businesses engaging early when their chances of survival are better.

The government says the present requirements around voluntary administration are more suited to large, complex company insolvencies than to small businesses.

The new process would streamline the role for, and powers of, the small business restructuring practitioner compared with the role played by an administrator in a voluntary administration.

The government earlier provided some relief to help shield financially distressed businesses – and the numbers of companies going into external administration have been running at lower rates than last year. But the assistance expires at the end of December.

Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe recently warned of a wave of business failures, saying: “There will be insolvencies. There will be bankruptcies. There will be some businesses that will not recover. That’s the harsh reality of an economic downturn that’s the worst in 100 years.”

The government has looked to overseas practice, notably reforms in the United States, as well as recommendations from the Productivity Commission in framing its changes.

There will be safeguards to prevent misconduct, and protections for creditors’ interests.

The new system requires legislation. It is due to start January 1.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said the reforms “are a critical part of our economic recovery plan and will help to boost business confidence and dynamism across the economy by allowing viable businesses to survive as our economy rebuilds.

“The government’s new reforms draw on key features of the US Chapter 11 bankruptcy process allowing small businesses to restructure their debts while remaining in control of their businesses,” he said.

– ref. Government will reform insolvency system to improve distressed small businesses’ survival chances – https://theconversation.com/government-will-reform-insolvency-system-to-improve-distressed-small-businesses-survival-chances-146774

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thas Ampalavanapillai Nirmalathas, Group Head – Electronic and Photonic Systems Group and Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Melbourne

The federal government has announced a A$3.5 billion upgrade to the National Broadband Network (NBN) that will grant two million households on-demand access to faster fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) internet by 2023.

The plan may go as far as to upgrade the FTTN services to fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP), but this wasn’t made entirely clear in communications minister Paul Fletcher’s announcement.

He said the upgrade would involve expanding current FTTN connections to run along more streets across the country, giving more people the option to connect to broadband speeds of up to one gigabit per second. Improvements have also been promised for the hybrid fibre coaxial (HFC) and fibre-to-the-curb (FTTC) systems.

Altogether the upgrades are expected to give about six million households the higher broadband speeds. But how will the existing infrastructure be boosted? And who will miss out?

Getting ahead of the terminology

Let’s first understand the various terms used to describe aspects of the NBN network.

Fibre to the Premises (FTTP)

FTTP refers to households with an optical fibre connection running from a device on a wall of a house directly to the network. This provides reliable high-speed internet.

The “network” simply refers to the exchange point from which households’ broadband connections are passed to service providers, such as Telstra, who then help them get connected.

Fibre to the Node (FTTN)

The FTTN system serves about 4.7 million premises in Australia, out of a total 11.5 million covered under the NBN.

With FTTN, households are connected via a copper line to a “node” in their neighbourhood. This node is connected to the network with fibre optic cables that transfer data much faster than copper cables.

With FTTN systems, the quality of the broadband service depends on the length of the copper cabling and the choice of technology used to support data transmission via this cable.

It’s technically possible to offer high internet speeds when copper cables are very short and the latest data transmission technologies are being used.

In reality, however, Australia’s FTTN speeds using a fibre/copper mix have been slow. A FTTN connection’s reliability also depends on network conditions, such as the age of the copper cabling and whether any of the signal is leaking due to degradation.

Fibre to the Curb (FTTC)

The limitations of FTTN can be sidestepped by extending fibre cables from the network right up to a curbside “distribution point unit” nearer to households. This unit becomes the “node” of the network.

FTTC significantly improves data transmission speeds. This is because it services relatively fewer households (allowing better signal transmission to each one) and reduces the length of copper cable required.

Hybrid Fibre Coaxial (HFC)

The NBN also uses coaxial cables instead of copper cables in many areas. These were first installed by Optus and Telstra in the 1990s to deliver cable broadband and television. They have since been modernised for use in the NBN’s fibre network.

In theory, HFC systems should be able to offer internet speeds of more than 100 megabits per second. But many households have been unable to achieve this due to the poor condition of cabling infrastructure in some parts, as well as large numbers of households sharing a single coaxial cable.

Coaxial cables are the most limiting part of the HFC system. Expanding the length of fibre cabling (and shortening the coaxial cables being used) would allow much faster internet speeds. The NBN’s 2020 corporate plan identifies this as a priority.

The minister today said the planned upgrades would ensure all customers serviced by HFC would have access to speeds of “up to” one gigabit per second. Currently, only 7% of HFC customers do.

Mixing things up isn’t always a good idea

Under the original NBN plan, the Labor government in 2009 promised optical fibre connections for 93% of all Australian households.

Successive reviews led to the use of multiple technologies in the network, rather than the full-fibre network Labor envisioned. As a result, many households have not been able to upgrade their connection because of limitations to the technology available in their neighbourhood.

Read more: The NBN: how a national infrastructure dream fell short

Also, many businesses currently served by FTTN can’t access speeds that meet their needs. To avoid internet speed hindering their work, most businesses need a minimum speed between 100 megabits and 1 gigabit per second, depending on their scale.

Currently, no FTTN services and few HFC services can support such speeds.

Moreover, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s NBN monitoring report published in May (during the pandemic) found in about 95% of cases, NBN plans only delivered 83-91% of the maximum advertised speed.

The report also showed 10% of the monitored services were underperforming and 95% of these were FTTN services. This makes a clear case for the need to upgrade FTTN.

Who will benefit?

While the NBN’s most recent corporate plan identifies work to be done across its various offerings (FTTN, FTTC, HFC, fixed wireless), it’s unclear exactly what each system stands to gain from today’s announcements.

Ideally, urban and regional households that can’t currently access 100 megabits per second speeds would be prioritised for fibre deployment. The expanded FTTN network should also cover people who are struggling to access reliable broadband across regional Australia.

Bringing fibre cabling to households in remote areas would be difficult. One option, however, would be to extend fibre connections to an expanded network of base stations in regional Australia, to improve the NBN’s capacity for fixed wireless connectivity.

These base stations can “beam” signals to nearby premises. Installing more stations would mean fewer premises covered by each (and therefore better connectivity).

Regardless, it’s important the expansion happens quickly. Many NBN customers now working and studying from home will be waiting for a much-needed boost to their internet speed.

Read more: How to boost your internet speed when everyone is working from home

– ref. NBN upgrades explained: how will they make internet speeds faster? And will the regions miss out? – https://theconversation.com/nbn-upgrades-explained-how-will-they-make-internet-speeds-faster-and-will-the-regions-miss-out-146749

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Johan Lidberg, Associate Professor, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University

According to an ABC report, government funds were fast-tracked to Foxtel during the coronavirus pandemic.

This news will raise eyebrows, as the media — like so many industries — tries to survive the pain and disruption brought by COVID-19.

Why are some outlets missing out when others have their requests prioritised?

The Foxtel fast-track

The background to these latest Foxtel funds is a $30 million grant, controversially awarded to the subscription broadcaster in 2017.

This was to

support the broadcast of underrepresented sports on subscription television, including women’s sports, niche sports and sports with a high level of community involvement and participation.

At the time, media reports noted the government did not adequately explain why it had given the funds to Foxtel.

Fast-forward to April 2020 and COVID-19 was wreaking havoc in the media sector. The federal government announced a support package for the media, but Foxtel missed out.

Read more: That was the news: a sad farewell to the ABC’s 7:45am bulletin

However, as the ABC reported, after a letter from Foxtel chief executive Patrick Delany, the TV service quickly received $17.5 million.

This included bringing forward $7.5 million of taxpayer money already granted to Foxtel. In July 2020, a further $10 million was awarded to Foxtel, with the same opaque justification as the 2017 grant.

The ABC was able to report the process behind these developments following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

Foxtel supported as national broadcaster struggles

The Foxtel funds came amid yet another round of cost-cutting and job losses at the ABC. In June, the ABC announced 250 job losses to deal with an $84 million budget shortfall.

As of this week, the iconic 7:45am radio bulletin no longer features in Australians’ morning routines as a result of the cuts.

Meanwhile, regional media outlets have been particularly hard hit during COVID. We have also seen recent job losses at News Corp (who is a part owner of Foxtel) and Channel 10.

What support have media companies had during COVID?

