Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jen Webb, Dean, Graduate Research, University of Canberra

On December 31 2019, the catastrophic fires burning across southeastern Australia reached the small South Coast NSW town of Cobargo in the form of the Badja Forest Road Fire.

Within just a few hours, roads and bridges were impassable, all critical infrastructure was destroyed, and 300 homes in the district along with 30% of businesses in Cobargo’s main street were lost. Six people died, 300,000 hectares were destroyed, and hundreds of kilometres of fencing, thousands of farm animals and countless native flora and fauna were lost. All this in a community of just 2,200 people.

Cobargo became, to quote The Times, “the symbol of a country […] in crisis”.

Communities that have experienced catastrophic ruin often face an ongoing cycle of loss. With material and economic resources largely gone, and significant trauma present, the resource that is the community – the sense of “us” – often crumbles.

Emergency and service providers are there at the beginning, providing vital support, but swiftly move on to the next disaster. The community is then left to its own resources while psychological damage continues to emerge.

This is where art enters the picture.

Research shows participating in an art practice has the capacity to aid the healing of individuals and communities. Participants do not need to be artists in order to gain enormous benefits. The act of engaging in creative expression helps rebuild connections, improves physical and mental health, and provides the capacity to begin imagining recovery.

Read more:
A staggering 1.8 million hectares burned in ‘high-severity’ fires during Australia’s Black Summer

Thinking about community

Two years on from Black Summer, rebuilding is still at an early stage. The roll-out of the government’s recovery fund has been slow and uneven: well into 2021, many victims of the fires were still living in tents and caravans.

Adding to the difficulties, the process of crafting a submission for financial support is onerous and complex, particularly for those not practised in grant-writing. And it is highly competitive. Applicants to the second stage of the NSW Bushfire Local Economic Recovery Package, focused on community recovery and resilience projects, requested more than six times the available funds. Most applications were not approved.

Recovery after a natural disaster largely depends on the energy and capability of local people. When those driving the recovery process are community members, the sustained collective activity increases the likelihood of success. Local people are present throughout the long-term process of recovery, and their deep knowledge of the community – its history, its demographics, and its values and aspirations – are vital.

Read more:
‘It’s given me love’: connecting women from refugee backgrounds with communities through art

Recovery through collaboration

Creative thinking and practice are at the heart of the healing process. Whether macro or micro, planned or ad hoc, creative activities bring people together. In the process of making and talking, recovery can begin: for the individual, and for the community.

Although many of Cobargo’s creative practitioners lost their homes, studios and businesses, they have been prominent in this task of recovery, rebuilding their community at the same time as rebuilding their own practices.

Early on, Cobargo residents wrote a creative plan to construct a shared vision, and established the Cobargo Community Bushfire Recovery Fund. With support from this fund, and from charities and private contributors, Cobargo’s creatives have been crafting opportunities for community members to reconnect.

Painted telegraph poles have been a feature of Cobargo’s main street for about 20 years but most were destroyed or damaged by the fire. With the Poles Project, local artists – young and old, professional and amateur – repainted the poles with new interpretations and new senses of a future.

The Cobargo Community Tree project saw Cobargo residents working with local blacksmiths Iain Hamilton and Philippe Ravenel to forge stainless steel leaves for a memorial tree.

Other creatives have organised workshops, hosted the Fire Up Cobargo music festival, presented children’s theatre, and set up a tool library for craft projects.

Local children also played their part. In response to the fires, Year 5 and 6 students at the Cobargo Public School wrote and illustrated a remarkable book titled The Day She Stole the Sun. It tells the story of Ganyi (the Yuin word for fire) who wrestles with and overcomes Nature. The writing and illustrations manifest the children’s distress:

We fought hard, but we lost our farms. We fought hard, but we lost our homes. We fought hard, but we lost our families.

But it ends with a positive turn:

Our community is small, but our spirit is strong. Ganyi will never take that from us.

The work of recovery is progressing, though it is piecemeal, uneven, and by no means complete. There is still a vital need for rebuilding and for support. This is likely to remain the case for years. Meanwhile, the Cobargo community continues to identify and implement creative activities and aims that are both short- and long-term.

One large-scale long-term project is the Cobargo Bushfire Resilience Centre, funded by the NSW government, with construction due to begin later this year. This will be a community cultural centre, with spaces for exhibition, performance and commemoration.

It will also be a place for residents to visit, to rebuild themselves and the community, and to think anew a creative response to climate change – and the challenges yet to come.

Jen Webb receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Rhonda Ayliffe is the recipient of an RTP scholarship. She is a Research Associate with the National Museum of Australia and is the Vice-Chairperson of the Cobargo Bushfire Resilience Centre Inc.

– ref. ‘Our community is small, but our spirit is strong’: how art forms the heart of Cobargo’s Black Summer fires recovery – https://theconversation.com/our-community-is-small-but-our-spirit-is-strong-how-art-forms-the-heart-of-cobargos-black-summer-fires-recovery-173649

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria O’Sullivan, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, and Deputy Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University

Many sports stars are, rightly or wrongly, held up as role models. In the case of Novak Djokovic, we have a set of powerful factors at play.

On one side is a tennis superstar who is unvaccinated and has raised concerns about receiving the vaccination. On the other side is a government which believes Djokovic’s presence in Australia will have a serious negative effect on public health orders and future vaccination levels.

Today, the full Federal Court, in a unanimous judgement, dismissed Djokovic’s application to overturn the cancellation of his visa. It is not surprising he lost his case. Although the evidence used by the immigration minister to cancel the visa was not overwhelmingly strong, the breadth of his powers under the Migration Act made it very difficult to successfully challenge his findings.

But the legal issues raised by this case do not end here. What are the broader implications of the government’s approach in future cases involving high-profile “anti-vaxxers” or people who may be seen as a risk to Australia’s social order?

Although the government may be very happy about this result, I would question whether this is a workable precedent to set for other sportspeople, or indeed anyone, who may be seen as posing a risk to the public interest of Australia.

What the government claimed

The immigration minister has the power to cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied a person’s presence in Australia might be a risk to the health, safety or good order of Australia and the cancellation is in the public interest.

The use of the word “might” is important – the minister does not need to show Djokovic would pose a risk, only that he may do so.

When cancelling Djokovic’s visa on Friday, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke reasoned the tennis player’s conduct and stance against vaccination may encourage others to emulate him by reason of his high profile and status.

Read more:
Novak Djokovic has long divided opinion. Now, his legacy will be complicated even further

There were two issues with the ministerial statement which were discussed at some length in the full Federal Court:

1. Hawke did not seek the views of Djokovic on his present attitude to vaccinations. Instead, the minister cited material that made clear Djokovic has publicly expressed antivaccination sentiment. This included a BBC article, which Djokovic’s lawyers argued was not sufficient to make a judgement about his vaccination views.

2. Hawke explicitly referred to the effect Djokovic’s presence would have on public health and social order. What the minister did not consider, however, was the other side of this argument. That is, Djokovic’s deportation might lead to an increase in anti-vax sentiment and/or civil unrest.

What Djokovic claimed

Djokovic’s lawyers made some very compelling arguments about Hawke’s reasoning. Put simply, the lawyers said the minister had two choices:

1. to cancel the visa and deport Djokovic

2. not cancel it and let him stay.

They argued it was irrational for Hawke to only question the effect Djokovic’s presence would have on anti-vax sentiment in Australia and not the effect his deportation would have.

Read more:
Why one man with ‘god-like’ powers decides if Novak Djokovic can stay or go

Djokovic’s lawyers also argued the minister’s findings lacked sufficient evidence to support the contention that his presence in Australia might pose a risk to the health or good order of the Australian community and the contention Djokovic had a “well-known stance on vaccination”.

Djokovic’s lawyers conceded Djokovic had previously said he was opposed to vaccinations. However, they pointed out in the BBC article he

later clarified his position by adding that he was ‘no expert’ and would keep an ‘open mind’ but wanted to have ‘an option to choose what’s best for my body’.

It is important to note this qualifying passage was not extracted by Hawke in his statement – a point Djokovic’s lawyers made in the hearing.

Why Djokovic’s case failed

In response, the government argued it was reasonable to conclude Djokovic is opposed to vaccination based on his previous public statements and the fact he is known to be unvaccinated.

The government also said Hawke was not only concerned with Djokovic’s current views on vaccination, but the public perception of his views.

Further, the government said Hawke did not have to show Djokovic’s presence has fostered anti-vaccination sentiment or necessarily will foster it. All he needed to show was his presence in Australia may foster anti-vax sentiment – a relatively low threshold to reach.

Presumably, this is why Djokovic’s case failed. Although there were questions about the evidence used by Hawke, the Migration Act powers are very broad and it is difficult to challenge them based on unlawfulness.

Implications for the future

While the Federal Court’s decision may be viewed as legally justified given the breadth of the cancellation powers in the Migration Act, some thought must be given to the future implications of these powers and what this means for the ability of the government to cancel other people’s visas.

The basis of Hawke’s findings seemed to be it was enough to show Djokovic is an iconic sports star who is perceived as being anti-vaccination and therefore may foster anti-vax sentiment in Australia.

I have a number of concerns with this.

First, it is unfair if the perception or actions of others can determine someone’s eligibility to remain in a country. A person may wrongly be viewed as having a particular belief and still be subject to a visa cancellation.

Second, the minister relied on Djokovic’s claimed status as a “role model” and his capacity as a high-profile sportsperson to apparently influence society. What if a sportsperson is unvaccinated, but not high-profile?

Third, and this is the most concerning point, if we extend this logic to other people, it could justify the cancellation of any individual who is seen as a “role model” and who may be perceived as causing social unrest or protests.

As legal commentators such as Kate Seear pointed out,

This kind of logic – that athletes are role models and role models can influence society […] could be extended to other athletes wanting to come here in the future, including those with diverse political views, such as supporters of Black Lives Matter and defunding police.

Lastly, the idea a person can have their visa cancelled because their views might affect the health, safety or good order of the Australian community raises issues for freedom of expression.

A wide cancellation power allows the government to stop international visitors who may have an important message to tell Australians. That would pose significant concerns for political debate in Australia.

Maria O’Sullivan previously received funding from the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department to undertake research on automated decision-making. She also serves on the Human Rights Legal Advice Panel for the Queensland Parliament.

– ref. Why Novak Djokovic lost his fight to stay in Australia – and why it sets a concerning precedent – https://theconversation.com/why-novak-djokovic-lost-his-fight-to-stay-in-australia-and-why-it-sets-a-concerning-precedent-175038

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Cronin, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Auckland

The Kingdom of Tonga doesn’t often attract global attention, but a violent eruption of an underwater volcano on January 15 has spread shock waves, quite literally, around half the world.

The volcano is usually not much to look at. It consists of two small uninhabited islands, Hunga-Ha’apai and Hunga-Tonga, poking about 100m above sea level 65km north of Tonga’s capital Nuku‘alofa. But hiding below the waves is a massive volcano, around 1800m high and 20km wide.

The Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai volcano has erupted regularly over the past few decades. During events in 2009 and 2014/15 hot jets of magma and steam exploded through the waves. But these eruptions were small, dwarfed in scale by the January 2022 events.

Our research into these earlier eruptions suggests this is one of the massive explosions the volcano is capable of producing roughly every thousand years.

Why are the volcano’s eruptions so highly explosive, given that sea water should cool the magma down?

If magma rises into sea water slowly, even at temperatures of about 1200℃, a thin film of steam forms between the magma and water. This provides a layer of insulation to allow the outer surface of the magma to cool.

But this process doesn’t work when magma is blasted out of the ground full of volcanic gas. When magma enters the water rapidly, any steam layers are quickly disrupted, bringing hot magma in direct contact with cold water.

Volcano researchers call this “fuel-coolant interaction” and it is akin to weapons-grade chemical explosions. Extremely violent blasts tear the magma apart. A chain reaction begins, with new magma fragments exposing fresh hot interior surfaces to water, and the explosions repeat, ultimately jetting out volcanic particles and causing blasts with supersonic speeds.

Read more:
The ‘pulse’ of a volcano can be used to help predict its next eruption

Two scales of Hunga eruptions

The 2014/15 eruption created a volcanic cone, joining the two old Hunga islands to create a combined island about 5km long. We visited in 2016, and discovered these historical eruptions were merely curtain raisers to the main event.

Mapping the sea floor, we discovered a hidden “caldera” 150m below the waves.

The caldera is a crater-like depression around 5km across. Small eruptions (such as in 2009 and 2014/15) occur mainly at the edge of the caldera, but very big ones come from the caldera itself. These big eruptions are so large the top of the erupting magma collapses inward, deepening the caldera.

Looking at the chemistry of past eruptions, we now think the small eruptions represent the magma system slowly recharging itself to prepare for a big event.

We found evidence of two huge past eruptions from the Hunga caldera in deposits on the old islands. We matched these chemically to volcanic ash deposits on the largest inhabited island of Tongatapu, 65km away, and then used radiocarbon dates to show that big caldera eruptions occur about ever 1000 years, with the last one at AD1100.

With this knowledge, the eruption on January 15 seems to be right on schedule for a “big one”.

Read more:
Why White Island erupted and why there was no warning

What we can expect to happen now

We’re still in the middle of this major eruptive sequence and many aspects remain unclear, partly because the island is currently obscured by ash clouds.

The two earlier eruptions on December 20 2021 and January 13 2022 were of moderate size. They produced clouds of up to 17km elevation and added new land to the 2014/15 combined island.

The latest eruption has stepped up the scale in terms of violence. The ash plume is already about 20km high. Most remarkably, it spread out almost concentrically over a distance of about 130km from the volcano, creating a plume with a 260km diameter, before it was distorted by the wind.

This demonstrates a huge explosive power – one that cannot be explained by magma-water interaction alone. It shows instead that large amounts of fresh, gas-charged magma have erupted from the caldera.

The eruption also produced a tsunami throughout Tonga and neighbouring Fiji and Samoa. Shock waves traversed many thousands of kilometres, were seen from space, and recorded in New Zealand some 2000km away. Soon after the eruption started, the sky was blocked out on Tongatapu, with ash beginning to fall.

All these signs suggest the large Hunga caldera has awoken. Tsunami are generated by coupled atmospheric and ocean shock waves during an explosions, but they are also readily caused by submarine landslides and caldera collapses.

It remains unclear if this is the climax of the eruption. It represents a major magma pressure release, which may settle the system.

A warning, however, lies in geological deposits from the volcano’s previous eruptions. These complex sequences show each of the 1000-year major caldera eruption episodes involved many separate explosion events.

Hence we could be in for several weeks or even years of major volcanic unrest from the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai volcano. For the sake of the people of Tonga I hope not.

Shane Cronin receives funding from The University of Auckland Faculty of Science to study the 2014-2015 Hunga eruption.

– ref. Why the volcanic eruption in Tonga was so violent, and what to expect next – https://theconversation.com/why-the-volcanic-eruption-in-tonga-was-so-violent-and-what-to-expect-next-175035

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Cronin, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Auckland

The Kingdom of Tonga doesn’t often attract global attention, but a violent eruption of an underwater volcano on January 15 has spread shock waves, quite literally, around half the world.

The volcano is usually not much to look at. It consists of two small uninhabited islands, Hunga-Ha’apai and Hunga-Tonga, poking about 100m above sea level 65km north of Tonga’s capital Nuku‘alofa. But hiding below the waves is a massive volcano, around 1800m high and 20km wide.

The Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai volcano has erupted regularly over the past few decades. During events in 2009 and 2014/15 hot jets of magma and steam exploded through the waves. But these eruptions were small, dwarfed in scale by the January 2022 events.

Our research into these earlier eruptions suggests this is one of the massive explosions the volcano is capable of producing roughly every thousand years.

Why are the volcano’s eruptions so highly explosive, given that sea water should cool the magma down?

If magma rises into sea water slowly, even at temperatures of about 1200℃, a thin film of steam forms between the magma and water. This provides a layer of insulation to allow the outer surface of the magma to cool.

