Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Maley, Emeritus Professor, Australian National University

Afghanistan is teetering on the brink of an almost unimaginable disaster. The withdrawal of US and allied forces, scheduled by President Joe Biden to be completed by September 11, threatens to precipitate the unravelling of the most pro-Western government in Southwest Asia.

It also endangers the entire framework of the Afghan state that has been built up since the overthrow of the Taliban regime in 2001.

Should this occur, the most likely results would be the establishment of a theocratic regime in Kabul, the collapse of swathes of the country into a civil war (with a distinctly transnational dimension), and attempts by millions of refugees to flee the country.

In May 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged to a visiting delegation of Afghan women that

We will not abandon you. We will stand with you always.

Yet abandoning the Afghans who relied on such commitments is exactly what the US has now done. When pressed about his approach last week, Biden angrily cut off a questioner by saying “I want to talk about happy things”.

Afghans at this point are finding it very hard to identify happy things to discuss.

Why the psychology of the public matters

The mass psychology of the Afghan public will be key in determining how events evolve in the country. And this is something American political leaders have shown little sign of understanding.

When regimes change in Afghanistan – as with the collapse of the communist regime in April 1992 or the Taliban regime in November 2001 – it is typically because key players deem it prudent to shift away from powerholders whose power appears to be decaying.

While the Afghan government has left many people disappointed and disaffected – it is over-centralised, debilitated by patronage networks, and often extractive in character – the Taliban are anything but popular among Afghans. A careful 2019 survey conducted by the Asia Foundation found 85% of respondents had no sympathy at all for the Taliban.

But in Afghanistan, it does not pay to be on the losing side. And there is a grave danger that a spreading perception the Taliban are poised to take over could lead to that very outcome by triggering a cascade of defections from the government and army.

With dozens of districts falling to the Taliban in late June and early July, this could happen quickly. US intelligence estimates that it could take two or three years for the country to fall under Taliban control appear dangerously sanguine.

Read more:
Faces of those America is leaving behind in Afghanistan

A total abandonment of the Afghan people

Immediate responsibility for this tragic situation lies with the US. The bulk of foreign forces were actually withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The US thereafter played a much smaller, but absolutely critical, role in supporting the Afghan government.

The US did this in three ways: by providing air power to complement ground operations carried out by the Afghan army, by supplying intelligence, and most importantly, by steadying the nerves of vulnerable Afghans who accepted the US as a true partner in confronting brutal practitioners of terror, such as the Taliban and Islamic State.

This US approach was sustainable and relatively inexpensive. And while it did not hold out the prospect of a “Berlin 1945”-style victory, it did serve to avoid the consequences of a catastrophic defeat.

All this came unstuck under the Trump administration, which bypassed the Afghan government and signed a deal with the Taliban on February 29, 2020. This was called the “Agreement for the Bringing of Peace to Afghanistan”.

In reality, it was simply an exit deal for the US. And it killed off the prospects of meaningful negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban – allegedly its main dividend – by giving the Taliban all they really wanted at the very outset of what was supposed to be a “peace process”.

Read more:
Protecting education should be at the centre of peace negotiations in Afghanistan

The Taliban – hardly able to believe their luck – simply escalated their attacks on democracy advocates, civil society actors, and the media.

Biden’s decision to adopt the Trump approach as his own amounted to a dagger in the heart for those Afghans who had hoped the new US administration would show more judgement and sensitivity than the old.

Pakistan’s intervention now key

While immediate responsibility for the current debacle lies with the Trump and Biden administrations, Pakistan is even more to blame. The Pakistan government had godfathered the Taliban in the first place and resumed its support for the group when US attention drifted to Iraq in 2003.

The dangers to which this gave rise were obvious. In a leaked November 2009 cable, the US ambassador to Afghanistan, retired Lieutenant-General Karl Eikenberry, wrote:

More troops won’t end the insurgency as long as Pakistan sanctuaries remain. Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain, and Pakistan regards its strategic interests as best served by a weak neighbour. […] Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, the gains from sending additional forces may be fleeting.

Despite compelling advice, even from the former Pakistan ambassador to the US, as to how dangerous the sanctuary problem was for US objectives in Afghanistan, successive US presidents shrank from addressing it directly. Instead, they allowed the problem to fester.