The government announced a COVID-support package for the media in April.

This included $41 million in rebates for use of the broadcasting spectrum, targeted at commercial television and radio broadcasters.

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

A $50 million Public Interest News Gathering program was also announced to support public interest journalism delivered by commercial television, newspaper and radio businesses in regional Australia.

Is this the best use of taxpayer funds?

The reports of the fast-tracked funds to Foxtel beg the question, where is public money best spent? On the public broadcaster so it can maintain its crucial services (with another bushfire season around the corner) — or on a subscription-based commercial broadcaster?

When you consider the different support packages the Morrison government has launched as part of its pandemic response, there is one glaring omission — support for the national broadcaster.

The ABC is the most trusted media brand in the country. But instead of supporting it, to help us get through the pandemic, the Coalition continues to bleed it. This is the polar opposite to its support of News Corp-owned Foxtel, a relationship the government seems much more comfortable with and clearly prioritises.

Not enough information

When considering whether Foxtel deserves its funding, it would be useful to see a government-issued summary of how it used the first $30 million.

We have seen some reporting (again via FOI requests) of how the initial $7 million was used to boost sports coverage. But given this is taxpayers’ money, best practice would be open and transparent government reporting on how the funding is utilised.

It would also be useful to have an explanation of why the extra funds were provided now.

Unfortunately, information access and openness has not been the Morrison government’s forte.

We have seen a number of cases where the FOI process has been contrary to the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, which holds that as much information as possible should be made available to the public.

The blocking of FOI requests over Energy Minister Angus Taylor’s attack on Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore is one recent example.

The recent requests to the Morrison government about Foxtel is another. According to the ABC, more than half of the hundreds of pages released were blacked out and 80% of the rest had substantial redactions. Communications Minister Paul Fletcher’s chief of staff, Ryan Bloxsom, was one of the FOI decision makers and justified the extensive redactions in this way:

I do not consider it would inform debate on a matter of public importance or promote effective oversight of public expenditure.

This is not just out of line with the aims of the FOI Act, it means Australians remain ill-informed about how and why tax payer money is being spent. Our public discourse is worse of for it.

This makes funding public interest journalism even more important — especially in the regions where coverage of courts and local councils is the engine room of our democracy.

Read more: Funding public interest journalism requires creative solutions. A tax rebate for news media could work

– ref. Is fast-tracking funds to Foxtel the best way to support the media during COVID? – https://theconversation.com/is-fast-tracking-funds-to-foxtel-the-best-way-to-support-the-media-during-covid-146759

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

Former prime minister Paul Keating has launched an extraordinary attack on the Reserve Bank, accusing it of having “one of its dalliances with indolence”, and describing it as “the Reverse Bank”.

Keating, who was treasurer in the Hawke government and once boasted of having the Reserve Bank in his pocket, said the bank’s job was “to help the government meet the task of full employment” and it was failing in this.

He accused its officials of being “the high priests” of incrementalism.

His outburst, in a statement issued on Wednesday, followed a speech this week by the bank’s deputy governor Guy Debelle who canvassed the pros and cons of options for further monetary policy action if the bank’s board decided it was needed.

These included buying bonds further out along the curve, foreign exchange intervention, lowering rates without going into negative territory, and moving to negative rates.

Keating labelled Debelle’s contribution “meandering thoughts”.

“Knowing full well that monetary policy can now no longer add to nominal demand – something that now, only fiscal policy is capable of doing, the Reserve Bank is way behind the curve in supporting the government in its budgetary funding measures,” Keating said.

“For a moment, it showed some unlikely form in pursuing its 0.25% bond yield target for three year Treasury bonds and a low interest facility for banks.

“But now, after 600,000 superannuation accounts were cleared and closed down, with 500,000 of those belonging to people under 35 – a withdrawal of $35 billion in personal savings, and further demands arising from the employment hiatus in Victoria, [Debelle] yesterday strolled out with debating points about what further RBA action might be contemplated.”

Keating said that in his office when he was treasurer, the bank was nicknamed “the Reverse Bank”, because it was too slow raising rates in the late 1980s and too slow lowering them in the early 1990s – which gave Australia “a recession deeper than it would have otherwise had”.

As treasurer he’d “worn the cost of the bank’s indolence in the task of smashing inflation”. And as a measure of his giving the bank more discretion, as prime minister he’d worn the “great political cost” of the bank’s rate rises.

“As history has shown, when a real crisis is upon us the RBA is invariably late to the party. And so it is again,” Keating said.

The bank’s act had two objectives – price stability (not a problem at the moment) and full employment, Keating said.

“The Act says the Bank and the government should endeavour to agree on policies which meet that objective – in this case, employment.”

The bank “should be explicitly supporting the government so the country does not experience a massive fall in employment”, hitting particularly younger workers.

But instead of that, Debelle “conducts a guessing competition on what incremental step the Bank might take to help,” Keating said.

“These are the high priests of the incremental. Making absolutely certain that not a bank toe will be put across the line of central bank orthodoxy.

“Certainly not buying bonds directly from the Treasury – wash your mouth out on that one – what would they say about us at the annual BIS meeting in Basel?

“Not even ambitiously buying sufficient bonds in the secondary market, like the European Central Bank or the Bank of Japan.”

He said the bank should “shoulder the load. And in a super-low inflationary world, that load is funding fiscal policy. Mountainous sums of it.

“In an economic emergency of the current dimension that means putting the orthodoxy into perspective and doing what is sensibly required.”

Like other central banks, the Reserve Bank “has become a sort of deity, where lesser mortals might inquire, however respectfully, what the exalted priests might be thinking or have in mind for their prosperity or the country at large,” Keating said.

“The Governor and his deputies do not wear clerical collars and black suits. But that is the only difference in their comport and attitude.”

– ref. Reserve Bank ‘dallies with indolence’ instead of helping government pursue full employment: Paul Keating – https://theconversation.com/reserve-bank-dallies-with-indolence-instead-of-helping-government-pursue-full-employment-paul-keating-146768

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary-Louise McLaws, Professor of Epidemiology Healthcare Infection and Infectious Diseases Control, UNSW

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews flagged on Wednesday that metropolitan Melbourne’s restrictions could be eased further than initially planned on Monday September 28.

The 14-day average of daily new cases has fallen to 29.4. This is below the 30 to 50 required for the second step of the roadmap out of restrictions, planned for 11:59pm this Sunday.

Andrews wouldn’t confirm which restrictions will be eased, but from an outbreak-management perspective, we should be cautious about easing anything too quickly.

It would be a huge shame to see Victorians’ pain and sacrifices undone, and I hope the restrictions will be eased early based on epidemiological advice, rather than mounting political pressure.

Fortnightly average still in the ‘red zone’

The 14-day case average of 29.4 is based on the new cases announced each day, though sometimes cases are reclassified later on. According to my corrected data, the new case average is 30. Either way, it’s a vast improvement compared with the peak in early August when 14-day average reached over 460.

Nevertheless, the current figure is still in the “red zone” of more than 100 cumulative cases in the past fortnight, where cases can spiral out of control if restrictions are eased too suddenly.

Ideally, the most significant easing of restrictions would only happen when the 14-day average hits the “green zone” of fewer than five cases, which is currently planned for October 26.

Read more: New South Wales on a knife edge as cumulative coronavirus case numbers spiral into the ‘red zone’

It’s risky to relax too soon, because there are still many “mystery cases” for which the source of infection is unknown. Victoria’s Deputy Chief Health Officer Allen Cheng confirmed these mystery cases are currently spread across 18 local government areas. He said:

Most of those are still in the areas where we are concerned […] Each local government area has a relatively small number of cases and I guess it does reflect that there has been community transmission out there.

These areas include Casey in Melbourne’s southeast, and Brimbank and Hume in the city’s northwest.

I would be very cautious about easing restrictions ahead of schedule when there are still mystery cases. There is likely still some community transmission that is yet to be detected by contact tracers.

Cheng added, however, that if the number of mystery cases continues to decline, this would give confidence there has been minimal further community transmission.

The early easing of restrictions could be justified if the new cases are within known risk groups and we are confident that the risk has been contained.

Curfew to stay

Andrews confirmed he wouldn’t yet budge on the nightly curfew, which has been subject to intense questioning by journalists and commentators, and criticism from some members of the public.