But this process doesn’t work when magma is blasted out of the ground full of volcanic gas. When magma enters the water rapidly, any steam layers are quickly disrupted, bringing hot magma in direct contact with cold water.

Volcano researchers call this “fuel-coolant interaction” and it is akin to weapons-grade chemical explosions. Extremely violent blasts tear the magma apart. A chain reaction begins, with new magma fragments exposing fresh hot interior surfaces to water, and the explosions repeat, ultimately jetting out volcanic particles and causing blasts with supersonic speeds.

Read more:
The ‘pulse’ of a volcano can be used to help predict its next eruption

Two scales of Hunga eruptions

The 2014/15 eruption created a volcanic cone, joining the two old Hunga islands to create a combined island about 5km long. We visited in 2016, and discovered these historical eruptions were merely curtain raisers to the main event.

Mapping the sea floor, we discovered a hidden “caldera” 150m below the waves.

The caldera is a crater-like depression around 5km across. Small eruptions (such as in 2009 and 2014/15) occur mainly at the edge of the caldera, but very big ones come from the caldera itself. These big eruptions are so large the top of the erupting magma collapses inward, deepening the caldera.

Looking at the chemistry of past eruptions, we now think the small eruptions represent the magma system slowly recharging itself to prepare for a big event.

We found evidence of two huge past eruptions from the Hunga caldera in deposits on the old islands. We matched these chemically to volcanic ash deposits on the largest inhabited island of Tongatapu, 65km away, and then used radiocarbon dates to show that big caldera eruptions occur about ever 1000 years, with the last one at AD1100.

With this knowledge, the eruption on January 15 seems to be right on schedule for a “big one”.

Read more:
Why White Island erupted and why there was no warning

What we can expect to happen now

We’re still in the middle of this major eruptive sequence and many aspects remain unclear, partly because the island is currently obscured by ash clouds.

The two earlier eruptions on December 20 2021 and January 13 2022 were of moderate size. They produced clouds of up to 17km elevation and added new land to the 2014/15 combined island.

The latest eruption has stepped up the scale in terms of violence. The ash plume is already about 20km high. Most remarkably, it spread out almost concentrically over a distance of about 130km from the volcano, creating a plume with a 260km diameter, before it was distorted by the wind.

This demonstrates a huge explosive power – one that cannot be explained by magma-water interaction alone. It shows instead that large amounts of fresh, gas-charged magma have erupted from the caldera.

The eruption also produced a tsunami throughout Tonga and neighbouring Fiji and Samoa. Shock waves traversed many thousands of kilometres, were seen from space, and recorded in New Zealand some 2000km away. Soon after the eruption started, the sky was blocked out on Tongatapu, with ash beginning to fall.

All these signs suggest the large Hunga caldera has awoken. Tsunami are generated by coupled atmospheric and ocean shock waves during an explosions, but they are also readily caused by submarine landslides and caldera collapses.

It remains unclear if this is the climax of the eruption. It represents a major magma pressure release, which may settle the system.

A warning, however, lies in geological deposits from the volcano’s previous eruptions. These complex sequences show each of the 1000-year major caldera eruption episodes involved many separate explosion events.

Hence we could be in for several weeks or even years of major volcanic unrest from the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai volcano. For the sake of the people of Tonga I hope not.

Shane Cronin receives funding from The University of Auckland Faculty of Science to study the 2014-2015 Hunga eruption.

– ref. Why the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai eruption was so violent, and what to expect next – https://theconversation.com/why-the-hunga-tonga-hunga-haapai-eruption-was-so-violent-and-what-to-expect-next-175035

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Adair, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Technology Sydney

After a convoluted and shambolic visa approval process, followed by questions about his movements over the past month and the information provided to Australian border officials, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke has cancelled Novak Djokovic’s visa.

The decision is a major blow to Djokovic, who is tied with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal at 20 Grand Slam singles titles, the most ever by a male player. While his lawyers will attempt to challenge the latest visa cancellation, Djokovic is unlikely to chase history at his most successful Grand Slam tournament.

The decision is also a blow to the Australian Open. With Federer out with injury, Djokovic and Nadal were the prime draw cards in this year’s men’s tournament. If the top-ranked Serbian player and nine-time Australian Open champion is deported, some have feared serious repercussions for the longevity of the event.

Critics have gone so far as to theorise global tennis powerbrokers might look elsewhere to host the “grand slam of the Asia-Pacific”, so as

[…] to be confident the tournament can proceed smoothly with strong levels of public and government support.

In that sense, the conservative MP and former professional tennis player John Alexander had urged allowing Djokovic to stay in the country, arguing:

Retaining the Australian Open as a grand slam event […] is in our national interest.

While the Australian Open’s reputation certainly has taken a hit, its status as one of the four Grand Slam tournaments has plenty of support. The longer-term damage might be to Djokovic’s legacy.

Given the extraordinary backstory to his medical exemption from COVID vaccination to enter Australia – along with the many questions that have arisen about his COVID infection in December – public opinion about him has swayed back and forth on a daily basis.

Courtside drama

Djokovic has long been a polarising figure in tennis. Despite his athleticism, endurance and mental toughness, he has sometimes been accused of gamesmanship, “exaggerating” injuries to allow for medical pauses when an opponent has the momentum.

Like other players, Djokovic has also exhibited unruly behaviour on court, with occasional racket smashes, as well as disqualification from the 2020 US Open after recklessly – albeit accidentally – smashing a ball into a line judge.

Compared with the much-loved Federer and Nadal, Djokovic has a narrower fan base. At the Australian Open, he’s always had the effervescent support of Melbourne’s large Serbian diaspora, with their patriotic singing and flag-waving. But the mood of the rest of the crowd this year would likely have been mixed, with some undoubtedly voicing their hostility.

Read more:
Secrecy surrounding Djokovic’s medical exemption means star can expect a hostile reception on centre court

Indeed, local tennis fans would have good reason to chafe at Djokovic’s medical exemption from immunisation given the stringent COVID protocols they must follow to attend the Australian Open.

The tournament requires fans to be double-vaccinated or provide evidence of a medical exemption. However, unlike Djokovic’s peculiar defence, prior COVID status does not absolve local residents from the need to be double-vaccinated, with “previous infection” no basis for an exemption.

Grand slammed?

Further complicating Djokovic’s legacy is the question of whether he’ll now face visa difficulties at the other tennis majors. The rapid spread of the Omicron variant may alter the rules for unvaccinated players in different countries and tournaments.

As things stand, Djokovic appears to face no vaccine-related impediment to competing at the French Open in a few months. The French sports minister has said Djokovic “would be able to take part”, although unlike vaccinated players he would need to follow “health bubble” protocols.

French President Emmanuel Macron, however, has made headlines by declaring he wants to “piss off” the unvaccinated – in part by mandating a “health pass” for public venues, a requirement for which is to be vaccinated. Whether Macron insists on changes for competitors at Roland-Garros remains to be seen.

As far as Wimbledon is concerned, unvaccinated international arrivals to the United Kingdom are currently required to take repeat COVID tests over several days, plus quarantine for ten days at a residence of their choice.

Djokovic would, presumably, look to a rent a house with a lawn tennis court attached.

Read more:
Novak Djokovic’s path to legal vindication was long and convoluted. It may also be fleeting

The US Open seems less certain. The unvaccinated are not permitted in specific indoor venues in New York without a medical exemption.

So, if one of Djokovic’s matches on the showcourts at the US Open was affected by rain and the roof needed to be closed, it is not clear what organisers would do. He might be forced to forfeit the match.

The Djokovic legacy

Given Djokovic has been less prone to injury than Federer or Nadal and is coming off one of his best years on tour, he is still likely to retire with the most men’s grand slam titles. If so, he can rightfully be feted as the greatest male tennis star of all time.

But how he will be remembered is a more complicated question. In one sense, Djokovic appears to revel in being depicted as the “arch-nemesis” of Federer and Nadal – it has fuelled his desire to surpass their grand slam title hauls.

Read more:
Why one man with ‘god-like’ powers decides if Novak Djokovic can stay or go

Yet, for all his tennis greatness, Djokovic often attracts eye-rolling outside the court – not simply in relation to his views on vaccines, but the wider pseudo-scientific ruminations that underpin his public pronouncements.

As the Australian tennis player Nick Kyrgios has put it, Djokovic seems “a very strange cat”.

The drama from the past week will have an effect on the way others view him, too. It will inflame his supporters, infuriate his detractors, and prompt even neutral observers to take a stand in respect to his entry to Australia. When it comes to Novak Djokovic, everyone will now surely have an opinion.

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

– ref. Novak Djokovic has long divided opinion. Now, his legacy will be complicated even further – https://theconversation.com/novak-djokovic-has-long-divided-opinion-now-his-legacy-will-be-complicated-even-further-174531

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

Immigration Minister Alex Hawke announced late Friday he had cancelled tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa “on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so”.

Djokovic’s lawyers are expected to seek an immediate injunction against his deportation.

The government had delayed all week responding to the Federal Circuit Court’s Monday quashing of the original decision by Border Force officials to cancel the Serbian player’s visa when he arrived in Australia.

The delay was partly due to extensive material provided by Djokovic’s laywers. But also, after being humiliated by the overturning of the initial visa cancellation, the government was anxious to make sure Hawke’s action would withstand a fresh challenge.

There has been strong public reaction against Djokovic, which has also been a factor in the government’s thinking. But at a diplomatic level, Serbia reacted sharply against the initial cancellation of his visa.

Djokovic was seeking a tenth title at the Australian Open, which starts on Monday. The draw pitted him against a fellow Serbian player in the first round.

Hawke said in his Friday night statement: “The Morrison government is firmly committed to protecting Australia’s borders, particularly in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic”.

Djokovic, who is unvaccinated, obtained a medical exemption under a Tennis Australia and Victorian government process on the grounds he had tested positive for COVID last month and therefore did not need to be vaccinated. But this was not accepted by the federal government.

Hawke said: “In making this decision, I carefully considered information provided to me by the Department of Home Affairs, the Australian Border Force and Mr Djokovic”.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison also released a statement expressing support for Hawke’s decision.

“This pandemic has been incredibly difficult for every Australian but we have stuck together and saved lives and livelihoods,” he said.

“Australians have made many sacrifices during this pandemic, and they rightly expect the result of those sacrifices to be protected,” he added. “This is what the minister is doing in taking this action today.”

The federal government conceded in Monday’s court case that Djokovic had not received procedural fairness when he was interviewed at Melbourne’s airport upon arrival. The interview took place in the early hours on January 6, which meant he did not have the opportunity to contact advisers.

But while Border Force has come under criticism within the government over its handling of the matter, Hawke said pointedly in his statement, “I thank the officers of the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Border Force who work every day to serve Australia’s interests in increasingly challenging operational environments.”

The immigration minister has broad discretionary powers under section 133C (3) of the Migration Act to cancel visas on public interest grounds, including on the grounds of health, safety or good order.

Read more:
Why one man with ‘god-like’ powers decides if Novak Djokovic can stay or go

Following Hawke’s decision, the law dictates that Djokovic will not be able to be granted another visa for three years, except in certain circumstances. These include compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia or compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen.

Hawke did not address whether Djokovic was likely to be able to obtain a visa before the end of the three-year period.

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

– ref. Novak Djokovic’s visa cancelled ‘in the public interest’, with possible 3-year ban from Australia – https://theconversation.com/novak-djokovics-visa-cancelled-in-the-public-interest-with-possible-3-year-ban-from-australia-174968

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Bennett, Chair in Epidemiology, Deakin University

Thousands more essential workers will be allowed back to work rather than having to self-isolate for seven days, under new rules agreed by national cabinet.

High-risk close contacts – those living with someone who has COVID-19 – must have a negative rapid antigen test on day one, have no symptoms and must stick to certain rules.

These include wearing a mask at work, getting rapid antigen tests every second day until day six, and monitoring for symptoms for 14 days. They can only leave quarantine to go to and from work.

Any workers in these categories who develop symptoms will need to immediately leave work. Anyone who tests positive will also need to isolate.

The move is designed to stem staff shortages and maintain critical services in the face of high COVID infection rates and increasing numbers of workers in isolation.

Food logistics workers and health staff already had different self-isolation requirements to most others. However the new rules also apply to emergency workers, teachers, childcare staff, among others.

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

This is a proportional response to managing risk at this stage of the pandemic, with so many of us vaccinated and receiving boosters.

However, we need to keep a close eye on how the changes influence case numbers at these critical workplaces. That’s so we can dial up or down future public health measures in response to changing conditions, including any future variants.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Government management of Omicron blighted by false assumptions, bad planning

What are the benefits?

Treasury estimates existing isolating arrangements could see 10% of workers, including those in critical industries, out of the workforce. If schools shut and parents had to stay at home to look after children it estimates a further 5% will be away from work.

So this latest announcement aims to find the optimal balance between freeing up as much of our industry and education sector to return to work and keeping a cap on infection risk.

That balance has shifted over time. We now know Omicron generally causes less-serious disease for most people than earlier variants, and the risk is reduced further as many of us are vaccinated and receiving boosters.

Teachers have been added to the list of workers who can return to work under these new rules. This should give us more confidence when planning how schools re-open after the summer break.

Ensuring schools stay open, with the teachers to staff them, is not only critical, it’s also an equity issue – we know school closures disproportionately affect disadvanaged students.

Allowing other critical workers to return to work, while balancing the risks, is also an equity issue. This latest move means people who have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic so far – including younger workers, casual workers, people in low socioeconomic groups – can get back to work and not lose income.

Read more:
5 charts on how COVID-19 is hitting Australia’s young adults hard

What are the risks? How do we manage them?

Yes, we need to manage the risk of more infections at work. But we are far from having a zero background risk as it is.

The virus is already in many workplaces. And only a fraction of infections are in people who would meet the close household contact definition; they could have picked up the virus at the pub or from social connections.

We also know from past experience, people often wait two to three days after developing symptoms to get tested, and wait even longer to get a result. So by the time they know their status, they may have had the infection for a week or more, with their housemates likely already infected and unknowingly taking the virus to work.

The latest changes also rely on rapid antigen testing to clear people for work, which has its own risks. Rapid antigen tests for use at home can miss detecting some infections, especially early in the infection. In other words, some infectious people will test negative, risking returning to work while unknowingly capable of transmitting the virus to others.

That’s why the latest changes ask for rapid antigen testing every two days. This makes it less likely you will repeatedly miss an actual infection. Repeat testing also means you can pick up those who incubate the virus for longer before becoming infectious.

There’s some evidence the reliability of rapid antigen tests might increase later in the traditional isolation period, which is more likely to overlap with the period when a contact knows they have to quarantine, or test for work if asymptomatic.

Workplaces and workers still need to minimise the risk of onward transmission for this identified at-risk groups of workers. For instance, there will be different rules for wearing personal protective equipment, and returning workers will still be allowed breaks, but they won’t be allowed to sit with other people.

After all, it’s in industry’s best interests to manage this well to keep enough employees healthy and at work.

So what we have with these latest changes is a marginal increase in risk that relies on testing, monitoring symptoms and safe work practices.

Read more:
Healthy humans drive the economy: we’re now witnessing one of the worst public policy failures in Australia’s history

What needs to happen next?

I’d like to see a few more measures in place to monitor these changes. These will tell us if we need to dial up or dial down public health measures for this current wave, and for future variants.

Infection numbers should be monitored by occupation to look for signs of a spike in particular occupational groups. Case counts are not the best measure as testing patterns change across the community and over time, but it would still allow detection of large shifts in infection patterns, especially in the critical settings that now require testing.

After the peak of the current wave is over, we should sample staff in key industries to see how many are infected and monitor this over time (known as surveillance). Ideally we look at infection rates before and after public health measures change to measure impact. This then allows us to design and manage quarantine and testing rules with greater precision going ahead.

We could target high-risk workplaces such as meatworks. These could be the canary in the mine. If case rates are OK there, they’re likely OK everywhere.