From an outbreak-management perspective this is the right approach. The curfew has several aims, one of which is to restrict the movement of younger people. Younger people have been disproportionately COVID-positive during Victoria’s second wave. Younger adults tend to be more socially connected, have more daily contacts with one another, and often work at several workplaces. All these factors increase the chances of acquiring and transmitting COVID-19.

Read more: COVID-19 cases are highest in young adults. We need to partner with them for the health of the whole community

Aged care still a risk

There’s an ongoing risk to Victoria’s case numbers from residential aged care. If the virus continues to circulate in aged care, it poses a risk to residents and staff, and might also escape to the wider community via infected staff.

Aged-care homes must provide adequate personal protective equipment. There have been concerns among staff that surgical masks are not enough to prevent contracting COVID-19. The World Health Organisation does recommend a surgical mask and face shield, but this requires a minimum safe airflow change in rooms to prevent exhaled infectious particles from hanging in the air and causing airborne spread.

Scientists believe most transmission occurs through droplets, but poorly ventilated environments might explain the increased risk of airborne spread in confined spaces.

Read more: Is the airborne route a major source of coronavirus transmission?

Most residential aged-care facilities will not be able to meet the safe level of room airflow of 40-80 litres per second per resident.

Therefore, in situations where airflow is not adequate, surgical masks should be replaced with respirator masks, such as N95 or P2 masks, to prevent staff acquiring the virus at work.

It’s likely that transmission in aged care homes will continue if this issue isn’t addressed. The issue of poor airflow could also apply to other workplaces like abattoirs, factories and shared office spaces. Going forward, they too should consider the risk of airborne spread.

– ref. Daniel Andrews has flagged a quicker easing of Melbourne’s restrictions. But cases are still in the ‘red zone’ – https://theconversation.com/daniel-andrews-has-flagged-a-quicker-easing-of-melbournes-restrictions-but-cases-are-still-in-the-red-zone-146756

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cynthia Faye Isley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Environmental Science, Macquarie University

We know forests absorb carbon dioxide, but, like a sponge, they also soak up years of pollutants from human activity. When bushfires strike, these pollutants are re-released into the air with smoke and ash.

Our new research examined air samples from four major bushfires near Sydney between 1984 and 2004. We found traces of potentially toxic metals sourced from the city’s air — lead, cadmium and manganese — among the fine particles of soil and burnt vegetation in bushfire smoke.

These trace metals were associated with leaded petrol — which hasn’t been used since 2002 — and industrial emissions, which include past metal processing, fossil fuel burning, refineries, transport and power generation.

This means bushfires, such as the those that devastated Australia last summer, can remobilise pollutants we’ve long phased out. The health and other effects may not be fully understood or realised for decades.

Analysing air samples

We chose four major bushfires — which occurred in 1984, 1987, 2001-2002 and 2004 — because of their known impact on air quality across Sydney. The New South Wales government collected air samples every sixth day on filters over that period and archived them, which meant we could study them years later.

We analysed these air samples during the bushfire periods and compared them to the months either side of each event.

Read more: California is on fire. From across the Pacific, Australians watch on and buckle up

As expected, air pollution levels were higher during bushfires periods, in terms of total suspended particles and fine particles (“PM10”, which are particles 10 microns or less in size).

Using statistical analyses, we separated the source components of the particles: those from natural soils and those originating from human-sourced pollutants. We found the concentration of the human-sourced pollutant component — containing lead and cadmium — doubled during bushfire periods.

Pollution of the air with cadmium is associated with mining, refining, burning fossil fuels, and even from household wastes. But the source of lead pollution has a more complicated story.

A story written in lead

Isotopes are variants of an element, such as lead. Different lead “isotopes” have different atomic masses.

Our study measured lead isotopes in the air samples to “fingerprint” the pollution sources.

The data show that the source of the lead ranges from natural origins derived from the weathering of rocks to those from leaded petrol emissions.

Read more: Explainer: what is an isotope?

Leaded petrol started being phased out in 1985 due to environmental and health concerns, and hasn’t been used in vehicles since 2002. Much smaller amounts are still used in AVGAS — the fuel used to power small piston aircraft engines.

As a result, lead levels in Sydney’s air decreased dramatically from 1984 to 2004. At the same time, the lead isotopes in the air changed.

The lead used in NSW petrol predominantly came from the mines at Broken Hill. Broken Hill lead has a very different isotopic signature to the lead found in Sydney’s main bedrock, Hawkesbury Sandstone. This corresponds to previous research showing ash from Sydney trees contained Broken Hill lead.

In 1994, lead in Sydney’s air was closer to the Broken Hill lead signature. By 2004, the lead isotopes in air resembled natural Sydney rocks. But during bushfires in 2001-2002 and 2004, the lead that was released started to look more like Broken Hill lead again.

This shows that the forests had absorbed leaded petrol emissions over the 70 years it was used and stored them. When the forests went up in flames, the lead was remobilised along with smoke and other bushfire particles.

What does that mean for our health?

Breathing in bushfire smoke is a serious health risk. Bushfire smoke resulted in more than 400 excess deaths during the devastating 2019-2020 bushfires.

Recently, the focus of air quality and health research has shifted to very fine particles: “PM2.5”. These are particles 2.5 microns or smaller that can penetrate deep into our lungs. During the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-2020, PM2.5 levels reached 85 micrograms per cubic metre of air over 24-hours, more than three times the Australian air quality criteria of 25 micrograms per cubic metre.

While our study shows that potentially toxic metals were more elevated in the atmosphere during bushfires, the concentrations were not likely to be a health risk. The main risk is from the total concentration of fine particles in the air, rather than what they are made of.

Read more: To reduce disasters, we must cut greenhouse emissions. So why isn’t the bushfire royal commission talking about this?

The concentrations of the trace metals measured during the four major bushfires in our study were below Australian and World Health Organisation criteria. The period of increased exposure was also very limited, further reducing risk.

Nevertheless, it’s important to minimise exposure to all chemical contaminants. This is because many, such as lead, have no safe lower exposure limit and the effects are often proportionately greater at the first and lowest exposure levels.

A lingering legacy

It’s not just Australian forests that have a lingering toxic legacy. In Ukraine and Belarus, radioactive materials from Chernobyl have been released during bushfires.

And as global knowledge of the damaging effects of pesticides grew, we stopped using them. Yet we still find them far from civilisation in the frozen Arctic, waiting to be released when the ice melts.

Metals such as lead, copper, manganese and uranium continue to be mined and processed in Australia. The most significant environmental and health impacts are felt by the immediately surrounding communities, particularly children, as contaminants in the air deposit on surfaces and are later ingested.

Globally, the recycling of lead batteries continues to contaminate communities and environments, particularly those in low to middle income countries.

Yes, our modern lifestyles depend on these metals and other toxic chemicals. So, we must mine, use and dispose of them with great care, because once in the environment, they do not go away.

Read more: How bushfires and rain turned our waterways into ‘cake mix’, and what we can do about it

– ref. Our toxic legacy: bushfires release decades of pollutants absorbed by forests – https://theconversation.com/our-toxic-legacy-bushfires-release-decades-of-pollutants-absorbed-by-forests-145542

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lena Wang, Senior Lecturer in Management, RMIT University

With unemployment at its highest rate in three decades, almost a million Australians are experiencing the anxiety of being out of work. Even more are underemployed, and more still holding on to jobs for now, not knowing if that will last.

If you feel secure in your job, you are lucky. Because the psychological fallout of job insecurity can last a lifetime.

Read more: Winding back JobKeeper and JobSeeker will push 740,000 Australians into poverty

Many studies have shown the association between employment and psychological and physical well-being. A meta-analysis of 104 empirical studies by behavioural researcher Frances McKee-Ryan and colleagues argues the evidence is “strongly supportive of a causal relationship” between unemployment and mental health.

The effect of job insecurity, however, has been less researched, even though such insecurity has long been an issue for many in contract-based, casual and gig economy jobs; and it will affect many more as the threat of artificial intelligence and automation looms.

Our large-scale study, tracking the experience of more than a thousand Australians over nearly a decade, suggests job insecurity over a prolonged period can actually change your personality. And that could make a significant difference to your life and well-being decades down the track.

Read more: Hunger, lost income and increased anxiety: how coronavirus lockdowns put huge pressure on young people around the world

How we tracked personality changes

Personality is often assumed to be stable and enduring. A growing body of research, however, shows how personalities evolve over time. For example, on average self-confidence, warmth, self-control and emotional stability tends to increase as we age, with the greatest change being between the age of 20 and 40.

Studies like ours are investigating how work experiences shape personality over time. Previous studies, for example, suggest more autonomy at work can increases a person’s ability to cope with new and unpredictable situations. A demanding and stressful job, on the other hand, can make someone more neurotic and less conscientious.

To explore the possible personality effects, we used data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey, a national survey that collects information from a large and representative sample of Australians each year. The survey tracks the same people as far as is possible, which enables researchers to look at how individual changes over time. Respondents are asked (among other things) how secure they feel their job is, as well as questions relating to personality traits.

We analysed nine years of data from 1,046 Australians working in a range of occupations and professions. Every four years (years 1, 5 and 9) participants completed a well-established personality measure, asking them to describe their characteristics against adjectives such as “talkative”, “moody”, “warm”, “orderly” and “creative”.

These adjectives reflect where people sit in relation to five key personality traits: neuroticism (or emotional stability), extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness.

In our modelling approach, we examined how participants’ chronic job insecurity in preceding years (i.e. during years 1-4 and 5-8) predicted their personality change after this experience (i.e. during years 1-5 and 5-9). We controlled for other job characteristics (such as job autonomy and demands) to establish the specific impact of chronic job insecurity.

Effects of chronic job insecurity

Our analysis showed that workers who experienced job insecurity over several consecutive years became less emotionally stable, less agreeable and less conscientious.

1. Reduced emotional stability

Understandably, chronic job insecurity can cause us to become anxious, tense, irritable and depressed.

Job insecurity itself is already worrying, and when this goes on for a long time, it can make us feel we are trapped in that situation, unable to escape.

As a result, we are likely to become more depressed and neurotic over time with obvious impacts on our personal and family relationships, as well as our professional relationships.

2. Reduced agreeableness

Agreeable people are big on sympathy, cooperation and helping others. They’re the ones really good at building harmonious social relationships.

But when a potential threat hangs over us for an extended period of time, chronic job insecurity can shift our focus to be more on ourselves instead of on others.

This can really affect our standing as a positive and likeable team member at work, or the home.

3. Reduced conscientiousness

Research shows that when we’re constantly worried about the continuity of our jobs we are likely to become less motivated to put in effort, set goals and achieve goals in a reliable way.

This is bad news for those of us trying to keep motivated through tough times. It’s also bad news for who we work for. Maintaining productivity and motivation will be a massive challenge for many mangers.

What this means for personality growth

The three personality traits affected most severely by chronic job insecurity are those most associated with healthy personality growth.

As we age and mature, we generally become more emotionally stable, more agreeable and more conscientious. Our research shows chronic job insecurity can stunt this emotional growth, interrupting the healthy mellowing of our personalities.

How to save your ‘self’

None of this is very cheery. But the good news is that, apart from worrying about it, there are things you can actually do.

The first step is to “know thyself” and be aware of the pitfalls, then to cultivate a growth mindset by accepting change and being open to new opportunities.

Human beings have a natural tendency to perceive uncertainty in negative terms, which helps explain why we are prone to falling into a vicious cycle induced by unemployment and job insecurity. But such negative thinking can be mitigated through conscious awareness and deliberate practice.

Read more: Struggling with the uncertainty of life under coronavirus? How Kierkegaard’s philosophy can help

Focus on things you can control. Look for solutions rather than dwell on problems.

Be willing to learn new skills or take on new tasks. Research has shown that being proactive in managing your career, such as plotting a career plan, actively building a network of contacts for career advice, and talking with peers and boss about future opportunities, all help to cope with insecure work conditions.

Also important is to look out for each other. Support from colleagues, family and friends has been found to help build resilience and confidence, mitigating the potential negative spiral of job insecurity on personality in the long run.

– ref. More neurotic, less agreeable, less conscientious: how job insecurity shapes your personality – https://theconversation.com/more-neurotic-less-agreeable-less-conscientious-how-job-insecurity-shapes-your-personality-146019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olaf Meynecke, Research Fellow in Marine Science, Griffith University

A desperate rescue effort is underway after hundreds of long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) became stranded in Macquarie Harbour on Tasmania’s west coast.

Yesterday, more than 250 pilot whales were reported to have stranded, with one-third presumed dead. And this morning, rescuers found another 200 pilot whales stranded up to ten kilometres away from the first group — most are likely dead.

This brings the total number of stranded pilot whales in Tasmania to more than 450, and it’s believed to be the biggest ever recorded in the state. The Greens are calling on federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley to launch a national response.

The rescue mission aims to refloat the pilot whales that appear to still be in reasonable health. But their behaviour hampers rescue efforts: many pilot whales re-strand themselves to be with their family. This event likely means a number of generations of the local population will be lost.

Read more: Do whales attempt suicide?

How did they become stranded?

Despite its name, the long-finned pilot whale is actually a large oceanic dolphin. They cover vast areas of the Southern (Antarctic) Ocean, reaching between four and six metres in length and weighing up to one tonne.

They are well adapted to deeper oceans where they hunt for various species of squid in depths of between 600-1,000m, using echolocation to find their prey. Echolocation is a way of using sound to navigate in complete darkness.

They generally spend most of their lives offshore and it’s not well understood what conditions drive them close to shore, and to enter shallow embayments.

Some theories suggest food shortages are to blame, or changes in electromagnetic fields that disorient them. They may also be following a sick or distressed pod leader. And in some past cases strandings were related back to active sonar from ships and naval sonar interrupting their echolocation.

Read more: What causes whale mass strandings?

But once in shallow waters, it’s difficult to swim back out. As these whales mostly navigate with echolocation it’s not possible for them to use sonar effectively in shallow and muddy embayments.

It’s extremely distressing for the whales, a lot like trying to find the door in a dark room while hearing your relatives scream for help.

In fact, the stress is what many die from in the end. Other causes of death are overheating from sun exposure and drowning if they can’t move their bodies up to breach the surface in shallow water.

The rescue efforts

There are a number of strategies to refloat whales. In Macquarie Harbour, rescuers are using slings to tow the whales to deeper water, before releasing them.

Other options include multiple people pushing them off the beach during high tide into deeper water.

In this case, albeit potentially dangerous for the helpers, people power can make a big difference. After all, time is of immense importance for success, and to stop more whales beaching.

However, chances of survival plummet with long exposure to sun and extended periods of stress. What’s more, Macquarie Harbour is relatively remote and difficult to access, further complicating rescue efforts.

Dying together

But the biggest obstacle rescuers face is the whales’ social bonding. Long-finned pilot whales are highly intelligent and live in strong social units.

So when dealing with mass strandings, it’s important to realise the emotions and bonding between the whales are very likely beyond what humans can feel. One well-documented example of their emotional depth is the pilot whale seen carrying its dead calf for many days.

This makes the stranding process extremely complex, as it unfolds over several hours to several days — the whales don’t all strand at the same time.

We know from killer whales, which also have strong social bonding, that if a close member of the group strands, others will attempt to join to die together.

Read more: We need to understand the culture of whales so we can save them

The situation for pilot whale pods can be similar, but more complex as a result of having much larger pods. Pilot whale pods have multiple sub-units, which can consist of friends as well as family and they don’t have to be genetically related.

Social units get mixed up when they’re in shallow bays. This means individuals can become disconnected from their social units before the actual stranding occurs, causing stress and confusion prior the beaching.

Fewer pilot whales in the gene pool

There are an estimated 200,000 long-finned pilot whales in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica, but mass strandings like this can have a profound impact on sub-populations.

In Tasmania alone, 1,568 long-finned pilot whales have stranded between 1990 and 2008 in 30 stranding events.

Many similar sad events occured in New Zealand: hundreds of long-finned pilot whales stranded in 2018 and 2017, and the majority died.

To make matters worse, studies suggest the long-finned pilot whales in the Southeastern Pacific have low genetic diversity. There are similarities between this species found in Chile and New Zealand, but with surprisingly distinct differences between New Zealand and Tasmania.