Read more:
Treating workers like meat: what we’ve learnt from COVID-19 outbreaks in abattoirs

We also need to change the way we test

A move away from relying on PCR testing towards surveillance testing is what we should be moving to more broadly as Australia learns to live with the virus. It’s an approach South Africa is taking.

If surveillance isn’t suggesting numbers are going up, and there is no change to hospital patterns, then it’s business as usual. So rather than slamming on the breaks with the types of hard public health measures we’ve seen in the past, we tap the breaks lightly, or merely decelerate. We do this when we see a shift in infection patterns or new variants – minimal settings with the greatest disease control potential.

It’s not about widespread lockdowns any more, but we do have to be careful to avoid the shadow lockdowns we’re seeing now. We also need to invest in the evaluations we need to more precisely manage the risk of transmission in workplace and education settings in future.

Read more:
South Africa has changed tack on tackling COVID: why it makes sense

Catherine Bennett receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and VicHealth. Catherine was also appointed expert advisor on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Group, and is on the COVID-19 Advisory Board of ResApp Health.

– ref. Latest isolation rules for critical workers gets the balance right. But that’s not the end of the story – https://theconversation.com/latest-isolation-rules-for-critical-workers-gets-the-balance-right-but-thats-not-the-end-of-the-story-174884

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, The University of Melbourne

While Australians are used to summer heat, most of us only have to endure the occasional day over 40℃.

Yesterday though, the temperature peaked at 50.7℃ in Onslow, a small Western Australian town around 100km from Exmouth.

Remarkably, the town sits right next to the ocean, which usually provides cooling. By contrast, the infamously hot WA town of Marble Bar has only reached 49.6℃ this summer, despite its inland location.

If confirmed, the Onslow temperature would equal Australia’s hottest on record set in Oodnadatta, South Australia, in January 1960. It would also mark only the fourth day over 50℃ for an Australian location since reliable observations began.

Unfortunately, this extreme heat is becoming more common as the world heats up. The number of days over 50℃ has doubled since the 1980s. These dangerous temperatures are now being recorded more often – not just in Australia but in cities in Pakistan, India and the Persian Gulf. This poses real threats to the health of people enduring them.

Where did the heat come from?

Hitting such extreme temperatures requires heat to build up over several days.

Onslow’s temperatures had been close to average since a couple of heatwaves struck the Pilbara in the second half of December. So where did this unusual heat come from?

In short, from the bakingly hot desert. South to south-easterly winds blew very hot air from the interior of the state up to Onslow. The wind came from an area that has had little to no rainfall since November, so the very hot air was also extremely dry.

Dry air kept the sun beating at full intensity by preventing any cloud cover or storm formation. The result? The temperature rose and rose through the morning and early afternoon, and the temperature spiked at over 50℃ just before 2.30pm local time.

Aren’t we in a cooler La Niña period?

Australia’s weather is strongly linked to conditions in the Pacific Ocean. At the moment we’re in a La Niña event where we have cooler than normal ocean temperatures near the equator in the central and east Pacific.

La Niña is typically associated with cooler, wetter conditions. But its effects on Australian weather are strongest in spring, when we had unusually wet and cool conditions over the east of the continent.

During summer the relationship between La Niña and Australian weather usually weakens, with its strongest impacts normally confined to the northeast of the continent.

During La Niña we typically see fewer and less intense heatwaves across much of eastern Australia, but the intensity of heat extremes in Western Australia is not very different between La Niña and El Niño.

The pattern of extreme heat in Western Australia and flooding in parts of Queensland is fairly typical of a La Niña summer, although temperatures over 50℃ are extremely rare.

Climate change is cranking up the heat

Should these temperatures be a surprise? Sadly, no. Australia has warmed by around 1.4℃ since 1910, well ahead of the global average of 1.1℃.

In northern Australia, summer-average temperatures have not risen as much as other parts of the country, because summers in the Top End have also got wetter. That’s in line with climate change models.

When the conditions are right in the Pilbara, however, heat is significantly more extreme than it used to be. Heat events in the region have become more frequent, more intense, and longer-lasting, just as in most other regions.

Most of us have chosen not to live in Australia’s hottest areas. So you might think you don’t need to worry about 50℃ heatwaves. But as the climate continues to warm, heatwave conditions are expected to become much more common and extreme across the continent.

In urban areas, roads and concrete soak up the sun’s heat, raising maximum temperatures by several degrees and making for dangerous conditions.

Even if we keep global warming below 2℃ in line with the Paris Agreement, we can still expect to see our first 50℃ days in Sydney and Melbourne in coming years. In January 2020 the Western Sydney suburb of Penrith came very close, reaching 48.9℃.

As you know, it’s going to be very hard to achieve even keeping global warming below 2℃, given the need to urgently slash greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade.

As it stands, the world’s actions on emission reduction suggest we are actually on track for around 2.7℃ of warming, which would see devastating consequences for life on Earth.

We already know what we need to do to prevent this frightening future. The stronger the action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally – including by major carbon emitting countries such as Australia – the less the world will warm and the less Australian heat extremes will intensify. That’s because the relationships between greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures and Australian heat extremes are roughly linear.

You may think Australians are good at surviving the heat. But the climate you were born in doesn’t exist any more. Sadly, our farms, wildlife, and suburbs will struggle to cope with the extreme heat projected for coming decades.

Let’s work to make this 50℃ record an outlier – and not the new normal.

Andrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Environmental Science Program.

– ref. This WA town just topped 50℃ – a dangerous temperature many Australians will have to get used to – https://theconversation.com/this-wa-town-just-topped-50-a-dangerous-temperature-many-australians-will-have-to-get-used-to-174909

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

The NSW government this week decreed that anyone returning a positive COVID-19 reading using a rapid antigen test must report their result (through the Service NSW app or website). Failing to do so can result in a $1,000 fine.

The new rule came into effect on January 12 (there will be a one-week grace period). In the first 24 hours more than 80,000 people registered positive tests (recorded since January 1). In one sense that’s a lot. But since we have no idea of the total number of tests taken – let alone the number with a positive result – it’s hard to calibrate.

The fine threat raises a number of questions, with the first being how will the government know if you test positive and don’t record it? On Wednesday, NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet admitted that it would be a hard law to enforce, saying:

there are obviously areas right across the state where there are laws that are harder to enforce than others, this is clearly one that will be harder to enforce, there’s no doubt about it.

Given this, it’s hard to know what the point of the announced penalty is. Indeed, both the economic theory and behavioural research research suggests it will achieve the opposite of its intention.

1. Fines act as a disincentive

Economists view these rules through the lens of the field of “contract theory”.

Rules create incentives that encourage or discourage certain behaviours. In this case, suppose you test positive. If you self-isolate as result, because that’s the right thing to do even without rules, then truthfully reporting the result is of no consequence to you (as long as it’s easy to do, which it is for most people).

But if you wouldn’t isolate, then truthfully reporting the results is of consequence. In NSW you face a $5,000 fine for failing to comply with obligations to self-isolate when diagnosed with COVID-19. Your choice is the low probability of a $1,000 fine for not reporting the result or the higher probability of a $5,000 fine for failing to isolate.

So there’s an individual disincentive to even taking the test at all – which is, after all, optional for most. This means fewer tests will be taken, the opposite of what authorities want.

Read more:
It’s still not too late to fix the rapid antigen testing debacle. Why the national cabinet decision is wrong and must be reversed

From the perspective of contract theory, therefore, this $1,000 fine is likely to reduce tests by those who are not willing or not able (perhaps because they have to work for financial reasons) to voluntarily isolate.

So you can bet that these folks will be calculating the odds of getting caught. This is the way some people think about parking fines, or thieves think about stealing bicycles. It’s a calculation involving the size of the penalty and the probability of getting caught.

2. Fines can turn off good behaviour

Some scholars, such as Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel, argue the very act of putting a dollar value on things causes people to think of them in a transactional way. It’s no longer “wrong” to park in a no-standing zone, there’s just a kind of fee for it. In other words, fines can destroy civic virtue.

A classic example of this comes from a study by behavioural economists
Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini on ways to encourage parents to pick up their children from child-care centres on time.

Parents being late meant staff had to stay behind. The study involved some centres introducing fines to deter late pickups. But the fines actually led to more late pickups. Parents no longer felt so guilty. Being on time was no longer a social norm but a transaction. They could pay to disregard the expectation.

Read more:
What to do with anti-maskers? Punishment has its place, but can also entrench resistance

So, too, it might be with this week’s $1,000 fine rule. In the unlikely event of getting caught, some might see the fine as just “the cost of doing business”.

3. Fines can make a mockery of the law

A final consideration about the $1,000 fine for failing to report a positive RAT tests concerns the problem of laws that cannot be enforced. The NSW government concede the new rule will hard to police and is mostly about messaging.

“If we didn’t put a fine on it then people would say you’re not taking it seriously,” the minister for customer service said. But this is just turning a law into a bit of a joke. Laws being openly “mocked” damage the rule of law itself.

Getting rules right

These three complementary perspectives all point to the $1,000 fine for failing to report a positive rapid antigen test being a bad idea.

It’s good to make it convenient for people to do the right thing (that’s what the Service NSW app does). It’s good to encourage people to do the right thing. It would be really good if there were lots of RATs available (ideally for free or close to it) so people can have the information to empower and protect themselves, their families and their communities.

This does none of these things. It’s bad to enact a rule that makes a mockery of the law and likely to be counterproductive.

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

– ref. Vital Signs. The 3 problems with fines for not reporting positive COVID tests – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-the-3-problems-with-fines-for-not-reporting-positive-covid-tests-174774

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paola Magni, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Science, Murdoch University

COVID may have curtailed travel, hospitality, education and entertainment, but crime scene investigation never stops.

As a forensic scientist, researcher and lecturer, I know first-hand the risks and challenges crime scene investigation (CSI) teams have faced over the past two years as we’ve grappled with the realities of operating amid the threat of COVID.

CSI units present a unique challenge, as investigators often work at close quarters for prolonged periods. Yet surprisingly, until now, there has been very little adjustment to existing crime scene procedures.

When COVID first appeared, guidelines were quickly introduced in a range of countries for forensic autopsies of COVID-positive cases and the handling of infected biological samples, but not for CSI protocols more generally.

How should CSI teams be protected?

One possibility is CSI teams could adopt the existing protective measures used for chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incidents.

Those measures were largely developed in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, and in response to broader concerns about terrorism that began to emerge in the 1990s.

But these safety precautions are burdensome, time-consuming and expensive, particularly for local and regional law enforcement agencies, and are not necessarily useful when dealing with a virus.

Officers dealing with identifying a potential toxic warfare agent, for example, would need much more bulky equipment than the standard PPE used to prevent COVID infections.

And let’s not forget the role of our law enforcement agencies also includes many other tasks, such as crime prevention and public order, not just identifying, securing and providing evidence in a criminal court. In an ideal world, each police department would have its own specialist forensic agents. But the reality, especially in small cities and remote areas, is that officers are trained for every task, including collecting forensic evidence.

All over the world during the 2020 lockdowns, minor offences such as burglaries and car thefts declined. But there was no drop in serious crimes, such as homicide and domestic violence.

In fact, COVID has arguably created new types of incidents to investigate, such as suspicious deaths in hotel quarantine.

Read more:
Some crimes have seen drastic decreases during coronavirus — but not homicides in the US

COVID looks set to be with us for some time yet. So what is the best way to protect our CSI teams in an affordable and practical way?

COVID-safe crime scenes

One place to look for ideas is Italy, which has so far recorded 5.6 million COVID cases and almost 140,000 deaths.

Together with Enrico Di Luise of the Italian Military Police Laboratory of Forensic Biology in Messina, I have published a world-first set of recommendations to make forensic operations possible across the different phases of crime scene management, from evidence collection in the field to analysis in the lab.

Briefly, our recommendations include:

• CSI call policy. To ensure maximum preparedness, operations call centre staff should be trained to ask for information about the health conditions of the victim(s) and other people involved in the case, including their travel history and contact history.

• Equipment preparation and sanitation. Any object, if contaminated at the scene of a crime, can potentially spread infection to the rest of the CSI team. To guard against this, team members should each be given their own individual set of equipment, such as briefcases, evidence boxes, chemical reagent sets, and ultraviolet flashlights. Disposable materials or tools should be treated as medical waste and placed in a designated area of the crime scene. Reusable items should be disinfected at the crime scene with sanitiser or bleach, and back at headquarters should be sanitised a second time by mechanical or chemical disinfection, or thermal sterilisation in an oven called an autoclave. This should be done in a dedicated room by staff wearing appropriate PPE.

• Working groups. CSI team should be able to maintain independent forensic capacity, including experts in at least the areas of forensic biology, fingerprint analysis and photography, plus the ability for one team member to also take on the task of team leader. This is the only feasible way to maintain teams with full operational ability. Officers should be organised into small, non-interchangeable teams, so if one or more members of a particular team falls ill, another team can step in without risk of exposure.

• Procedure at the scene. Regardless of the scenario, CSI operators must consider every crime scene as a “hot zone”. Limiting the number of operators present in a room or small space at any given time is crucial. We have proposed a new general layout by which crime scenes can be divided into different areas, including one-way paths in and out, and a dedicated “clean area”.

• Chain of custody. A correct chain of custody for evidence is crucial to any forensic case. But different types of evidence have different infection potential, and often have to be treated in different labs, by different staff or on different time frames. Until now, details such as time and exact location have rarely been included in routine traceability recordings, but should now be included. These details could be vital in tracing the movement of potentially contaminated items.

Read more:
COVID has changed policing — but now policing needs to change to respond better to COVID

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

– ref. Crime won’t stop because of COVID. So how should we protect crime scene investigators? – https://theconversation.com/crime-wont-stop-because-of-covid-so-how-should-we-protect-crime-scene-investigators-174870

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

Before Australia’s recent changes to COVID testing, working out when we reached the peak of cases was, in principal, straightforward.

We looked at the numbers of new daily cases, diagnosed via PCR. From there, we worked out a range of other key indicators related to COVID spread, testing and hospitalisation – each dependent on those daily case numbers.

However, we’ve seen a huge spike in cases recently as people test positive using rapid antigen tests, especially as reporting their results to state health authorities is now possible and becoming mandatory.

So it will be a few days before we can measure some key numbers with any degree of accuracy. Only then will be able to say with confidence when we’ve hit the peak and are coming down the other side.

1. The number of new daily cases

Most people by now would have seen an epidemic curve. It is a plot of the number of new cases of COVID-19 diagnosed each day. Here is the current epidemic curve for New South Wales.

As for the date, states and territories use different cut-off times for defining a 24-hour period. As authorities undertake investigations, the date of some cases can change. So, do we plot the daily announced case numbers, or the “true” case number after modifications?

That sounds complicated, but even more complicated is trying to define a case.

Before rapid antigen tests became available to the public for use at home, cases were diagnosed from positive PCR tests.

Then, because of huge queues at PCR testing hubs and many people, even those with symptoms, giving up and not getting tested, our testing system changed.

National Cabinet agreed to remove the requirement for a PCR test to confirm a positive rapid antigen test result.

As most states and territories move towards reporting both positive PCR tests and positive rapid antigen tests, we still need to iron out the bumps in the data. Potentially, someone could get both tests and be included twice!

The uncertainty in case numbers also affects other key parameters we use to monitor the current wave.

2. The Reff

The effective reproduction number (Reff) is a measure of how many other people on average each case infects. We want that to get below 1 to stop an outbreak. At its most simple, the Reff is today’s case number, divided by the case number four days ago.

Since we currently have so many problems defining and counting case numbers, it will be a few days before we can consistently interpret the Reff for each state and territory again.

Read more:
What are the symptoms of omicron?

3. Percentage of positive tests

This is the percentage of positive tests out of all COVID-19 tests taken. It is an important measure as it gives an indication of the amount of undiagnosed cases in the community.

The World Health Organization suggests if it is under 5%, things are under control.

When diagnosis was only by PCR test, we had good data on both the number of tests, and the number that were positive.

Now, states and territories are moving to reporting rapid antigen test results, it’s not so straightforward.