Considering they can live up to 50 years and the fact only few survive when multiple generations strand, such events not only destroy entire generations but also remove them from the gene pool.

This puts local populations at further risk. Inbreeding is one consequence, but the biggest problem is their decreasing general fitness and ability to adapt to changes.

How to help

In the past, significant numbers of stranded whales have been successfully released, making it worth the effort. For example, in one of largest mass strandings in New Zealand in 2017, volunteers helped about 100 whales refloat, and made a human chain to try to stop them restranding.

Read more: It’s time to speak up about noise pollution in the oceans

Still, such events are likely to be more frequent in the future due to changing ocean conditions and increasing human activity such a noise pollution, commercial squid fisheries and deep sea mining.

Climate change shifts ocean currents as sea temperature rises. And with this, squid availability will change. A lack of food offshore can cause stress and drive them closer to shore.

We can help the whales not only by actively supporting rescue organisations such as ORRCA, but also by helping reduce carbon emissions, foster sustainable fisheries, reduce plastic pollution and advocate for marine sanctuaries.

– ref. ‘Like trying to find the door in a dark room while hearing your relatives scream for help’: Tasmania’s whale stranding tragedy explained – https://theconversation.com/like-trying-to-find-the-door-in-a-dark-room-while-hearing-your-relatives-scream-for-help-tasmanias-whale-stranding-tragedy-explained-146674

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Sparkes, Senior Lecturer (Media Studies and Production), University of Southern Queensland

This year’s Emmy Awards saw some surprising and not so surprising moments. Perhaps the most astonishing event was the Canadian-produced comedy Schitt’s Creek winning seven major awards, including best comedy series, director and writing.

Schitt’s Creek started airing in 2015, wrapping up earlier this year. The show revolves around the ultra-rich Rose family who, after being defrauded by their business manager, are left with only one asset: a backwater little town called Schitt’s Creek, which Johnny (Eugene Levy) bought his son David (Dan Levy) as a joke in 1991.

Faced with financial ruin, the Roses move to this town, where their privileged attitudes come into conflict with the parochial residents including the motel’s manager Stevie Budd (Emily Hampshire) and the town’s mayor, Roland Schitt (Chris Elliott).

Critics and fans did not totally embrace the show in its first season, with a rating of 64% on Rotten Tomatoes and 73 out of 100 on Metacritic. But subsequent seasons have certainly grown on audiences.

Personally, I’m not so enamoured with the show, but have some theories as to why it won in so many categories.

Helped along by a cliche …

This “fish out of water” premise is basically a cliché in script writing circles. There’s not a lot of originality here.

TV shows about rich people getting poor or poor people getting rich have been well covered. Think of The Beverly Hillbillies (1963), Diff’rent Strokes (1978-86), The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990-96), The Good Life (2007), and Bless this Mess (2019). Then there are the movies such as Trading Places (1983), Overboard (1987) and Academy Award winner The Artist (2011).

There is not a lot to explore in this genre nowadays, it’s just a device to get the characters into a situation from which comedy can derive.

By using this framework for the series, the jokes about misunderstandings between the spoilt and aloof Rose family and the down-to-earth locals almost write themselves.

This juxtaposition makes conflict easy. From a writing point of view, there’s not a lot of hard work here, so I’m amazed Daniel Levy won the comedy writing award considering his competition was the complex storytelling of The Good Place (2016-20) or The Great (2020–).

Read more: Kantian comedy: the philosophy of The Good Place

When you consider Levy won the award for the final episode of Schitt’s Creek, you begin to question whether it was actually for that episode or really an acknowledgement for the whole series.

The stars of the show, Eugene Levy and Catherine O’Hara, are well regarded as comedy royalty.

Levy has always been a character actor, playing small parts in comedy films and series until he really came to be noticed in American Pie (1999) and as part of the ensemble cast of the Christopher Guest’s mockumentary comedies Waiting for Guffman (1996), Best in Show (2000) and A Mighty Wind (2003).

Even though he’s been acting since 1970, this is really his first lead role. He beat some of Hollywood’s most notable TV actors to win the Emmy for best actor in a lead comedy series, including Michael Douglas and Ted Danson.

O’Hara, who won the Emmy for lead actor in a comedy series, has also acted in character roles most of her career, including opposite Levy in the same Guest mockumentaries. Schitt’s Creek is her first leading role in a television series.

The Emmys they won were not so much for one series, but for a lifetime of comedy achievement.

… and weak competition

Ultimately, though, it was a weak year for TV comedy nominations.

Among the nominations for best comedy, most of the series were either well worn (Curb Your Enthusiasm has been running for 20 years), relatively new players (The Kominsky Method (2018-)), or just haven’t fired the imaginations of audiences (Insecure (2016–) and The Marvelous Mrs Maisel (2017–)).

Many were also very specifically issue-based comedies, which don’t usually attract wide audiences. The Marvelous Mrs Maisel has a strong feminist storyline while Insecure deals with the Black female experience.

Schitt’s Creek — like the name implies — plays it broad and is much more accessible to a mainstream audience.

In an awards event, this show becomes seen as being more worthy because it has been on for a number of seasons without wearing out its welcome, it has broad and popular appeal, and it doesn’t try to confront audiences with “issues”. It becomes the safe choice.

While the show does sparkle in later seasons with some good writing, it feels like Schitt’s Creek was given the awards more for the accumulation of a body of work rather than a stand alone episode or season. Especially since it had not won a single Emmy in any of its previous five seasons.

Some shows (and actors) don’t get the award for being brilliant, they get it for just being around for a long time, like a comfortable pair of slippers. You get used to them, and you like them being there.

Basically, you reward them because they don’t end up giving you the Schitt’s.

Read more: ‘Schitt’s Creek’ and ‘Letterkenny’ are love letters to rural Canada

– ref. Schitt’s Creek: the TV show has been showered with Emmys but is it worth the hype? – https://theconversation.com/schitts-creek-the-tv-show-has-been-showered-with-emmys-but-is-it-worth-the-hype-146681

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Murdoch, Dean and Head of Campus, University of Otago, Christchurch, University of Otago

Despite being at opposite ends of the Earth, Iceland and New Zealand have many similarities. Both are small island nations, heavily reliant on tourism and currently led by young female prime ministers.

Both countries have also been commended for their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, characterised by science-informed policy and a high degree of public trust.

At the moment, Iceland and New Zealand have some of the lowest COVID-19 deaths per capita among OECD countries (2.83 and 0.51 per 100,000 population, respectively, compared with an OECD average of 24.01 per 100,000).

Both have been rated in the top 14 safest countries in the world for COVID-19.

But since the first cases were identified in each country in late February 2020, the two nations have taken different pathways in their COVID-19 responses. What lessons can we learn from their journeys so far?

New Zealand‘s strategy

New Zealand is one of the few countries to openly declare a COVID-19 elimination strategy. This involved a progressively strengthened contact-tracing and isolation system, with early and stringent use of shutdowns and border controls.

A nationwide shutdown was instigated on March 26 soon after community transmission was first demonstrated in the country and before any deaths had occurred. Alongside the shutdown, the border was closed to all but New Zealand citizens and residents.

A 14-day quarantine in managed facilities was implemented for all new arrivals. These border controls have continued to today despite the huge impact on the tourism industry.

Read more: Research shows Māori are more likely to die from COVID-19 than other New Zealanders

New Zealand‘s “go hard and go early” strategy proved to be more effective than most had anticipated. The country moved back to its lowest alert level on June 8, after only seven weeks of shutdown.

A new cluster emerged

On August 11, after more than 100 days with no community transmission of COVID-19, a cluster of cases not linked to other known case was detected in Auckland. This outbreak is still being contained and no source has yet been identified.

The response from the government was immediately to reinstate stay-at-home orders in Auckland, raise the alert level for the rest of the country, and further tighten systems at the border and in quarantine and isolation facilities.

Key to management of this resurgence was the use of rapid genome sequencing and a new requirement for mask use when travelling on public transport.

Read more: Genome sequencing tells us the Auckland outbreak is a single cluster — except for one case

Iceland’s strategy

In contrast to New Zealand, Iceland’s strategy involved no shutdown period, no official border closure to non-residents, and negligible use of managed quarantine facilities.