Some jurisdictions like Queensland only ask you to report a positive result. This means we no longer know how many tests were taken. SA Health is encouraging people to report negative tests as well, which is a much better system.

4. Number hospitalised

As Australia opens up, we’ve been told to pay more attention to COVID-19 hospitalisations, rather than just the case numbers. But even that gets complicated.

Clearly if someone tests positive for COVID-19 and then gets admitted to hospital, they are an admitted case. But what if they are admitted as a probable case?

And should hospitalisation numbers include people being managed in a hospital-in-the-home type arrangement? After all, they still take up hospital resources.

Finally, what if they were admitted for something else but subsequently diagnosed with COVID-19 in hospital?

Even more difficult is attempting to calculate the rate of COVID-19 hospitalisation. This is the number of people in hospital with COVID-19 divided by the number of people diagnosed. But you have to decide which time periods you’re talking about, another debate entirely.

There are similar issues with measuring the number and rates of people in intensive care.

Read more:
We’re seeing more COVID patients in ICU as case numbers rise. That affects the whole hospital

How do these changes impact modelling?

NSW Health recently released modelling to look at what’s ahead.

With current restrictions in place in NSW, the modelling shows a peak of 4,700 hospitalisations, with 273 in intensive care over mid- to late January.

It is unclear whether changes to testing rules have been factored into the modelling. However, it’s understood, even if the detection rate changes significantly, it doesn’t affect any projection of when the peak will be reached that much.

Modelling is therefore still likely to be reasonably accurate despite the changes to COVID testing. This is good news for other states and territories that rely on modelling results for planning.

Read more:
Scientific modelling is steering our response to coronavirus. But what is scientific modelling?

Where to from here?

A good start would be to have mandatory reporting of rapid antigen test results, both positive and negative. That way we can calculate the percentage of positive tests again.

The United Kingdom has a good system. After you take a rapid antigen test there, you scan a QR code on the pack and report the test results as positive, negative or void to a central government database.

Importantly, let’s have one national body responsible for defining, collecting and reporting COVID-19 statistics. It could be the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Better still would be to have our own Centre for Disease Control, which people like myself have been calling for for a long time.

Chris Billington, from the University of Melbourne, contributed to the section on modelling.

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

– ref. When will this COVID wave be over? 4 numbers to keep an eye on and why – https://theconversation.com/when-will-this-covid-wave-be-over-4-numbers-to-keep-an-eye-on-and-why-174533

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael Helene Nolan, Senior research fellow, Western Sydney University

The current wet conditions delivered by La Niña may have caused widespread flooding, but they’ve also provided a reprieve from the threat of bushfires in southeastern Australia. This is an ideal time to consider how we prepare for the next bushfire season.

Dry conditions will eventually return, as will fire. So, two years on from the catastrophic Black Summer fires, is Australia better equipped for a future of extreme fire seasons?

In our recent synthesis on the Black Summer fires, we argue climate change is exceeding the capacity of our ecological and social systems to adapt. The paper is based on a series of reports we, and other experts from the NSW Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub, were commissioned to produce for the NSW government’s bushfire inquiry.

Fire management in Australia has reached a crossroads, and “business as usual” won’t cut it. In this era of mega-fires, diverse strategies are urgently needed so we can safely live with fire.

Does prescribed burning work?

Various government inquiries following the Black Summer fires of 2019-20 produced wide-ranging recommendations for how to prepare and respond to bushfires. Similar inquiries have been held since 1939 after previous bushfires.

Typically, these inquiries led to major changes to policy and funding. But almost universally, this was followed by a gradual complacency and failure to put policies into practice.

If any fire season can provide the catalyst for sustained changes to fire management, it is Black Summer. So, what have we learnt from that disaster and are we now better prepared?

To answer the first question, we turn to our analyses for the NSW Bushfire Inquiry.

Following the Black Summer fires, debate emerged about whether hazard reduction burning by fire authorities ahead of the fire season had been sufficient, or whether excessive “fuel loads” – such as dead leaves, bark and shrubs – had been allowed to accumulate.

We found no evidence the fires were driven by above-average fuel loads stemming from a lack of planned burning. In fact, hazard reduction burns conducted in the years leading up to the Black Summer fires effectively reduced the probability of high severity fire, and reduced the number of houses destroyed by fire.

Read more:
Drought and climate change were the kindling, and now the east coast is ablaze

Instead, we found the fires were primarily driven by record-breaking fuel dryness and extreme weather conditions. These conditions were due to natural climate variability, but made worse by climate change. Most fires were sparked by lightning, and very few were thought to be the result of arson.

These extreme weather conditions meant the effectiveness of prescribed burns was reduced – particularly when an area had not burned for more than five years.

All this means that hazard reduction burning in NSW is generally effective, however in the face of worsening climate change new policy responses are needed.

Diverse and unexpected impacts

As the Black Summer fires raged, loss of life and property most commonly occurred in regional areas while metropolitan areas were heavily affected by smoke. Smoke exposure from the disaster led to an estimated 429 deaths.

Socially disadvantaged and Indigenous populations were disproportionately affected by the fires, including by loss of income, homes and infrastructure, as well as emotional trauma. Our analyses found 38% of fire-affected areas were among the most disadvantaged, while just 10% were among the least disadvantaged.

We also found some areas with relatively large Indigenous populations were fire-affected. For example, four fire-affected areas had Indigenous populations greater than 20% including the Grafton, Eurobodalla Hinterland, Armidale and Kempsey regions.

Read more:
1 in 10 children affected by bushfires is Indigenous. We’ve been ignoring them for too long

The Black Summer fires burnt an unprecedentedly large area – half of all wet sclerophyll forests and over a third of rainforest vegetation types in NSW.

Importantly, for 257 plant species, the historical intervals between fires across their range were likely too short to allow effective regeneration. Similarly, many vegetation communities were left vulnerable to too-frequent fire, which may result in biodiversity decline, particularly as the climate changes.

Looking to the future

So following Black Summer, how do we ensure Australia is better equipped for a future of extreme fire seasons?

As a first step, we must act on both the knowledge gained from government inquiries into the disaster, and the recommendations handed down. Importantly, long-term funding commitments are required to support bushfire management, research and innovation.

Governments have already increased investment in fire-suppression resources such as water-bombing aircraft. There’s also been increased investment in fire management such as improving fire trails and employing additional hazard reduction crews, as well as new allocations for research funding.

But alongside this, we also need investment in community-led solutions and involvement in bushfire planning and operations. This includes strong engagement between fire authorities and residents in developing strategies for hazard reduction burning, and providing greater support for people to manage fuels on private land. Support should also be available to people who decide to relocate away from high bushfire risk areas.

The Black Summer fires led to significant interest in a revival of Indigenous cultural burning – a practice that brings multiple benefits to people and environment. However, non-Indigenous land managers should not treat cultural burning as simply another hazard reduction technique, but part of a broader practice of Aboriginal-led cultural land management.

This requires structural and procedural changes in non-Indigenous land management, as well as secure, adequate and ongoing funding opportunities. Greater engagement and partnership with Aboriginal communities at all levels of fire and land management is also needed.

Under climate change, living with fire will require a multitude of new solutions and approaches. If we want to be prepared for the next major fire season, we must keep planning and investing in fire management and research – even during wet years such as this one.

Ross Bradstock, Owen Price, David Bowman, Vanessa Cavanagh, David Keith, Matthias Boer, Hamish Clarke, Trent Penman, Josh Whittaker and many others contributed to the research upon which this article is based.

Rachael Nolan receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Rural Fire Service, ACT Parks and Conservation and the Hermon Slade Foundation. She is a member of the NSW Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub, which is supported by funds from the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

Grant Williamson receives funding from the NSW Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub, funded by NSW Dept of Planning, Industry and Environment.

While based at UOW Katharine Haynes received funding from the NSW Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub, supported by the NSW Dept of Planning, Industry and Environment. Katharine is now the NSW Node Research Manager for Natural Hazards Research Australia.

Mark Ooi receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. He is a member of the NSW Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub, which is supported by funds from the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

– ref. Fire management in Australia has reached a crossroads and ‘business as usual’ won’t cut it – https://theconversation.com/fire-management-in-australia-has-reached-a-crossroads-and-business-as-usual-wont-cut-it-174696

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Heinemann, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, University of Canterbury

Two high-profile University of Auckland academics raised important questions about academic freedom with their complaint to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) that their employer had failed its duty of care to them.

Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles and Professor Shaun Hendy have become well known for their work explaining the science behind COVID-19 and guiding the public and government response.

But not everyone has agreed with that response or valued their contribution, and the academics have been threatened by what they have called “a small but venomous sector of the public”. They argued the university had not adequately responded to their safety concerns and requests for protection.

The case has now been referred to the Employment Court and the outcome for all parties remains unknown.

My focus is on the initial determination by the ERA, which referred to a letter from the university to Wiles and Hendy in August 2021 that urged them “to keep their public commentary to a minimum and suggested they take paid leave to enable them ‘to minimise any social media comments at present’.”

According to the ERA, this advice was “apparently given after [the university] received recommendations from its legal advisors to amend its policies so as to ‘not require’ its employees to provide public commentary, in order to limit its potential liability for online harassment.”

The ERA also noted the university “says that the applicants are not ‘expected’ or required to provide public commentary on COVID-19 as part of their employment or roles with the respondent, but it acknowledges they are entitled to do so.”

This issue is central to my concerns about academic freedom.

Freedom and risk

The academics argued that the university is statutorily required to “accept a role as critic and conscience of society” – as is set out under section 268 of the Education and Training Act 2020.

Universities routinely fulfil this role when academic staff and students state controversial or unpopular opinions and the results of their independent scholarship. Asking academics to step back from those roles to avoid risk seems to acknowledge that the threat derives from them doing their work.

I also fail to see how it would mitigate risk. An electrician who tried to mitigate the risk of electrocution by spending less time around wires hasn’t actually reduced the risk of electrocution when doing their job. They’ve just reduced the amount of time they are doing their job.

Read more:
Are New Zealand’s universities doing enough to define the limits of academic freedom?

The Auckland academics are not the first to receive threats because of their “critic and conscience” activities. In the US, my former boss Dr Anthony Fauci says he, too, has received death threats from members of the public because of his work on the pandemic.

Less visible but still damaging threats or derogatory comments can come from within the university community, too. Systemic discrimination based on gender and race is well documented in academia. And increasingly, there are conflicts arising out of commercial interests in public research organisations.

Elsewhere it can be even more dangerous, such as the state-sponsored attacks on academics reported in Turkey. As a fellow scientist, I empathise with colleagues forced into the spotlight by virtue of their expertise or conscience.

Uses and limits of institutional power

Universities provide an important protection of academic freedom by not using their power as employers to stifle opinion. But it’s not enough. Universities should be more active in enabling academics to fulfil their role as critic and conscience of society so that, as expected by parliament, academic freedom is “preserved and enhanced”.

But there are also limits. No university in Aotearoa New Zealand has the scale to protect its students and staff from the concerted actions of a hostile country, a multi-billion dollar multinational company, or even the whispers of co-conspirators at coffee breaks during the ranking of grants.

What universities should do cannot exceed what they can do.

A coalition of government, universities, unions, staff and students needs to work together to redefine what can be done.

Read more:
Ministerial interference is an attack on academic freedom and Australia’s literary culture

The government could reaffirm its commitment to critic-and-conscience activities by creating or re-purposing funding explicitly for these. Accountability will follow because universities would be required to expose that activity to public oversight.

The expectations of the university and the government to preserve and enhance academic freedom should become a normal conversation.

The risk is governments might want to influence what does and does not constitute being a critic and conscience of society, and use funding to stifle criticism of its policies. While this risk exists already, the temptation to constrain academic freedom could become stronger.

But balance would be provided by using the United Nations’ higher education declaration as a benchmark, through the transparency of the funding accountability exercise, and the declared precondition the funding allocation process be subject to ongoing and open scrutiny by university staff and students.

Read more:
Academic freedom is under threat around the world – here’s how to defend it

Accepting risk with freedom

Universities would be expected to use their additional resources to enable students and staff, as safely as possible, to use their academic freedom for public service.

Jurisdictional responsibilities could be negotiated between universities and government so that, where appropriate, a threat requiring more than campus security would be covered by the country’s police or defence resources.

But students and staff have some responsibilities, too. The university community cannot and should not leave its own protection to others. It needs to take a greater role in self-policing prejudice, privilege and conflicts of interest within the academic community itself.

Confronting the ultimate holders of power within their own academies and professional bodies will be the most painful action for members. But it would be worse for the community to fail in this and therefore do less as the critic and conscience of society.

If the use of academic freedom did not create risk, parliament would not have needed to legislate for its protection. But that risk should not be shouldered by Wiles and Hendy, or anyone else, alone.

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

– ref. What does ‘academic freedom’ mean in practice? Why the Siouxsie Wiles and Shaun Hendy employment case matters – https://theconversation.com/what-does-academic-freedom-mean-in-practice-why-the-siouxsie-wiles-and-shaun-hendy-employment-case-matters-174695

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

The NSW government this week decreed that anyone returning a positive COVID-19 reading using a rapid antigen test must report their result (through the Service NSW app or website). Failing to do so can result in a $1,000 fine.

The new rule came into effect on January 12 (there will be a one-week grace period). In the first 24 hours more than 80,000 people registered positive tests (recorded since January 1). In one sense that’s a lot. But since we have no idea of the total number of tests taken – let alone the number with a positive result – it’s hard to calibrate.

The fine threat raises a number of questions, with the first being how will the government know if you test positive and don’t record it? On Wednesday, NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet admitted that it would be a hard law to enforce, saying:

there are obviously areas right across the state where there are laws that are harder to enforce than others, this is clearly one that will be harder to enforce, there’s no doubt about it.

Given this, it’s hard to know what the point of the announced penalty is. Indeed, both the economic theory and behavioural research research suggests it will achieve the opposite of its intention.

1. Fines act as a disincentive

Economists view these rules through the lens of the field of “contract theory”.

Rules create incentives that encourage or discourage certain behaviours. In this case, suppose you test positive. If you self-isolate as result, because that’s the right thing to do even without rules, then truthfully reporting the result is of no consequence to you (as long as it’s easy to do, which it is for most people).

But if you wouldn’t isolate, then truthfully reporting the results is of consequence. In NSW you face a $5,000 fine for failing to comply with obligations to self-isolate when diagnosed with COVID-19. Your choice is the low probability of a $1,000 fine for not reporting the result or the higher probability of a $5,000 fine for failing to isolate.

So there’s an individual disincentive to even taking the test at all – which is, after all, optional for most. This means fewer tests will be taken, the opposite of what authorities want.

Read more:
It’s still not too late to fix the rapid antigen testing debacle. Why the national cabinet decision is wrong and must be reversed

From the perspective of contract theory, therefore, this $1,000 fine is likely to reduce tests by those who are not willing or not able (perhaps because they have to work for financial reasons) to voluntarily isolate.

So you can bet that these folks will be calculating the odds of getting caught. This is the way some people think about parking fines, or thieves think about stealing bicycles. It’s a calculation involving the size of the penalty and the probability of getting caught.

2. Fines can turn off good behaviour

Some scholars, such as Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel, argue the very act of putting a dollar value on things causes people to think of them in a transactional way. It’s no longer “wrong” to park in a no-standing zone, there’s just a kind of fee for it. In other words, fines can destroy civic virtue.

A classic example of this comes from a study by behavioural economists
Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini on ways to encourage parents to pick up their children from child-care centres on time.

Parents being late meant staff had to stay behind. The study involved some centres introducing fines to deter late pickups. But the fines actually led to more late pickups. Parents no longer felt so guilty. Being on time was no longer a social norm but a transaction. They could pay to disregard the expectation.

Read more:
What to do with anti-maskers? Punishment has its place, but can also entrench resistance

So, too, it might be with this week’s $1,000 fine rule. In the unlikely event of getting caught, some might see the fine as just “the cost of doing business”.

3. Fines can make a mockery of the law

A final consideration about the $1,000 fine for failing to report a positive RAT tests concerns the problem of laws that cannot be enforced. The NSW government concede the new rule will hard to police and is mostly about messaging.