The aim instead is to mitigate infection so it does not overwhelm the health-care system, and to keep the numbers as low as possible. As in New Zealand, there is a new requirement for wearing face masks when travelling on public transport and where physical distancing is difficult.

The cornerstone of Iceland‘s response has been easy access to COVID-19 testing and mass screening, alongside quarantine and contact tracing. This was enabled by a public-private partnership between the Icelandic health authorities, the National University Hospital of Iceland and local biopharmaceutical company deCODE Genetics.

At one stage, Iceland was performing more tests per head of population than any other country.

Testing for new arrivals

As Iceland became free of community transmission of COVID-19 in mid-May, pressure grew from the tourism industry and other stakeholders to reduce the 14-day quarantine policy for new arrivals into the country.

In response, a controversial new border screening program was implemented on June 15. This required all incoming travellers to be tested once for COVID-19 on arrival and then urged to self-quarantine until results came back, usually within 24 hours.

As a consequence, tourism in June and July exceeded all expectations in Iceland.

But increasing community transmission, with several clusters arising from travellers who had tested negative on arrival prompted a stepwise tightening of the border system.

Since August 19, all incoming travellers have had to undergo mandatory self-quarantine, during which they need to return two negative COVID-19 tests at least five days apart.

The change to this two-test strategy proved to be a wise move, as 25 (20%) of the 126 active infections in inbound travellers were detected only by the second test.

Science, trust and adaptability

Although they adopted different strategies, both Iceland and New Zealand demonstrate the importance of decisive, science-informed decision-making and clear communication involving regular public briefings by senior officials.

Read more: COVID-19 is not the only infectious disease New Zealand wants to eliminate, and genome sequencing is a crucial tool

As a consequence, high levels of public trust have been recorded in both Iceland and New Zealand although this has varied through the pandemic.

The prominent role of scientists, the use of multi-institutional collaborations as part of COVID-19 response strategies, and the willingness to adapt to new knowledge have also been key features for both countries.

Only time will enable a full assessment of each country‘s COVID-19 strategy. More than ever, the global community needs to learn from each other’s experiences, avoid dogmatism and be adaptable in our national responses as we navigate a path out of this pandemic.

– ref. COVID-19 and small island nations: what we can learn from New Zealand and Iceland – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-and-small-island-nations-what-we-can-learn-from-new-zealand-and-iceland-145303

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Reilly, Professor, University of Adelaide

The Morrison government has announced plans to revamp the Australian citizenship test. From November 15, there will be new test questions on “Australian values”.

What does this new, “clear focus” on values involve? And what is the best way to assess values?

How do you become a citizen?

According to the 2007 Australian Citizenship Act, you can become an Australian citizen “by conferral” if,

• have been a resident for four years, with at least one as a permanent resident
• have a basic knowledge of English
• have an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship
• are likely to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, and
• are of good character.

Since 2007, the English language and “knowledge of Australia” requirements have been established via a “citizenship test”. According to the Department of Home Affairs, applicants between 18 and 59 need to sit the test.

Read more: Is the Australian citizenship test failing ‘Team Australia’?

The test is multiple choice, with 20 questions in English. An applicant must get 15 correct to pass.

It is based on a booklet that includes information on “Australia and its people”, “Australian democratic beliefs, rights and liberties” and a crash course on government and the law. The updated booklet now includes a section on “Australian values”.

How is the test changing?

Last week, acting Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Alan Tudge announced an increased focus on “values”.

Tudge says this will require potential citizens to understand Australian values like freedom of speech, mutual respect, equality of opportunity, the importance of democracy and the rule of law.

We are asking those who apply for citizenship to understand our values more deeply before they make the ultimate commitment to our nation.

The increased focus requires applicants to get all five test questions on values correct. Applicants also still need to score at least 75% overall.

Why have a test?

Those in favour of a citizenship test argue the burden of having to pass the test gives citizenship greater gravitas. It promotes citizenship as a “privilege” and not a right one acquires through long-term residence.

But the idea that citizenship should be difficult to achieve is a recent phenomenon in Australia.

In the 1980s and 90s, the federal government ran campaigns to encourage permanent residents to become citizens, so they could fully participate in Australia’s civil and political life. In 1984, the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act reduced the English language requirement for citizenship from “adequate” to “basic”, while applicants over 50 years were exempted from the language requirement.

In 1994, a parliamentary inquiry also recommended the widespread promotion of citizenship.

However, in the 21st century, amid concerns over international terrorism, there has been an emphasis on citizenship as a privilege. In 2015, the Abbott government commissioned Liberal MPs Philip Ruddock and Concetta Fierravanti-Wells to lead a national consultation on citizenship. As their report states,

Overall there remains a strong view in the community that Australian citizenship is a concept worth valuing and certainly worth protecting. While we strongly encourage migrants to become citizens, it is not something that should be earned too easily or given away cheaply.

Can you test values?

Tudge’s press release says the new test will have “more meaningful questions that require potential citizens to understand and commit to our values”.

The booklet provides six pages of information on our values, which includes statements such as, “Australians value ‘mateship’. We help each other in times of need”. And, “in Australia, the lawful actions of the police should be supported.” It also notes, “it is important to learn to speak English.”

This is an example of a practice question on values:

Which of these statements best demonstrates Australian values about freedom of expression?

a) everyone can peacefully express their opinions within the law

b) people with different views from me need to keep quiet

c) only approved topics can be discussed.

There are significant reasons to doubt the usefulness of these questions as part of the criteria for citizenship.

Firstly, identifying the correct answer does not necessarily say anything about a person’s actual values. Most people can spot examples of freedom and equality, regardless of whether they are committed to them.

Secondly, if people get an answer wrong, it is likely to say more about their English comprehension than their values.

Read more: Australian values are hardly unique when compared to other cultures

Having said this, there is a role for civics education for citizens and prospective citizens alike. Discussing and comparing values and identifying where they differ across nations and cultures is valuable for the formation of a coherent political community. It is the reduction of these complex questions to a multiple choice test that is the problem.

Permanent residents already have Australian values

When it comes to the values of citizenship applicants, the government should take comfort in the fact that they have already lived and contributed to the community for at least four years.

In 2014, the government also tightened the “character test” for permanent residents, making their deportation mandatory if they have been sentenced to imprisonment for a year or more.

Since last year, it has also had legislation before parliament to make it even easier to fail the character test over certain “designated offences”, including sexual assault and aggravated burglary.

So, there are safeguards in place.

Read more: Forcing Australia Day citizenship ceremonies on councils won’t make the issue go away

Applicants for citizenship are already entitled to live in Australia permanently. They demonstrate their commitment to Australian values through participation in work and community activities, sending their children to school, and obeying the law.

These are more effective ways to demonstrate Australian values than through correctly answering multiple choice questions.

The changes to the citizenship test are a public relations exercise, consistent with the Coalition government’s use of citizenship as a mechanism of exclusion.

Perhaps it is not surprising these changes have been announced at time of great uncertainty, when external threats loom large, both across and beyond our borders.

– ref. The new Australian citizenship test: can you really test ‘values’ via multiple choice? – https://theconversation.com/the-new-australian-citizenship-test-can-you-really-test-values-via-multiple-choice-146574

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jayashri Kulkarni, Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University

The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned some of the most dramatic changes to Australian life in recent memory. We’ve had to adapt to a vastly different way of life to curb the spread of the virus, featuring unfamiliar challenges such as social distancing, mask wearing, and limits on gatherings and travel.

As Victorians in particular begin to emerge from “lockdown 2.0”, it’s timely to reflect on what can be learned from living through a pandemic, particularly the psychological experiences. Indeed, the pandemic has exposed some truths about human behaviour and the mind.

1. Australians are largely law-abiding people

As a nation, we tend to think of ourselves as happy-go-lucky “larrikins”. This term is meant to describe our supposedly relaxed nature, irreverence, egalitarianism and self-deprecating sense of humour.

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

But during this pandemic, most of us have diligently followed the public health rules such as social distancing, wearing masks and observing curfews. Although we might fancy ourselves as having a laconic disregard for rules, the truth is we are a law-abiding nation when it really counts.