“If we didn’t put a fine on it then people would say you’re not taking it seriously,” the minister for customer service said. But this is just turning a law into a bit of a joke. Laws being openly “mocked” damage the rule of law itself.

Getting rules right

These three complementary perspectives all point to the $1,000 fine for failing to report a positive rapid antigen test being a bad idea.

It’s good to make it convenient for people to do the right thing (that’s what the Service NSW app does). It’s good to encourage people to do the right thing. It would be really good if there were lots of RATs available (ideally for free or close to it) so people can have the information to empower and protect themselves, their families and their communities.

This does none of these things. It’s bad to enact a rule that makes a mockery of the law and likely to be counterproductive.

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

– ref. The 3 problems with fines for not reporting positive COVID tests – https://theconversation.com/the-3-problems-with-fines-for-not-reporting-positive-covid-tests-174774

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

Australia’s journey through Omicron is like the bus tour from hell. Steering awry, seat belts forgotten or not working, and the driver’s patter wearing thin with stressed passengers.

Eventually we’ll see the back of the boggy ground on this outback track. But in worse shape and at higher cost than the Morrison government was suggesting only weeks ago.

“Omicron is a gear change and we have to push through,” Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday. “You have two choices here: you can push through or you can lock down. We’re for pushing through.”

Surveying the present shambles, you’d have to conclude the gearbox is shot.

Morrison’s “either-or” dichotomy is simplistic and misleading, trying to disguise the failure to have been better prepared with a more nuanced response.

It wasn’t “either-or”. It was about managing to best effect a transition that must be made to the so-called “living with COVID” new world. The challenge was to find the right settings on a spectrum of choices.

So what went wrong? Almost everything, it seems. Federal and state governments share blame, but as PM, Morrison has to shoulder prime responsibility.

After being able to pride itself on (with some notable exceptions) coping with COVID well in the pandemic’s earlier stages, Australia has suddenly jumped from having minimal rates to widespread infection in the community (excluding Western Australia).

Obviously this Omicron journey was going to be rough. But surely it did not have to be as bad as we’re experiencing on multiple fronts.

Earlier lessons weren’t properly learned. Planning has been woeful. The relationship between health and the economy was misread.

Morrison’s much vaunted “national plan” of last year (admittedly formulated when we were in the Delta stage) put near total faith in vaccination. Vaccination has been transformational, reducing the severity of illness and saving lives. But it doesn’t stop the transmission of the highly-infectious Omicron, which can still hobble the country.

As Christmas approached, and on the back of a good economic bounce-back from the lockdowns, the federal government wanted people spending as much as possible of their stored-up savings as a further stimulus.

In the biggest state, new NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet was particularly gung ho about achieving maximum freedom as quickly as possible.

But soon the catch-22 emerged. If Omicron is ripping through, people might not be locked down but many will choose or be forced to behave as though they are – doing less, tightening their purse strings.

The lack of preparation has been even more stunning than the miscalculation.

The future need for rapid antigen tests (RATs) was anticipated months ago. Yet we’ve been hit with an acute shortage, just as delays lengthened in getting results from PCR tests.

After the vaccination stuff-ups, you’d have thought federal and state governments would have pulled out all stops to get enough RATs. But no.

Without denying the importance of RAT results being collected, there was some irony in NSW this week rushing to announce fines for people who fail to record these – when they can’t readily secure the tests. Now the NSW government concedes its policy won’t be enforceable – the policy was “a line-ball call”, said one NSW minister.

It’s great that younger children are currently getting vaccinated. But who thought this would not put immense pressure on already overloaded GPs, with many parents preferring to take their kids to a doctor than elsewhere?

That job won’t be finished by the end of the holidays. But Morrison is desperate for children to be in school. Treasury told Thursday’s national cabinet “current arrangements could see 10% of Australia’s workforce, including many workers in critical supply sectors, withdrawn from the workforce”. If schools didn’t open that could add another 5%. Queensland and South Australia have already put back their school start dates.

Morrison late last year argued that with a very high vaccination rate we shouldn’t concentrate on case numbers but on hospitalisations rates, much lower than in earlier waves.

But with skyrocketing infections, the absolute numbers in hospital are going to weigh down the system, as well as pushing aside other care, notably elective surgery.

This is happening while the wildfire infection takes out large numbers of health care workers, directly through illness or indirectly through furlough.

When the PM last week said he would “strongly encourage” people with COVID to contact their GP, doctors’ phones ran hot. The medicos weren’t impressed with the prime ministerial referral system.

The narrative that most people wouldn’t be very ill so the health system and the economy should be fine was always problematic.

It didn’t take enough account of how everything connects to everything else in this pandemic, and how the interconnections are multiplied a hundred fold when the numbers become so high. In just one example, lack of RATs weaken supply chains.

COVID is hitting these chains in a way inconceivable in 2020. Morrison this week personally led talks on the supply aspect of the crisis.

At the start of the pandemic, Australian governments prided themselves on following the health advice. Now the health considerations are following the economic and political ones.

Isolation rules and close contact definitions are being continually changed to keep the wheels turning – whether they are the wheels of the health system (trying to keep enough workers on the job) or those of the transports taking goods to the supermarkets.

But the more you dilute these rules – even for very good reasons – the more infections can be expected to increase, leading to fresh problems and constraints.

Morrison acknowledged on Thursday, after the latest alterations: “The less restrictions you put on people to get them at work, the more pressure that can potentially put on your hospital system. And vice-versa.

“The more you try to protect your hospital system, the more people you’re taking out of work, which disrupts supply chains. So this is a very delicate balance that needs to be constantly recalibrated.”

The Omicron wave is expected to “peak” within weeks. But how much planning is underway for variants that might follow?

Assuming there is not some new variant soon, the government is banking on things then calming down before the election.

Work is underway on the late-March budget with its election sweeteners, although Treasurer Josh Frydenberg presumably has been a little slowed this week by experiencing a bout of COVID himself.

Morrison is hoping that in a May election he can escape or minimise the blame for the gross mismanagement of the Omicron wave. But “long COVID” is a nasty illness for those who get it, and it could have a harsh political variant.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Government management of Omicron blighted by false assumptions, bad planning – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-government-management-of-omicron-blighted-by-false-assumptions-bad-planning-174876

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Penny Olsen, Honorary Professor in the Division of Ecology and Evolution, Australian National University

Who would have thought the budgerigar, Australia’s most petite parrot and a denizen of our arid and semi-arid inland, would become the most popular pet bird in the world?

The budgerigar’s world domination began in 1840 when British ornithologist John Gould returned to England from the Australian colonies. With him were two budgerigars which had survived the months at sea.

As Gould later wrote in a letter to a relative, the pair were “in exuberant voice and the most animated cheerful little creatures you can possibly imagine”.

Gould showed the birds off at scientific meetings and visits to stately homes, attracting much interest and envy.

By the 1860s, collectors had discovered many of the birds’ breeding grounds across Australia’s interior and the holds of ships from Adelaide to Europe were often filled with thousands of budgies. In the 1880s, fanciers in England and Europe were breeding budgerigars and budgie farms were producing vast numbers for sale as pets.

After 150 years of selective breeding in captivity, including as an exhibition bird, the domestic budgie would now be almost unrecognisable to its wild cousin. So in the unlikely event of a confrontation between the two, whose feathers would fly?

Battle of the budgerigars – in the wild

Outside captivity, the wild budgie would defeat its domesticated doppelganger without ruffling a feather. Wild budgies are swift and agile, with a slightly forward-leaning posture always ready to take off. By comparison, pet budgies are slower and less athletic – particularly show budgies, which can barely fly and are bred to stand upright.

Show budgies do have one factor that could possibly work in their favour: size. They’re bred big and bulky, weighing in at about 55 grams, compared to the more slender wild and pet budgies at about 30 grams. But given show budgies are bred to be placid, they’re unlikely to throw their supersized weight around.

And while wild budgies are smaller than a show or pet budgie, their ability to dodge a predator is considerable – especially when they are in a coordinated, wheeling flock.

In the 1870s in South Australia, for example, wild budgies even managed to dodge gun club shooters. Club members complained budgies were too small and swift, and hard to follow because their colour blended with the local vegetation. Eventually they abandoned them for pigeons.

But what of the pet budgies’ purported psychic powers – could they be used to outwit an opponent on the battlefield?

In late Victorian London, budgerigars were popular tellers of fortunes. Their keepers, often migrant women, earned a penny by getting their budgie to choose a predictive note from among many. Clairvoyant budgies can still be found eking out a living in Iran, Mexico, China and elsewhere.

Of course, there’s no evidence to suggest pet budgies can actually predict the future. In fact in a battle outside captivity, wild budgies are more likely to display psychic-like prowess. Flocks of wild budgies have an uncanny ability to find distant water and fresh seeding grasses, travelling far as the country dries out.

Read more:
Cracked it! A 30-year cold case involving an egg and the mysterious Night Parrot

The budgie battle continues – in captivity

Given domesticated budgerigars don’t survive long in the wild, the most likely confrontation would occur in captivity.

Individual budgies – particularly females – can be territorial, particularly when breeding. So the most likely squabble would occur when a wild budgie was caged with a female pet budgie.

In captivity, the odds of victory are stacked against the wild budgie. Away from the safety of the flock, it would be timid and nervous, in contrast to its domesticated cousin which is likely to be confident, cheeky and attention-seeking.

The pet might bully the wild bird by raising her wings, hissing, biting, chasing or picking at the other bird’s feathers, as well as keeping it from food and drink.

Pet budgies have another advantage tucked into their feathers: the gift of the gab. The respiratory system of all budgerigars allows an unbroken stream of chatter or song. Wild birds apparently do not mimic, however pet budgies – particularly males – can be taught to mimic human speech.

A baby-blue budgie named Puck holds the world record for vocabulary: 1,728 words. Like most clever budgies, he not only mimicked but created his own phrases and sentences. Such a champion talker would simply out-prattle a wild opponent!

And what if the confrontation took place in the show ring or pet shop, where the battle is for the judge’s/buyer’s eye? Sadly for the wild budgie, its sleek, standard green and gold plumage wouldn’t cut it in this competition class.

Pet budgies come in myriad colours except red and black. They also bear many variations in markings – with names such as clearbody, lacewing, yellowface, spangle and pied – which can occur separately or in combination.

But in the arena, show budgies are the real exhibitionists. Show budgies are selectively bred to feature bouffant hairdos. Sometimes fringed or crested, the hairdo makes the head appear larger obscures the eyes and sometimes even the beak.

Selection has also ensured that show budgies bear bright blue cheek-patches and black necklace spots of highly exaggerated size. And if that’s not enough, their owners will also pluck and trim the plumage before a show.

Read more:
Ever wondered who would win in a fight between a dingo and a wolf? An expert explains

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

– ref. In a fight between a wild and a domestic budgie, whose feathers would fly? – https://theconversation.com/in-a-fight-between-a-wild-and-a-domestic-budgie-whose-feathers-would-fly-171956

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University

After Novak Djokovic’s visa was restored by a Federal Court judge this week, the ultimate decision of whether he could stay in Australia rested with one person: Immigration Minister Alex Hawke.

The personal powers of the immigration minister to grant or cancel visas are so broad and powerful, they’ve been described as “god-like” by none other than a former immigration minister himself, Chris Evans.

A 2017 report by the Liberty Victoria Rights Advocacy Project noted the immigration minister is granted more personal discretion than any other minister by an “overwhelming margin”.

This is not a new concern, either. In 1989, the then-immigration minister, Robert Ray, tried to amend the Migration Act to remove ministerial discretion from all immigration matters, saying

The wide discretionary powers conferred by the Migration Act have long been a source of public criticism. Decision-making guidelines are perceived to be obscure, arbitrarily changed and applied, and subject to day-to-day political intervention in individual cases.

The move was blocked, however, and the minister’s extremely broad powers have remained ever since.

Ministerial powers have only grown stronger

Wide-ranging discretionary powers have been part of Australia’s immigration system since the Immigration Restriction Act was passed in 1901 and the subsequent Migration Act came into effect in 1958. Both of these laws gave wide discretion to the minister to grant or refuse visas.

After the failed attempt to remove these powers in 1989, legislative reforms brought in a new system for the granting, refusal and cancellation of visas. However, some statutory discretion remained with the minister to allow flexibility to intervene when it was in the “public interest”.

Read more:
Novak Djokovic’s path to legal vindication was long and convoluted. It may also be fleeting

This kind of intervention was intended for compassionate or humane reasons, for example, in the case of granting skilled visas to a British family in 2020 whose application for permanent residency was refused due to the high medical costs related to their child’s disability.

And since 1989, the Migration Act has actually been amended several times to increase the personal power of the minister.

These powers are non-compellable (meaning the minister cannot be required by a court to exercise them). And if exercised correctly, the minister’s decisions are, in effect, unable to be reviewed by the courts.

This means, it will be very difficult for Djokovic’s lawyers to review Hawke’s decision if his visa is cancelled again.

Controversial uses of power in the past

Not surprisingly, the Djokovic visa case is not the first time the minister’s decisions have courted controversy. In fact, there have been a number of parliamentary inquiries related to the use of these powers over the years.

Most recently, then-Immigration Minister Peter Dutton intervened to grant visas to two au pairs in 2015 who arrived on tourist visas and were facing deportation at the airport. A Senate committee recommended censuring Dutton after the inquiry found he misled parliament.

In 2004, an inquiry was held after then-Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock was involved in a so-called “cash for visas” scandal. Ruddock was accused of using his ministerial powers to grant visas to people represented by a travel agent who had donated money to the Liberal Party. He was eventually cleared of any criminal wrongdoing in the affair.

Concerns were raised in both inquiries about the use of such ministerial powers and the lack of adequate accountability mechanisms, which creates “both the possibility and perception of corruption”.

Read more:
Peter Dutton’s decisions on the au pairs are legal – but there are other considerations

Asylum seekers and ministerial intervention

These ministerial powers have also been scrutinised when it comes to the plight of the refugees and asylum seekers who have been in various forms of detention since arriving by boat nearly a decade ago. Some of these people were held in the same Melbourne hotel where Djokovic was initially detained last week.

The Home Affairs Department has released data showing how many times the minister has used his power under section 195A of the Migration Act to release people from detention on temporary bridging visas. However, statistics are not available showing how many times refugees are granted more permanent visas by ministerial decree.

A parliamentary inquiry in 2018 heard evidence that cases of “obvious merit” involving asylum seekers were “given little consideration” for ministerial interventions.

Perhaps the most prominent case in Australia in recent years has involved a Sri Lankan Tamil family who had been living in the town of Biloela, Queensland, until their visas expired in 2018.

The family then spent two years in detention under threat of removal before Hawke, facing considerable public pressure, finally used his powers to allow them to move into community detention last year.

Read more:
Biloela family to be released into community detention – what happens now?

Their lives remain in limbo, however, as they are currently in community detention in Perth with no certainty they’ll be able to stay in Australia permanently.

Asylum seekers should not be reliant on the minister to exercise unreviewable personal discretion in cases like this. As former Immigration Minister Ian MacPhee recently put it,

The sheer breadth of the minister’s discretionary power ensures that unfair decisions will be made in haste and rarely subject to objective review. The law and its practice is now unjust. It is un-Australian.

Mary Anne Kenny has previous received funding from the Australian Research Council and sitting fees from the Department of Home Affairs.

– ref. Why one man with ‘god-like’ powers decides if Novak Djokovic can stay or go – https://theconversation.com/why-one-man-with-god-like-powers-decides-if-novak-djokovic-can-stay-or-go-174773

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society and NATSEM, University of Canberra

Comedian Robin Williams once called cocaine “God’s way of telling you you are making too much money”. This role may now have been overtaken by non-fungible tokens, the blockchain-based means to claim unique ownership of easily copied digital assets.