2. Women have been affected more by COVID-19

Many surveys show there are increased levels of anxiety, depression and deliberate self-harm in women compared to men during the pandemic.

There’s also been “an increase in women presenting to mental health services who are at risk of or experiencing family violence” in Australia, according to the Women’s Mental Health Alliance.

The pandemic has underscored the inequalities between men and women in Australia. These pressures include an increased burden on women coping with the role of home-based education of children; women as the majority of frontline health-care workers facing daily job pressures and risks of COVID-19 infection; and women making up a large part of the casual workforce facing increasing economic stress and the uncertainty of future employment.

Read more: More help required: the crisis in family violence during the coronavirus pandemic

3. We’re social animals

As highlighted by COVID-19 restrictions, prolonged social isolation can erode our sense of reality, self-worth and creativity. Reduced contact with other people can cause rapid acceleration of mental ill-health. The long-term health impacts of isolation are comparable to those of cigarette smoking and obesity.

Read more: Lonely in lockdown? You’re not alone. 1 in 2 Australians feel more lonely since coronavirus

Humans have evolved to live in groups with close and regular physical, emotional and verbal contact.

We rely on social connections to develop new ideas and solve problems, to achieve a wide variety of goals by working together and for external validation of us as worthy individuals.

4. Adaptation and resilience are among the greatest human resources

As a nation we have been able to quickly and flexibly develop online teaching curricula, carry out many businesses from home and change our way of socialising. We’ve also rapidly changed many of our research programs to respond to the pandemic and potentially provide testing innovations, a vaccine, and new ways to provide mental health support.

We’ve been able to do this because humans possess cognitive skills that enable us to change our culture and adapt to it. Indeed, many researchers have speculated humans might be the most flexible and adaptable species.

Part of this is our ability to be resilient. Resilience reflects the ability to maintain a stable equilibrium in a situation of threat or loss. Basically, to get back up after being knocked down.

5. We need to cultivate our mental health, not just avoid mental illness

Generally in Australia we’re used to an action-packed approach needed to fight crises such as bushfires and wars. But during this crisis we’ve began to recognise the important of other coping skills. These include self-reflection, using virtual ways to connect with others, and openly discussing our mental health.

Self-reflection helps to build emotional self-awareness, which in turn leads to a better understanding of one’s emotions, strengths, weaknesses and driving factors.

We’re developing a greater awareness of the importance of good mental health. Just as we would maintain our physical health, we need to actively support our mental health, even if we don’t have a mental illness.

Read more: What are the characteristics of strong mental health?

– ref. 5 things the pandemic has revealed about the Australian psyche – https://theconversation.com/5-things-the-pandemic-has-revealed-about-the-australian-psyche-146215

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Magee, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Newcastle

Tropical cyclones are considered one of the most devastating weather events in Australia. But they’re erratic — where, when and how many tropical cyclones form each year is highly variable, which makes them difficult to predict.

In our new research published today, we created a statistical model that predicts the number of tropical cyclones up to four months before the start of the tropical cyclone season from November to April.

Read more: Storm warning: a new long-range tropical cyclone outlook is set to reduce disaster risk for Pacific Island communities

The model, the Long-Range Tropical Cyclone Outlook for Australia (TCO-AU), indicates normal to above normal tropical cyclone activity with 11 cyclones expected in total, Australia-wide. Though not all make landfall.

This is above Australia’s average of ten tropical cyclones per season, thanks to a climate phenomenon brewing in the Pacific that brings conditions favourable for tropical cyclone activity closer to Australia.

La Niña and tropical cyclones

As we’ve seen most recently with Tropical Storm Sally in the US, tropical cyclones can cause massive damage over vast areas. This includes extreme and damaging winds, intense rainfall and flooding, storm surges, large waves and coastal erosion.

Australian tropical cyclone behaviour is largely driven by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) — a global climate phenomenon that changes ocean and atmospheric circulation.

“La Niña” is one phase of ENSO. It’s typically associated with higher than normal tropical cyclone numbers in the Australian region. And the Bureau of Meteorology’s weather and climate model indicates there’s a 95% chance a La Niña will be established by October this year.

Read more: Explainer: El Niño and La Niña

Around ten tropical cyclones occur in the Australian region every season, and about four of those usually make landfall.

Historically, La Niña has resulted in double the number of landfalling tropical cyclones in Australia, compared to El Niño phases. An “El Niño” event is associated with warmer and drier conditions for eastern Australia.

During La Niña events, the first tropical cyclone to make landfall also tends to occur earlier in the season. In fact, in Queensland, the only tropical cyclone seasons with multiple severe tropical cyclone landfalls have been during La Niña events.

Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi, one of the most intense tropical cyclones to have hit Queensland, occurred during a La Niña in 2011. So did the infamous Severe Tropical Cyclone Tracy, which made landfall around Darwin in 1974, killing 71 people and leaving more than 80% of all buildings destroyed or damaged.

While naturally occurring climate drivers, such as La Niña, influence the characteristics of tropical cyclone activity, climate change is also expected to cause changes to future tropical cyclone risk, including frequency and intensity.

Australian tropical cyclone outlooks

Tropical cyclone outlooks provide important information about how many tropical cyclones may pass within the Australian region and subregions, before the start of the cyclone season. Decision-makers, government, industry and people living in tropical cyclone regions use them to prepare for the coming cyclone season.

Read more: I’ve always wondered: how do cyclones get their names?

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has led the way in producing tropical cyclone outlooks for Australia, usually a couple of weeks before the official start of the tropical cyclone season.

But with monthly guidance up to four months before the start of the season, our new model, TCO-AU, is unmatched in lead time. It considers the most recent changes in ENSO and other climate drivers to predict how many tropical cyclones may occur in Australia and its sub-regions.

As a statistical model, TCO-AU is trained on historical relationships between ocean-atmosphere processes and the number of tropical cyclones per season.

For each region, hundreds of potential model combinations are tested, and the one that performs best in predicting historical tropical cyclone counts is selected to make the prediction for the coming season.

So what can we expect this season?

September’s TCO-AU guidance suggests normal to above normal risk for Australia for the coming tropical cyclone season (November 2020 – April 2021).

With an emerging La Niña and warmer than normal sea surface temperatures in the eastern Indian Ocean, 11 tropical cyclones are expected for Australia. There’s a 47% chance of 12 or more cyclones, and a probable range of between nine and 15.

For the Australian sub-regions, TCO-AU suggests the following:

• above normal activity is expected for the Eastern region (eastern Australia) with four cyclones expected. Probable range between three and six cyclones; with a 55% chance of four or more cyclones

• normal activity is expected for the Western region (west/northwest Western Australia) with six cyclones expected. Probable range between five and eight cyclones; 39% chance of seven or more cyclones

• below normal activity is expected for the Northern region (northwest Queensland and Northern Territory) with three cyclones expected. Probable range between two and five cyclones; 37% chance of four cyclones or more

• below normal activity is also expected for the Northwestern region (northwest Western Australia) with four cyclones expected. Probable range between three and six cyclones; 45% chance of five cyclones or more.

Guidance from TCO-AU does not and should not replace advice provided by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Instead, it should be used to provide a complementary perspective to regional outlooks and provide a “heads-up” in the months leading up to the start of and within the cyclone season.

Regardless of what’s expected for the coming cyclone season, people living in tropical cyclone regions should always prepare for the cyclone season and follow the advice provided by emergency services.

Read more: Advanced cyclone forecasting is leading to early action – and it’s saving thousands of lives

– ref. Our new model shows Australia can expect 11 tropical cyclones this season – https://theconversation.com/our-new-model-shows-australia-can-expect-11-tropical-cyclones-this-season-146318

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Diesendorf, Honorary Associate Professor, UNSW

The Morrison government on Tuesday revealed the five low-emissions technologies it will prioritise for investment. The so called “technology roadmap” offers scant support for renewable energy, for reasons that do not stand up to scrutiny.

The technologies at the centre of the roadmap are:

• clean hydrogen
• energy storage
• low-carbon steel and aluminium
• carbon capture and storage
• soil carbon.

Federal energy minister Angus Taylor said proven technologies such as solar and wind “are not the focus of the roadmap”.