The latest NFT mania involves fantastic amounts of money being paid for “Bored Apes”, 10,000 avatars featuring variants of a bored-looking cartoon ape. Last month rapper Eminem (real name Marshall Mathers) paid about US$450,000 in Ethereum cryptocurrency to acquire Bored Ape No. 9055 – nicknamed EminApe, because its khaki and gold chain resembles what Eminem wears. It purportedly joins more than 160 other NFTs in the rapper’s collection.

The Bored Ape character seems derivative of the drawings of Jamie Hewlett, the artist who drew Tank Girl and virtual band Gorillaz. According to to the creators, each variant is “generated from over 170 possible traits, including expression, headwear, clothing, and more”. They say every ape is unique “but some are rarer than others”.

So what does Eminem now own? He has an electronic version of an image, which he is using for his Twitter profile. But then so does anyone who copies it from the internet. The only difference is that he has a record in a blockchain that shows he bought it. He also gets to be a member of the “Bored Ape Yacht Club” a members-only online space whose benefits and purpose beyond being a marketing gimmick are unclear.

That’s about it. The intellectual property (such as it is) remains with the creators. He is not entitled to any share of merchandising revenue from the character. He can only profit from his purchase if he can find a “greater fool” willing to pay even more for the NFT.

Which is unlikely. While publicity given to the rapper’s purchase certainly seems to have boosted demand, the average price paid for Bored Ape NFTs so far in 2022 is about 83 Ether (currently about US$280,000). Eminem may have been prepared to pay much more for the one that looked more like him; but would anyone else?

NFTs are a highly speculative purchase. The basis of the market is proof of unique ownership, which only really matters for bragging rights and the prospect of selling the NFT in the future. NFT mania arguably combines the most tawdry and avaricious aspects of collectibles and blockchain markets with celebrity culture.

The rise of the celebrity influencer

Eminem’s monster payment in particular has lent credibility to the idea these NFTs have value. But he is not the only celebrity who has helped attract attention to the Bored Ape NFTs.

Others to buy into the hype include basketball stars Shaquille O’Neal and Stephen Curry, billionaire Mark Cuban, electronic dance music DJ Steve Aoki, YouTuber Logan Paul and late-night television host Jimmy Fallon.

These well-publicised purchasers effectively act as a form of celebrity endorsement – a tried and true marketing tactic. It is a graphic example of the power of media culture to stoke “irrational exuberance” in financial markets.

There has been a shift away from traditional investments and sources of investment advice. With prices disconnected from any future cash flows, there is less interest in forecasts from technical experts. Instead people turn to social media and “doing their own research”.

One survey in mid-2021 (polling 1,400 investors aged 18 to 40) suggested about a third of Gen Z investors regard TikTok videos as a source of trustworthy investment advice.

This has opened up the field for celebrity influencers.

Read more:
FinTok and ‘finfluencers’ are on the rise: 3 tips to assess if their advice has value

A lot like Ponzi schemes

While not illegal, many NFT marketing ventures have some similarities with Ponzi schemes, such as that operated by Bernie Madoff (who sustained his fraud for decades by paying high “dividends” from the deposits of new investors).

Cryptocurrency markets work in essentially the same manner. For existing investors to profit, new buyers have to be drawn into the market. So too NFTs, with something illusory attached to the digital assets.

Some light on the worth of this attachment compared to the economics of NFTs themselves may come from the interesting (and also highly profitable) experiment by the (now not so) “young British artist” Damien Hirst – himself a master self-promoter.

Hirst’s well-publicised “The Currency” project has involved selling NFTs for 10,000 similar but unique dot paintings. The twist is that at the end of a 12-month period those who have bought the NFT must decide if they want the digital token or the physical artwork. If they keep the NFT the artwork will be destroyed.

Read more:
Damien Hirst’s dotty ‘currency’ art makes as much sense as Bitcoin

No fundamental value

There’s virtually nothing humans can’t turn into a market. But increasingly there are speculative bubbles in things with absolutely no fundamental value. NFTs have joined Bitcoin and celebrity meme-based cryptocurrencies such as Dogecoin and Shiba Inu as examples of tokens with no intrinsic worth, which speculators just buy in the hope the price will keep rising.

Even Dogecoin, started as a satire on these excesses, is now valued at US$20 billion and promoted in Ponzi-like ways.

Read more:
What is Bitcoin’s fundamental value? That’s a good question

Some studies have suggested tweets or Facebook posts can now drive stock prices. Elon Musk’s tweets certainly seem to have a large impact on cryptocurrency prices.

We now appear to be in the monster of all speculative bubbles. The creators of assets like NFTs will do well. It is not so clear about the holders.

Nor will the impact of NFT crashes be restricted just to the NFT market. Speculators, particularly if they have borrowed heavily, may need to liquidate other assets as well. This is all likely to make all financial markets more volatile.

The larger the bubble becomes, the wider the contagion when it bursts.

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

– ref. NFTs, an overblown speculative bubble inflated by pop culture and crypto mania – https://theconversation.com/nfts-an-overblown-speculative-bubble-inflated-by-pop-culture-and-crypto-mania-174462

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marg Rogers, Senior Lecturer, Early Childhood Education, University of New England

Thousands of families are without childcare as hundreds of services have had to close due to a surge in COVID cases, while many more are running at reduced capacity. Many parents dread another chaotic year that may have them jugging childcare and work at home.

The government rescued the childcare sector several times over the past two years – making services eligible for a portion of their pre-pandemic payments as families pulled their children out. But these measures were only temporary.

The childcare system was already busting at the seams before COVID. I led an international survey in 2021, during the pandemic, in which early childhood educators’ gave ideas on how their government could support their work. In Australia, 51 educators participated.

Here are four preexisting the issues that have increased during the pandemic.

1. Staff shortages

Currently, many childcare services are closed and others are operating at reduced capacity because staff are either sick with COVID or close contacts that need to isolate. But staffing problems plagued the sector well before the pandemic, with more than a 30% staff turnover.

The agency responsible for early childhood education and care, the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), released its National Workforce Strategy in 2021. It revealed 25% of educators have been at their service for less than a year. This high turnover harms relationships with children who need continuity.

In a 2021 survey of almost 4,000 Australian educators, 73% said they planned to leave their job within three years. The reasons included low pay, overwork and being undervalued.

Women make up 91% the early childhood education and care workforce. Pay is low in traditionally female occupations, and many educators leave simply because they cannot afford to stay.

Read more:
Early childhood educators are leaving in droves. Here are 3 ways to keep them, and attract more

ACECQA has fast tracked quick conversions for primary and secondary school teachers into early childhood education, despite large and important differences in teaching philosophies.

But there is unlikely to be a stampede to become one of Australia’s 13th lowest paid workers, just above a housekeeper. The national average salary for a childcare worker is A$29.63 per hour, but many earn as little as A$23.50. This is in comparison to an average school teacher who earns A$33.65 per hour.

One educator in our study called for

recognition of the equal value of early childhood educators with primary school teachers, especially for university-trained teachers, who experience a huge pay gap.

Casualisation in the sector is another issue leading to high turnover. As part of government COVID rescue packages, permanent staff could receive JobKeeper payments, but casual staff at childcare services were not eligible. Many casual staff left the sector.

Government oversight is needed but there is always confusion about which government is responsible. Then there are also differences between community based and private services.

2. Nobody is responsible for the sector

Australia has one of the highest levels of privatisation in early childhood education in the world. This makes it harder for governments to control casualisation. However, the government sets the award wages.

In a recent speech to the National Press Club, New South Wales Premier, Dominic Perrottet, said he wanted states and territories to be able to take over responsibility for childcare from the federal government. This was part of his plan for “reform for a postpandemic world” which he said should be “state led, not Commonwealth led”.

Read more:
The government has again rescued the childcare sector from collapse. But short-term fixes still leave it at risk

The federal government funds childcare, through subsidies, but providers are largely private and set their own fees. The state and territory governments fund community preschools.

The federal government is responsible for the sector’s standards, frameworks and curricula, but the state and territory governments regulate them. This messy web makes it more difficult to reform the sector and manage costs for families.

One level of government taking responsibility for childcare and preschool services will go some way to fixing the problems.

3. Too much paperwork

In ACECQA’s survey, educators blamed administrative overload as one of the three main reasons they wanted to leave the profession.

The increasing paperwork came as governments created managerial systems disguised as quality assurance, to try to regulate the sector.

Now, educators must collect big data every day, including mountains of checklists for regulation and to document children’s learning. This extra workload reduces time spent on quality interactions. It also makes educators feel micromanaged, affecting their identity and confidence.

Read more:
Early childhood educators are slaves to the demands of box-ticking regulations

Echoing the Productivity Commission’s findings in 2014, educators in our study said governments must “reduce paperwork”, which they described as “ridiculous”, “complex”, “indecipherable”, “frustrating” and “random”. As one educator said: “we need some paperwork, but we also need to be there for the children”.

Over 60% felt frustrated three or more times a week. Nearly 40% of educators said the paperwork required for accreditation compliance (assessment and rating) decreased the time they spent with children.

4. High burnout, low morale

Despite being an essential worker, educators are undervalued, struggling for recognition. Their strengths are not mentioned in curriculum documents.

Overwork is the second reason educators want to leave. Our study showed that during the accreditation period, when they need to fill out regulation requirement documents, 50% of staff reported working unpaid hours. Staff morale also suffers during accreditation.

During the pandemic, educators reported an increased burden with extra time needed for cleaning, health requirements, communicating with parents, rearranging work plans and spaces, caring for staff, and constant hypervigilance.

One said, “I would prefer to work somewhere for the same or similar wage with less stress and take-home work”.

Burnout is the third reason educators want to leave. “The demand on educators is too high. The pressure is intense”, one told us.

Read more:
‘Insulting’ and ‘degrading’: budget funding for childcare may help families but educators are still being paid pennies

The National Workforce Strategy recommends directors give educators links to well-being services and strategies. While this is well-meaning, it is simplistic given the level of crisis.

For example, we found 70% of educators felt overtired and 60% felt overwhelmed three or more times in the last week.

Recognition of childcare as an essential service – with assured funding provision and a more streamlined level of government regulation – is key to reforming the sector’s status, and educators’ pay.

The sector is in crisis, so we need to stop talking about ideas to change it and take action towards total reform.

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

– ref. COVID chaos has shed light on many issues in the Australian childcare sector. Here are 4 of them – https://theconversation.com/covid-chaos-has-shed-light-on-many-issues-in-the-australian-childcare-sector-here-are-4-of-them-174404

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie Chen, PhD Candidate, UNSW

When the smoke cleared after the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-20, the bush surrounding the Blue Mountains Botanic Garden Mount Tomah was charred. Among the casualties was a NSW waratah, Telopea speciosissima, that had recently become the first of its species to have its genome sequenced. We have published this genome in the journal Molecular Ecology Resources.

The waratah is the official floral emblem of New South Wales, and its spectacular red blooms have been adopted as the logos of state government agencies and sporting teams.

The genome sequence paves the way for the waratah to serve as a model for understanding how plant populations change over time and adapt to their environments, and particularly how this species bounces back after a bushfire.

Genome sequencing has come a long way in a short time. The first human genome, completed in 2003, cost around US$1 billion and took about 13 years to compile the roughly 3 billion “letters” of our genetic code. Today, sequencing a human genome would cost less than $1,000 and take just a few days.

With rapidly decreasing costs and advancing technology, the genomic era presents the opportunity to decode many plant genomes that we can then use as reference resources. In turn, this will help us understand and conserve Australian fauna for the long term.

What is a genome anyway?

An organism’s genome is the complete set of genetic information it needs to develop, grow and survive. Plants, animals and many other living things are made of DNA, which consists of a string of four chemical “bases”, known as A, C, G and T.

Sequencing a genome involves determining the order of these bases. When we began our project, we knew from previous research the waratah genome would be quite long, at around a billion bases, that it was likely to be arranged into 11 large parcels called chromosomes, and that each plant would have two copies of the genome in each of its cells.

Cracking the waratah code

Generating the waratah reference genome first involved sampling young leaves from a plant growing naturally in the Blue Mountains. We extracted DNA from the leaves, and used three different sequencing technologies to piece together its genetic code. This approach generated many sequences, hundreds or thousands of bases long, which we then needed to assemble to determine the full genome.

Assembling the genome involved a range of different software tools, running on powerful computers. The result was a sequence of slightly less than a billion bases, mostly in 11 large sequences, as expected. The sequences appear to contain around 40,000 genes in total – roughly twice as many as humans have.

Why we sequenced the waratah

Previous sequencing efforts have focused on important crops and on “model organisms” such as Arabidopsis, which is widely studied by researchers and was the first plant to have its genome sequenced, back in 2000. But of course, there are many other types of species in the plant tree of life.

The NSW waratah is one of five waratah species in the genus Telopea, which grows throughout southeastern Australia, and one of around 1,700 species in the family Proteaceae. This family includes other iconic Australian plants such as banksias, grevilleas and macadamias. Yet despite this, very few Proteaceae genomes have so far been sequenced.

A collaborative effort between the Australian Institute of Botanical Science and UNSW Sydney, the waratah genome project was the first completed as part of the Genomics for Australian Plants (GAP) Initiative. A key aim of this initiative is to generate genomes to enable better conservation and understanding of Australia’s unique plant diversity.

Hope for the future

For many Australians, Black Summer embodied the threat posed by climate change to our unique natural heritage. But waratahs evolved with fire, and can regenerate with the help of a modified stem called a lignotuber, from which masses of fresh shoots emerge after a bushfire. It offers a potent symbol of our hope for the future.

The waratah plant whose genome we sequenced has resprouted after being burned in the Black Summer fires, and has now been propagated at the Blue Mountains Botanic Garden Mount Tomah and will become part of the garden’s living collection.

A display inspired by this plant and its genome will also feature in the foyer of the new National Herbarium of NSW when it opens at the Australian Botanic Garden Mount Annan next year.

The waratah’s genome sequence will provide a platform for future studies of its evolution and environmental adaption, ultimately informing breeding efforts and helping us better conserve this iconic species. By sequencing its DNA, we can uncover its evolutionary past and pave the way for its survival long into the future.

Stephanie Chen is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

Jason Bragg receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Richard Edwards receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. We’ve unveiled the waratah’s genetic secrets, helping preserve this Australian icon for the future – https://theconversation.com/weve-unveiled-the-waratahs-genetic-secrets-helping-preserve-this-australian-icon-for-the-future-174772

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Carlson, Professor, Indigenous Studies and Director of The Centre for Global Indigenous Futures, Macquarie University

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names and images of deceased people.

Often people think about the Aboriginal Tent Embassy as something historic, dating back to the 1970s. But it should also be thought of as a site of the longest protest for Indigenous land rights, sovereignty and self-determination in the world.

In fact, this year, the Tent Embassy is set to celebrate its 50th continuous year of occupation. Demonstrating its significance to Australian history, it was included on the Commonwealth Heritage List in 2015 as part of the Old Parliament House precinct.

In this momentous year, it’s worth remembering how the Tent Embassy came to be and what it has continued to stand for since its erection in 1972 – and the significance it still has today.

Aliens in our own land

The Tent Embassy began its public life on January 26 1972. On that day, Michael Anderson, Billy Craigie, Bertie Williams and Tony Coorey left Redfern and drove to Ngunnawal Country (Canberra), where they planted a beach umbrella opposite Parliament House (now known as Old Parliament House).

They erected a sign that said “Aboriginal Embassy”. With them on that day was their driver, Tribune photographer Noel Hazard, who captured the event in a series of photos.

The term “embassy” was used to bring attention to the fact Aboriginal people had never ceded sovereignty nor engaged in any treaty process with the Crown. As a collective, Aboriginal people were the only cultural group not represented with an embassy.

According to Aboriginal activist and scholar Gary Foley, the absence of an Aboriginal embassy in Canberra was a blatant indication Aboriginal people were treated like aliens in their own land.

Initially, the protesters were making a stand about land rights following the then prime minister William McMahon’s speech that dismissed any hope for Aboriginal land rights and reasserted the government’s position on the policy of assimilation. The Tent Embassy was therefore a public display of our disapproval of and objection to the policies and practices of the government.

In later years, it has become an acclaimed site of our continued resistance to the continuity of colonial rule.

Read more:
Why the Australian government must listen to Torres Strait leaders on climate change

Demands of protesters

Police who were patrolling the area at the time of the Tent Embassy’s erection asked the protesters what they were doing outside Parliament House. They said they were protesting and would do so until the government granted land rights to Aboriginal people. The police were said to have responded, “That could be forever”.

As it turned out, it was not illegal to camp on the lawns of Parliament House, so the police could not remove them.

Later, on February 6 1972, the members of the Tent Embassy issued their list of demands to the government. The demands were clearly about our rights as Aboriginal people to our homelands, regardless of the fact cities were now built on the land or mining companies were interested in the bounties within.

Compensation was called for in the instances where the lands was not able to be returned. There were also demands for the protection of our sacred sites.

While the McMahon government cared little about negotiating with the protesters, the leader of the Opposition, Gough Whitlam, visited the Tent Embassy and publicly proclaimed a promise of Aboriginal land rights under a future Labor government.

There was widespread support for the Tent Embassy from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and allies across the continent, and indeed the world.

Media attention also grew as it became obvious the Tent Embassy and protesters were not going to move on. Other Aboriginal activists joined the embassy, including Foley, Isabel Coe, John Newfong, Chicka Dixon, Gordon Briscoe and many others.

Read more:
From dispossession to massacres, the Yoo-rrook Justice Commission sets a new standard for truth-telling

Forced removal and revival

The government was not too keen on being reminded Aboriginal people were demanding rights, so it amended the Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance to make it illegal to camp on the lawn of Parliament House. This gave the police the authority to remove the protesters.

The ordinance was but a few hours old when police attempted to forcibly remove the embassy. They did so to the roar of the crowd chanting “land rights now”. A violent confrontation with police ensued.

On September 12 1972, the ACT Supreme Court ruled against the use of the trespass laws, and the Tent Embassy was temporarily re-erected before being removed again the following morning.

Then, at the end of 1972, the Coalition government led by McMahon lost the federal election to Labor. Whitlam was able to keep his promise in part – he did give the land title deeds to the Gurindji people. This was captured in the historical photo by Merv Bishop of Whitlam pouring a fistful of dirt into Vincent Lingiari’s hand.

While this iconic image has become a demonstration of what might be possible, the work of the embassy is not yet done. Land rights across the continent have yet to be fully achieved.

The Tent Embassy was re-established the following year and remained until activist Charles Perkins negotiated its removal pending the enactment of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in 1976.

In the ensuing years, it occupied several other sites around Canberra, including the site of the current Parliament House. In 1992, it returned to its original site on the lawn of Old Parliament House to mark the 20th anniversary of the original protest.

Eleven years later, much of the Tent Embassy was destroyed by fire in a suspected case of arson. The police once again attempted to remove protesters from the site under orders from federal government’s National Capital Authority.

An enduring symbol of protest

Today, the Tent Embassy remains on the lawns of Old Parliament House as a reminder of the successive failures of subsequent governments to address the demands for justice represented by the embassy and its people.

As Foley reflects in his history of the embassy:

That it has endured for [five] decades as a potent symbol rejecting the hypocrisy, deceit and duplicity by successive Australian governments is a testament to the refusal of large numbers of Aboriginal people to concede defeat in a 200-year struggle for justice.

Nowhere else in the world have we seen such longevity around a site of protest. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy is an impressive achievement that demonstrates the tenacity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and our continued fight for the reclamation of our lands and sovereign rights as First Nations peoples.

The Aboriginal Tent Embassy is a site of cultural and political significance for myself and members of my family. Some of the Aboriginal activists involved in the 1972 protest are my Elders, Aunties and Uncles.

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

– ref. A short history of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy – an indelible reminder of unceded sovereignty – https://theconversation.com/a-short-history-of-the-aboriginal-tent-embassy-an-indelible-reminder-of-unceded-sovereignty-174693

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stuart Marshall, Associate Professor, Department of Critical Care, The University of Melbourne

Having a low level of oxygen in the blood is an early sign of worsening COVID. But not everyone gets obvious symptoms. For instance, some people can have low oxygen levels without getting short of breath or feeling otherwise unwell.

So some people are buying their own device – a pulse oximeter – to monitor their oxygen levels at home. Other people are routinely supplied pulse oximeters as part of their COVID home-care package.

The idea is that by monitoring your own oxygen levels at home, you can be reassured your lungs are adequately oxygenating your blood. Alternatively, detecting low levels of oxygen may indicate you need urgent medical care.

So what is a pulse oximeter? And if you can get hold of one, how do you actually use one to monitor COVID at home?

What is a pulse oximeter? How does it work?

A pulse oximeter is a routine clinical monitor that’s been in use in and out of hospital for years.

Most types you can buy for use at home are designed like a large clothes peg you clip onto your fingertip.

One side of the clip shines a light through your finger to a sensor on the other side of the clip.

This gives a measure of the colour of your blood. Blood carrying more oxygen (oxygenated blood) is a brighter red than the bluer de-oxygenated blood.

The oximeter interprets the colour of the blood (via the amount of light absorbed) to provide a number – the percentage of oxygen in the blood compared to the maximum amount that can be carried.

This percentage is the “oxygen saturation” level. For healthy people this is 95% to 100%.

As the oximeter measures blood from the pulse in your finger, it will also display your heart rate (heart beats per minute).

Read more:
What should my heart rate be and what affects it?

How are people using them now?

Most people with COVID do not need to be in hospital. So services have been set up for some to be monitored by health professionals at home and only come to hospital if they start to become very unwell.

People who do not qualify for this type of hospital-in-the-home type monitoring will still need to monitor their own symptoms at home and seek medical care if needed.

One of the most important early signs of COVID deteriorating is a fall in the level of oxygen in the blood. This happens as the lungs become inflamed and less efficient at absorbing oxygen. This may happen even before the person feels particularly ill.

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

Australian guidelines state that when oxygen saturation levels fall to 92%-94% at rest, admission to hospital should be considered.

Whether someone needs to go to hospital also depends on if there are other warning signs such as rapid breathing, older age, not being fully vaccinated, if there are other medical problems, and if someone has limited social supports.

For children, the number is at or below 95%.

If possible you should contact your GP or regular doctor who will advise based on your individual circumstances.

If that’s not possible, you can phone:

• NURSE-ON-CALL (1300 60 60 24) for further advice in Victoria

• 13HEALTH (13 43 25 84) in Queensland, or

• healthdirect (1800 022 222) in other states.

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

Are the readings accurate?

Oxygen saturation readings are generally very accurate. However, poor circulation, or cold or moving fingers can make it difficult for the device to find the pulse or may trick the probe into measuring the movement as a pulse.

If you have cold fingers or poor circulation you might have to try another finger, or warm your hands by rubbing them together before retaking a reading. You’ll also need to keep still and reduce your hand movement while taking a measurement. This might be a challenge for taking readings on small children!

Nail polish, particularly dark colours, can cause misleading oximeter readings and is why we ask people to remove it before having a general anaesthetic in hospital.

However, nail polish has less of an effect compared to acrylic nails. So it’s best to remove nail polish or acrylic nails on the fingers you’ll use for testing.

Read more:
What are the symptoms of omicron?

What if I have darker skin?

More controversial is the inaccuracy of some pulse oximeters in people with darker skin. Due to software problems, darker skin increases the risk some pulse oximeters over-estimate oxygen levels.

It’s an issue Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is concerned about. However, it said it didn’t have the evidence to recommend particular devices.

But with the type of monitoring we are seeing in the community, we consider any discrepancies are not clinically significant. The changes are small and wouldn’t influence the type of care people need to receive. Observing readings over a period of hours or even days can also give a better understanding of the severity of the disease.

So if you have darker skin, you can still use a pulse oximeter at home. In the meantime, manufacturers of pulse oximeters are addressing the software issues.

Read more:
More health inequality: Black people are 3 times more likely to experience pulse oximeter errors

So, should I buy one?

If you can afford it, yes. The concern many health professionals have is that, just like rapid antigen tests, oximeters may become difficult to access as numbers of cases in the community accelerate.

Just as most households have a thermometer, a simple low-cost oximeter will allow us all to monitor our health and seek help if things change.

Pulse oximeters are currently available online and from pharmacies from about A$23 but can be over $100. Expect these prices to rise as supplies become limited.

You can use the same one for multiple people in a household, including both adults and children. However, you do need to clean the oximeter before using it on the next person. You can do this with an antiseptic wipe.

Are some types better than others?

It’s best to get a pulse oximeter that has a “waveform” display so it can be timed with your pulse and ensure the oxygen readings are accurate. Look for one with a set of horizontal bars on the display like a phone battery charge indicator. Or you can buy one that displays a waveform (wiggly line to indicate the pulse) on the advert or packaging.

Some smart watches and phones also have an oximeter function. There is emerging evidence some of these devices are accurate enough for home monitoring use. However, the evidence is not strong and they are generally not yet licensed for this use. So if you can get hold of a pulse oximeter, that would be best.

Stuart Marshall is a councillor (non-executive director) for the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA)

David A. Story is a councillor (non-executive director) for the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA)

– ref. What’s a pulse oximeter? Should I buy one to monitor COVID at home? – https://theconversation.com/whats-a-pulse-oximeter-should-i-buy-one-to-monitor-covid-at-home-174457

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Collin, Associate Professor, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

Between 2019 and early 2021, we developed a research proposal asking for funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). The project was to investigate the mass student climate action movement and its relationship to democracy.

A few weeks ago, on Christmas Eve, we learnt via Twitter that the ARC had recommended our research proposal for funding, but acting Education Minister Stuart Robert vetoed the recommendation.

Robert also vetoed five other humanities projects. He did so on the grounds they “do not demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money nor contribute to the national interest”.

This political intervention is a problem for many reasons. Chief among them, it breaches key principles of academic autonomy and – in our case, also silences research working with young people on a crucial policy issue.

‘Freedom in research and training’

Since 1988, almost 1,000 universities in 94 countries have signed the Magna Charta Universitatum, including ten from Australia. The charter affirms the deepest values of university traditions.

In practice, it means a university “must serve society as a whole” and that “to meet the needs of the world around it, its research and teaching must be intellectually independent of all political authority and economic power”.

Central to the charter is that “freedom in research and training is the fundamental principle of university life”.

The ARC administers the National Competitive Grants Program, which delivers around $800 million to Australian researchers each year.

The ARC grants process involves several rounds of rigorous review and assessment, by internationally leading scholars. The ARC then recommends to the education minister which proposals should be funded, and the budget. The minister makes the final funding decisions.

The Morrison government claims it wants to protect academic freedoms. And it commissioned a 2019 review of freedom of expression and intellectual inquiry in higher education.

However, Robert’s veto of the ARC’s decision to fund six projects is a clear breach of the core principle of academic freedom.

What’s more, it’s not the first time Morrison government education ministers have ridden roughshod over the funding processes of the ARC and university research.

In 2018-19, Simon Birmingham vetoed 11 research grants recommended by the ARC. In 2020, Dan Tehan vetoed five.

Read more:
ARC grants: if Australia wants to tackle the biggest issues, politicians need to stop meddling with basic research

An important new phenomenon

The project we proposed for ARC funding was titled “New possibilities: student climate action and democratic renewal”. It involved working directly with young people to investigate a significant new phenomenon.

Since 2018, millions of students across the globe have worked hard as leaders, organisers and advocates for action on climate change. Their actions include the school strikes for climate and various legal actions. In Australia since 2018, we estimate at least 500,000 school students have participated in the movement, including coordinated school strike actions online and in the streets.

Our project was designed to document such actions and to establish:

• why young people participate

• what activities they undertake

• what we can learn from the movement to address climate change and strengthen our democracy.

Read more:
Seriously ugly: here’s how Australia will look if the world heats by 3°C this century

Our project would have led to vital new knowledge on a global phenomenon. It had the potential to help address falling trust in governments and dissatisfaction with democracy, and to give new insights on engaging with young people in learning about and responding to climate change.

It also provided jobs for early-career researchers already facing cripplingly precarious employment in the university sector.

Our proposal relied on a vast body of academic work and expertise, and previous scholarship by the research team. It was connected to a global research network exploring young people’s climate politics and broader possibilities for democracy.

Developing the proposal involved hundreds of hours of additional research, writing, editing and consultation with professional staff across five universities.

For the ARC to judge the project worthy of funding, it must have determined it passed the national interest test and that it was value for money.

Significantly, we have no formal right to appeal the decision.

‘Disappointment and disbelief’

The minister’s intervention is a serious blow to Australia’s reputation for research excellence and its commitment to academic freedom.

The Morrison government has also sent a negative message to Australia’s young people – essentially saying research into their views on climate change is irrelevant.

We asked students who we work with to respond to the government’s veto, and they stand with us in disappointment and disbelief. Audrey, aged 10, who has participated in climate action, said:

“I personally think that the vetoing was to stop the research from public view to make the government look better, as they aren’t doing enough on climate change. Another main reason why the vetoing is so bad and unfair is that the government is sending the message that young people’s views aren’t important to both young people and the community.”

Urgent change is needed to ensure academic autonomy, freedom, and independence of process are not subject to political interference in future.

Addressing urgent and complex problems such as climate change involves research across the full spectrum of society – and that includes Australia’s young people.

Read more:
Ministerial interference is an attack on academic freedom and Australia’s literary culture

Philippa Collin receives funding from the NHMRC, Victorian Government, UNICEF and Google.

Brendan Churchill receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Faith Gordon receives funding from The Australian Research Council (ARC) and The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA).

Stewart Jackson has previously received funding from the International Development Committee of the Australian Greens for research on Asia Pacific environmental movements and parties. He is a member of the Australian Greens.

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

– ref. ‘Disappointment and disbelief’ after Morrison government vetoes research into student climate activism’ – https://theconversation.com/disappointment-and-disbelief-after-morrison-government-vetoes-research-into-student-climate-activism-174699

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Heinsohn, Professor of Evolutionary and Conservation Biology, Australian National University

Less than 80 years ago, regent honeyeaters ruled Australia’s flowering gum forests, with huge raucous flocks roaming from Adelaide to Rockhampton.

Now, there are less than 300 birds left in the wild. Habitat loss has pushed the survivors into little pockets across their once vast range.

Sadly, our new research shows these birds are now heading for rapid extinction. Unless we urgently boost conservation efforts, the regent honeyeater will follow the passenger pigeon into oblivion within the next 20 years.

If we let the last few die, the regent honeyeater will be only the second bird extinction on the Australian mainland since European colonisation, following the paradise parrot.

How did it come to this?

With vivid yellow and black wings, embroidered body and warty faces, these honeyeaters are among Australia’s most spectacular birds.

John Gould, one of Australia’s earliest European naturalists, observed these birds in “immense flocks amongst the brushes of New South Wales”. He described the regent honeyeater as “the most pugnacious bird he ever saw”, noting they “reigned supreme in the largest, most heavily-flowering trees.” Their success in securing nectar supplies made them vital pollinators.

Read more:
Only the lonely: an endangered bird is forgetting its song as the species dies out

The world Gould saw is sadly a thing of the past. Regent honeyeater populations have plummeted, with the loss of over 90% of their preferred woodland habitats to farmland.

You might wonder how this could be, given there are still large tracts of forest in Australia. But these are invariably on poorer soils and hilltops. Our remaining forests do not yield the rich nectar regent honeyeaters require for breeding.

As their habitat has declined, the surviving regent honeyeaters have been forced to compete with larger species – without the safety of their huge flocks. The result? The once common species no longer reigns supreme.

Gone within 20 years

Unless conservation actions are urgently stepped up, our research shows these birds will be extinct within 20 years.

We’ve known about the decline of regent honeyeaters since the late 1970s. In response, a recovery team including BirdLife Australia and Taronga Conservation Society launched a long-term recovery effort to protect habitat, plant new trees and release zoo-bred birds. These efforts have slowed but not arrested the decline of these birds.