Over the past week or so, Taylor has sought to justify the government’s lack of support for renewable energy. This includes saying two-thirds of Australia’s emissions now are produced “outside the electricity grid” – implying renewable energy has little role to play beyond the power sector. But I believe that claim is misleading.

Renewables are versatile

The graph below, based on official data, shows the sources of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2018. It reveals 82% of the national total stems from energy emissions. This does not just include electricity generation, but non-electrical heating, transport, and emissions from extracting, moving and using fossil fuels (or fugitive emissions).

Almost all these emissions can be avoided by renewable energy, such as by:

• using electric heat pumps (such as reverse cycle air conditioners), solar hot water, and geothermal and solar thermal for heating

• replacing gas and coal with renewable energy for heating in industrial processes

• a transition to electric vehicles plus cycling and walking.

Technologies to support these uses are already commercially available.

Renewable electricity cannot directly replace fossil fuel use in activities such as air and sea transport, and industrial processes such as steel-making. But with a bit of development, it can be used to produce “green” hydrogen and ammonia, which promise to decarbonise those areas.

Hydrogen is not the emissions reduction panacea Taylor seems to suggest it is. However, together with energy efficiency, green hydrogen could substitute for Australia’s non-energy industrial emissions (6.4%) together with those from air and sea transport (about 5%).

Hydrogen: a trojan horse?

The roadmap prioritises “clean” hydrogen. This does not just refer to hydrogen produced using renewables — the government says hydrogen can be produced cleanly with coal and gas if resulting carbon is captured and stored. In fact, the plan claims fossil fuel-derived hydrogen “might be the lowest cost clean production methods in the short-term”.

Carbon capture and storage is an expensive, energy-wasting technology. Despite federal governments having spent more than A$1.3 billion on the technology, a commercially viable plant has not come to fruition.

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

The government will also establish Australia’s first regional hydrogen hub, at a cost of A$70 million, to “scale-up demand and take advantage of the advancements in this low emissions, high powered source of energy”.

Almost all the proposed locations are close to coal mines or gas field, suggesting the government is preparing to wager big on hydrogen from fossil fuels.

In fact, the government’s plans on hydrogen (and associated steel and aluminium production), as well as carbon capture, may all lock in fossil fuel use for decades. This outcome is completely at odds with what’s needed to address the climate emergency.

Renewable energy: a market failure

The Morrison government says solar panels and wind farms “are now clearly commercially viable and have graduated from the need for government subsidies”. The roadmap classifies renewables as mature technologies, giving them low priority.

The government intends only to invest in such mature technologies “where there is a clear market failure, like a shortage of dispatchable generation, or where these investments secure jobs in key industries.”

Read more: Morrison government lays down five technologies for its clean energy investment

But an existing market failure means the future of wind and solar farms is by no means assured. Congestion on transmission lines is limiting renewables growth. More infrastructure is urgently needed to connect renewable energy to the grid, and transmit it where required.

Federal funding is also needed urgently to help the states create renewable energy zones, as recommended by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). These areas would involve the coordinated development of grid infrastructure, such as transmission lines, in places with big renewable energy potential.

Yet the government package doesn’t prioritise these essential measures – and markets will not build them.

Reason to hope

Amid the economic downturn brought on by COVID-19, there were high hopes the Morrison government would invest in a green-led recovery. While its roadmap contains a few bright spots, such as a focus on energy storage, overall it is not the emissions-busting plan Australia needed.

But there is reason for hope. In the absence of federal government leadership on emissions reduction, others are stepping up with ideas. The Million Jobs Plan, for example, envisages investment in zero-emissions technologies that could create more than a million new jobs in Australia over five years. The plan, by think tank Beyond Zero Emissions, has been backed by Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes and senior business leaders. Other groups have proposed similarly promising plans.

The government’s latest energy plans are a failure of logic. An economic recovery that moves Australia far beyond fossil fuels is the way forward environmentally, socially and economically.

Read more: ‘A dose of reality’: Morrison government’s new $1.9 billion techno-fix for climate change is a small step

– ref. Angus Taylor’s tech roadmap is fundamentally flawed — renewables are doable almost everywhere – https://theconversation.com/angus-taylors-tech-roadmap-is-fundamentally-flawed-renewables-are-doable-almost-everywhere-146352

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Rouse, Senior Lecturer, Early Childhood Education, Deakin University

Students in the first year of school to Year 10 have been learning remotely in Victoria. It’s estimated first-year students (known as prep in Victoria) in areas that have been under lockdown for some time have missed around 12 weeks of classroom schooling in terms two and three.

These first year students will also be one of the first groups to return to face to face classes when restrictions start easing in Melbourne. In other states when restrictions lifted, students in the first years of school, and the most senior years, were the first to go back.

This recognises the first year is important for children’s education. It provides the foundations for literacy, numeracy and socialisation, which all matter for lifelong success.

Given the disruption in 2020 to this important year of school all across Australia — particularly in Victoria — some school leaders have expressed concern over disadvantaged students, such as those living in households where English is a second language, and suggested children repeat the year in 2021.

Parents may be concerned about how this year’s disruption has affected their kids. But how worried should they really be?

Parents should remember that while remote school may look different to “normal” school, children are still being taught; they are still learning and many are still actively engaged in the curriculum. Teachers are still teaching, developing lessons and engaging with children in their learning.

Here are four other things to keep in mind.

1. Parent engagement matters as much as learning at school

Research shows parents’ engagement is one of the most important influences on children learning. Children’s educational outcomes improve not only when parents are actively engaged in their learning, but also when parents are genuinely interested.

So, simply asking your children how their day went and what they learnt can enhance their outcomes.

Remote schooling has highlighted inequities in the way children access education. This is particularly so for children who may not be confident English speakers, or families who have limited access to technology at home. But those aren’t the only tools necessary for success.

Read more: How to help your kids with homework (without doing it for them)

Home resources also include parents who are interested, supportive and committed to their child’s learning. And being confident in English isn’t mandatory either. Education departments encourage multilingual parents to speak their own language to the child as much as possible, as this actually enhances their English skills and helps with memory and attention.

2. Kids don’t start school as a blank slate

The importance of the early years of a child’s education (from birth to eight) is well documented. When children enter the first year of formal schooling, they do not begin as a blank slate.

Across Australia, around 90% of children starting school have already attended preschool. They start school with a range of skills and abilities — including having learnt independence, how to develop relationships and how to acquire new knowledge — that significantly contribute to their later school success.

3. It’s not what kids know that matters

More important than what children know is how they engage as learners. Children’s social and emotional competence is a significant measure of later school success. Having a positive attitude towards learning, a positive sense of self, strong emotional well-being and strong social competence are key indicators for effective learning.

Rather than focusing on what academic learning kids may have missed, parents and teachers can support children to develop these positive dispositions.

4. Other factors affect learning

Nobody knows exactly how children’s learning and success will have been affected by the disruption to schools over 2020. There are, however, studies investigating how children’s learning was affected when school was disrupted due to natural disasters.

A 2019 study looked at the effects of school disruptions due to bushfires in Australia. It found a reduction in expected gains in Year 3 to 5 NAPLAN scores in schools affected by the bushfires. But a 2016 study into long-term effects on academic success for children who went through the Christchurch earthquake found increased school disengagement had no bearing on poorer academic performance.

These findings need to be considered in context. In both situations, children experienced trauma associated with being displaced, the loss of family and friends, and homes and schools destroyed. Trauma is linked to poorer educational outcomes.

We know many children are currently experiencing levels of trauma due to what they are seeing and hearing in the media, whose parents may have lost jobs, or whose family has been impacted by the illness. For these children, trauma may have affected their learning during the remote learning period.

Read more: Why every teacher needs to know about childhood trauma

However, given the findings from these previous events, when children do return to the classroom, they will be returning to an environment in which they feel safe and connected. It is important for teachers to recognise these children may have experienced trauma and to create a supportive classroom environment.

When contemplating whether your child should repeat their foundation year, it is important to not focus on what they haven’t achieved.

Instead, focus on their dispositions for learning, their self-confidence, and their emotional well-being, as these will be better predictors of their ability to catch up.

– ref. Coronavirus disrupted my kid’s first year of school. Will that set them back? – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-disrupted-my-kids-first-year-of-school-will-that-set-them-back-145845