In 2015, we began a large-scale survey to better understand their population decline. Regent honeyeaters are a notoriously difficult bird to study in the wild. As nomads, they wander long distances throughout their vast range in search of nectar in their favoured tree species. Finding these birds is hard enough, let alone monitoring the population in detail.

After six years of intensive fieldwork, and with data from research in the 1990s and long term bird banding, we have finally gathered enough information to be able to understand the challenges for the few remaining wild birds. We now know their breeding success has declined because their nests are raided and the chicks killed by aggressive native species, with noisy miners a particular problem.

We also know the wild birds are losing their song culture because of a lack of older birds for fledglings to learn their songs.

Our fieldwork has given us accurate estimates of vital breeding data, such as how many young birds fledge for each adult female, how many birds are breeding and how well juveniles are surviving. We combined this with data from the decades of monitoring of zoo-bred and released birds to create population models, which allow us to predict the future for the wild population under different conservation scenarios.

Habitat is king

What do the models show? That time is critical. To have any chance of getting the regent honeyeater back, we must build its numbers up enough for them to be able to roam in large flocks for protection.

How? First, we have to nearly double the nesting success rate for both wild and released zoo-bred birds. Too many young birds are dying early. That means we have to find nesting birds early in the breeding season and protect them from noisy miners, pied currawongs and even possums.

Next, we have to boost the numbers of zoo-bred birds released in the Blue Mountains, and maintain these numbers for at least twenty years. Staff at Taronga Conservation Society are preparing zoo-bred birds for the trials of the wild by exposing them to competition in flight aviaries, song tutoring young males and improving husbandry practices in zoos to increase survival in the wild.

Read more:
Should we cull noisy miners? After decades of research, these aggressive honeyeaters are still outsmarting us

Finally, our models clearly show regent honeyeaters will only become self-sustaining if we do much more to secure their habitat. Their remaining pockets of habitat are simply too small. We must protect all remaining habitat, restore degraded habitat and control noisy miners.

Without habitat, other conservation efforts will be pointless. The honeyeater will simply never reach flock sizes large enough to muscle their way back into the surprisingly competitive business of drinking nectar.

Unfortunately, we continue to destroy essential regent honeyeater habitat in some areas even as we attempt to restore lost habitat elsewhere. For example, if the Warragamba Dam in the Blue Mountains is raised it will flood essential habitat and make it even harder to bring back our iconic honeyeater.

The status quo is not enough

For decades, conservationists and researchers have worked to save the regent honeyeater. Despite this tireless work, the species is inching towards the exit. If we maintain the status quo, we will lose it.

We must think bigger. Nest protection and release of zoo-bred birds can help get flock sizes up, but these efforts will be pointless if there are no blossoms for them to drink from.

Like the regent honeyeater, the passenger pigeon sought safety in numbers. We now know its extinction could have been predicted, if modern risk assessments had been available. Those same assessments and models tell us very clearly what will happen to the regent honeyeater.

It is too late for the passenger pigeon. It is not too late to save the regent honeyeater. But only if we act now.

Monique Van Sluys (Taronga Conservation Society) and Dean Ingwersen (Birdlife Australia) contributed to this article

Rob Heinsohn receives funding from the Australian Research Council. The study reported here was funded by an Australian Government Wildlife and Habitat Bushfire Recovery Program grant to Birdlife Australia.

Dejan Stojanovic receives funding from an Australian Government Natural Heritage Trust grant.

Ross Crates receives funding from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, BirdLife Australia, CWP renewables and the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment.

– ref. Regent honeyeaters were once kings of flowering gums. Now they’re on the edge of extinction. What happened? – https://theconversation.com/regent-honeyeaters-were-once-kings-of-flowering-gums-now-theyre-on-the-edge-of-extinction-what-happened-174538

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Australia does not have a food shortage. Supply has been disrupted in some locations due to staff absences caused by COVID, that’s all.

This is primarily a distribution problem, not a lack of food problem. Meat shortages may emerge (abattoirs are notorious COVID hot spots) but there are plenty of other types of food awaiting distribution.

Nonetheless, in places where large numbers of truck drivers and warehouse workers have the virus or are required to isolate, some food is not getting to stores.

The good news is that food supply chains are flexible and adjust quickly, meaning current shortages are likely a temporary inconvenience rather than an ongoing problem.

I was lead author for a detailed analysis of resilience of the Australian food chain for the agriculture department in 2012. It remains relevant.

A key finding was that while our food supply chains were highly resilient, they were potentially vulnerable if two or more different disruptions (such as a natural disaster, pandemic or biosecurity emergency) occured simultaneously.

Food isn’t supplied just-in-time

In this regard Australia has been lucky. We are not currently experiencing major natural disasters – nothing comparable to Victoria’s Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 or Brisbane floods of 2010-11 – in addition to COVID.

Cybersecurity in the food supply chain remains robust, as does plant and animal health. If the luck holds, our current shortages will be localised and temporary.

Moreover, some of the weaknesses identified in the 2012 report have been addressed since.

Read more:
COVID revealed flaws in our food supply. It gives us a chance to fix them

For example, we are less reliant on imports for packaging materials, we are better at getting food to north Queensland, and our different levels of government communicate better on food security issues.

However other weaknesses persist, including low levels of what the report called “food literacy” (that is, understanding among consumers of how to prepare food and what foods can substitute for other foods).

This means people can perceive shortages even when food is well supplied.

And aspects of the supply chain remain poorly understood. A common misconception is that wholesalers and retailers operate on a “just-in-time” basis. They don’t.

Warehouses hold large stocks

The just-in-time concept, used in Japan’s car industry, reduces holdings of parts and spares in a factory to a minimum and delivers components from suppliers to assembly lines just as they are required, minimising storage costs.

Food retailers would face big risks if they adopted such an approach, and they know it.

Stock outages upset customers. Supermarkets aim to have enough goods on their shelves not to risk losing their customers to competitors, although not so many as to cause wastage.

Food waste is already a big problem in Australia, costly and a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Extra stocking would make it worse.

Holding more would waste more

The same applies to warehouses. Retailers want ready access to restocking from nearby warehouses, especially if there is a run on a particular food product.

Australian warehouses maintain large stocks to cover these eventualities.

It is true that even these can come under strain when stories about shortages become self-fulfilling by encouraging panic buying.

Fortunately, Australia’s experience (remember 2020 toilet paper panic) is these panics do not last long.

While panics are underway food outages are indeed worrying for consumers.

The current ones may last a while – two to three weeks according to Woolworths chief Brad Banducci.

There could be others in future if more virulent and contagious COVID-19 variants emerge. But these problems are driven not by insufficient food but by too few staff to move it.

What should we do when empty shelves emerge?

One suggestion for how to respond to the possibility of empty shelves is that people buy three weeks’ food supply (based on the length of past supermarket crises). It might work for some, but it would be counterproductive for others.

If people don’t know what three weeks of food looks like, or make poor choices, the likely result is more waste.

Try it with lettuce, bean sprouts or fish, and see how it holds up after three weeks.

For the many low-income households who buy what they can afford on a day to day basis, three weeks supply of food is out of reach.

A more straightforward approach is to adapt, innovate and shop around.

Try substitution

Most foods have substitutes. Noodles substitute for rice and vice versa. Beans can replace meat. Beans are cheaper, more sustainable and more likely to be more available.

There are different supply chains for different types of food. Fresh and frozen vegetables, for example, come from different sources on different trucks.

Unless all the drivers on all the routes are sick or isolating, substituting fresh for frozen (or vice versa) ensures we still have food.

And different shops have different supply chains, Asian grocers and farmers markets among them.

Small suppliers with their own networks and produce are likely to see the woes of the big supermarkets as an opportunity.

There is little role for governments other than to continue vaccination and public health measures.

At this point, the sensible approach is to wait to see how Australia’s historically robust systems respond.

In the longer term governments could help by commissioning a new independent and rigorous analysis of supply chain vulnerabilities (the one I led was in 2012) and ensuring the lessons from COVID form part of it.

Who knows, it might be ready for when the next crisis hits.

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

– ref. Relax, Australia does not have (and is not likely to have) a shortage of food – https://theconversation.com/relax-australia-does-not-have-and-is-not-likely-to-have-a-shortage-of-food-174598

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jordan Lacey, Research Fellow, School of Design, RMIT University

How does a city feel? Energetic, unnerving, invigorating, relaxing?

This is a key question often asked by designers who consider the ambience of a city.

Typically, when we think of a city we jump straight to thinking about its buildings, roads, shops and parklands: the physical things we are surrounded by. But what about all those invisible things in between?

When we speak of ambience, we think of the city in a very different way. We think of the city from the position of our own sensing body. The light that enters our eyes; the sounds that enter our ears; the wind and radiation that touches our skin; the tastes and smells in the air; even the vibrations that pass through us (think of passing trams, and even Earthquakes!).

Each of us is suspended in these ever-shifting mediums, with our perceptions reshaping our world, moment by moment.

Ambient encounters

It is very subtle, this thing called ambience. But you can be sure there is a reason your body draws you back to the same place again and again. It’s not simply habit, it is also the ways a place makes our body feel.

Do you have a quiet place you disappear to at lunchtime? A place in a park or a quiet back alley? These are places of refuge in which the senses are less overwhelmed, allowing us to sink into our thoughts.

Perhaps you have a café you favour, alone or with friends. What draws you there? The images on the wall, the soft sound of conversation, the smells and sounds?

And what about the lockdown? Trapped in our homes, some more lucky than others, where did you find solace? Telephones and wine! A sprawling backyard? Chatting with your neighbour from your balcony?

Ambiences are key to social interaction – an understanding the lockdowns forced upon us as we struggled with the effects of loneliness and isolation.

Read more:
Is isolation a feeling?

Unpleasant ambiences

Ambiences are not always pleasant. There are frightening ambiences: the train station underpass you need to traverse to get home at night, or perhaps the nefarious night-time uses of those quiet places you escape to during lunchtime.

The political reaction to such issues is usually to flood these areas with light and surveillance cameras. While effective at promoting safety for the vulnerable, they also create vigilant cities accompanied by an ever-present sense of a watchful gaze.

Ambiences are also complex. One person’s joyful ambience can be another person’s nightmare.

Take the issue of noise annoyance from band venues. Many pubs and clubs have been forced to close due to complaints from newly built housing.

Melbourne was one of the first cities in the world to institute “agent of change” laws. It is now the agent of change – whether a housing developer or new venue operator – who is responsible for noise management. The results seem positive: buildings have improved noise protection while both cultural institutions and tenant quietude are preserved.

First Nations ambiences

First Nations people had and continue to foreground ambiences in their connections with country. Connecting with country is often described as a feeling in which the body opens to the expressions of the land.

In his book Sand Talk, Indigenous scholar Tyson Yunkaporta writes:

There are aspects of consciousness, knowledge and knowledge transmission that have not been explained or proven scientifically […] They include the messages that land and Ancestors bring to us – a bird or animal behaving strangely, a sudden wind gust, a coincidence that highlights a deep meaning or revelation, a burst of inspiration – these are the things that make knowledge processes sacred and magical.

Yunkaporta’s passage highlights something all but lost in contemporary civilizations: a capacity to connect deeply with the spirit of the land. Designing ambiences cannot (and should not) play proxy to such complex cultural and spiritual understandings; however, it may provide new insights into the ways we can connect with the environments in which we live.

Designing ambiences

So how do architects and designers think about designing ambiences? There are many practitioners from many fields doing some beautiful and thoughtful work in this area.

Peter Zumthor is a standout architect, who, influenced by Zen Buddhism, carefully considers the role of the senses in his designs. His 2011 Serpentine Pavilion created an enclosure with scented flowers and humming bees, creating an ambience in which people could escape the hustle and bustle of London. He even asked for nearby generators to be switched off, so people could sink more easily into the sounds.

Soundscape design is a developing field seeking positive ways to shape the sounds of the city (like a landscape designer creates new landforms). Public sound artists in particular, have led the way in soundscape design. Bruce Odland and Sam Auninger’s Harmonic Bridge uses tuning tubes to turn the sound of traffic into a calm, melodic drone.

Read more:
We need a new relationship with urban noise

Finally, there is the growing importance of the work of biophilic designers bringing nature into the city to improve human well-being. I am interested in ways we can bring nature into the city to create healing, restful and collaborative spaces.

I worked with landscape architect Charles Anderson to place our prototype biophilic sound design installation Sonic Gathering Place in the forecourt of the Old Melbourne Gaol: a small circular seating area surrounded by plants and sounds from four National Parks in Australia.

If in Melbourne, we encourage you to visit the work and to take a moment to explore an unexpected ambience in the middle of the city.

Jordan Lacey receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Cities are made from more than buildings and roads. They are also made by ambiences – how a city makes you feel – https://theconversation.com/cities-are-made-from-more-than-buildings-and-roads-they-are-also-made-by-ambiences-how-a-city-makes-you-feel-173429

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

Novak Djokovic on Wednesday admitted he undertook an interview and photoshoot in Serbia last month after a receiving a positive COVID test result.

He also conceded information on his Travel Declaration to Australian authorities was incorrect, attributing that to a “human error” by his agent.

Earlier, Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabić told the BBC it would be “a clear breach of Serbian rules” if Djokovic had been in public after a positive Covid test. “If you’re positive you have to be in isolation,” she said.

As the tennis star fought to resist a second cancellation of his visa, his lawyers submitted more material to Immigration Minister Alex Hawke.

Hawke’s office indicated the decision on Djokovic’s fate was delayed while the minister considered this.

“Mr Djokovic’s lawyers have recently provided lengthy further submissions and supporting documentation said to be relevant to the possible cancellation of Mr Djokovic’s visa. Naturally, this will affect the timeframe for a decision,” Hawke’s spokesman said.

Djokovic took to social media to address what he said was “continuing misinformation” about his activities in the lead up to his positive COVID test result in December.

He said this needed correction, “particularly in the interest of alleviating broader concern in the community about my presence in Australia, and to address matters which are very hurtful and concerning to my family”.

Djokovic said he had attended a basketball game on December 14 in Belgrade. After it was reported people there had tested positive, although he had no symptoms, he took a rapid antigen test (RAT) on December 16, which was negative. “Out of an abundance of caution” he also had a PCR test that day.

The following day he presented awards to children at a tennis event, after taking a RAT before the event, which was negative.

“I was asymptomatic and felt good, and I had not received the notification of a positive PCR result until after that event.”

On December 18 he fulfilled a commitment for a L’Equipe interview and photoshoot, but cancelled other events. He did not want to let down the journalist, he said, adding he wore a mask except when being photographed. He then isolated.

Read more:
Novak Djokovic: the legal problem of having one rule for some, another for everyone else

He said that “on reflection” he had made “an error of judgement” – “I accept that I should have rescheduled this commitment”.

Djokovic acknowledged the falsity of the information on his travel declaration, which Border Force has been probing. The declaration asks “Have you travelled, or will you travel, in the 14 days prior to your flight to Australia?” His form said he had not, when in fact he had been in Belgrade within the period before leaving Spain, where he lives, for Australia.

In his social media post, he said the declaration was submitted by his support team and “my agent sincerely apologises for the administrative mistake in ticking the incorrect box about my previous travel”.

“This was a human error and certainly not deliberate.” Additional information had been given to the federal government to clarify this matter, he said.

Read more:
Novak Djokovic’s path to legal vindication was long and convoluted. It may also be fleeting

Before his statement, Djokovic’s mother Dijana Djokovic appeared on Australian morning TV, saying she was very worried his visa would be cancelled again.

“Don’t throw him out, he is tennis player, he is not politician, he is not criminal, he is not murderer, he’s just tennis player, the best in the world, just let him play,” she said on the Seven Network.

Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews said Border Force would “be looking at everything that happened in relation to timings of the interview process” that led to the cancellation of Djokovic’s visa at the border last week.

That decision was overturned in court on Monday, with the government conceding he had not been accorded procedural fairness in the interview process.

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

– ref. Djokovic admits doing photoshoot knowing he was COVID positive – https://theconversation.com/djokovic-admits-doing-photoshoot-knowing-he-was-covid-positive-174784