If the situation in Afghanistan is to be salvaged, this will require more than just promises of support or offers of money.

Read more:
For the Afghan peace talks to succeed, a ceasefire is the next — and perhaps toughest — step forward

Almost the only tool that remains to address the psychological despair in Afghanistan is immense and effective pressure on Pakistan to strike at Taliban sanctuaries, ammunition supplies, and logistics systems on Pakistani soil.

Being a sovereign state involves not just rights, but also duties. One is to prevent one’s territory from being used to mount attacks on other states.

Reportedly, the Pakistan army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, and intelligence chief, Lieutenant General Faiz Hameed, recently briefed lawmakers in Pakistan that “well-trained Afghan Taliban militants were present across Pakistan” and that the army “could launch an offensive against the group immediately”.

If the Pakistan army can “launch an offensive” against the Taliban “immediately”, the US and its allies should immediately pressure it to do so. But one wonders whether the Biden administration has the gumption to demand this.

William Maley 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. On the brink of disaster: how decades of progress in Afghanistan could be wiped out in short order – https://theconversation.com/on-the-brink-of-disaster-how-decades-of-progress-in-afghanistan-could-be-wiped-out-in-short-order-164087

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Victoria Plekhanova, Lecturer, Massey University

Australia, New Zealand and many other countries are losing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year by not adequately taxing the profits of digital giants doing business in their jurisdictions.

Australia has opted not to impose a digital services tax (DST) on the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Uber and Airbnb. Meanwhile, New Zealand has been sitting on the fence. But things may be about to change.

On July 1, 131 countries – including Australia and New Zealand – agreed in principle to a tax scheme negotiated under the auspices of the G20 and OECD.

More detail may emerge from a meeting of the G20 finance ministers on July 9-10. If approved, the scheme will be finalised next year and implemented in 2023.

The scheme is designed to “create a single set of consensus-based international tax rules” to address the problem of multinational companies moving profits to low-tax jurisdictions — a practice known as “base erosion and profit shifting” (BEPS).

Read more:
Google and Facebook pay way less tax in New Zealand than in Australia – and we’re paying the price

Specifically, such a BEPS scheme would target 20% to 30% of the net profits (above a 10% sales margin) of large multinationals engaged in automated digital services and the direct sale of goods across international borders.

This tax base would then be divided proportionately among the individual countries in which the multinationals have their customers. Local company income tax rates would then apply.

In exchange for a new right to tax the profits of the digital giants, however, countries would give up any unilateral tax measures they might already have in place — or might have been considering imposing on such firms in the future.

Unanswered questions

The most popular alternative to the BEPS scheme is a digital services tax imposed by individual countries directly on firms with annual revenue of more than €750 million (about A$1.2 billion), a threshold first suggested by the OECD and used in most DST legislation.

Usually set at 3%, such DSTs provide relatively small but easy to monitor tax revenue streams.

Like most taxes, a DST is imperfect. But would the BEPS scheme be better? The New Zealand and Australian governments haven’t released impact assessments of the scheme on their domestic businesses, national economies and tax systems. This leaves several unanswered questions:

• will a BEPS tax scheme improve or undermine the competitiveness of Australian and New Zealand suppliers of automated digital services?

• what would its other likely impacts be on domestic businesses and national economies in the short, medium and long term?

• how much will it cost to introduce and administer?

• how much tax revenue would it actually generate?

• how would that compare with a unilateral tax measure such as a 3% DST?

Read more:
A new levy on digital giants like Google, Facebook and eBay is a step towards a fairer way of taxing

How a digital services tax compares

As currently drafted, it appears the BEPS scheme would generate considerably less revenue than a 3% DST. The exact difference would depend on the total and domestic annual sales revenue and profits of the business in question, as well as the country’s corporate income tax rate.

But let’s assume, for example, the total net profit of a large multinational firm is A$15 billion, and 1% ($1 billion) of the firm’s $100 billion sales revenue comes from Australia.

Under the BEPS scheme, the Australian portion of the firm’s profits would be just $10 million. Taxed at Australia’s corporate rate of 30%, that would generate $3 million.

By comparison, a 3% DST on the firm’s $1 billion of Australian sales would generate $30 million — ten times the tax revenue of the BEPS scheme.

Read more:
The U.S. takes aim at Facebook — here’s why the big tech giants must be reined in

When Australia and New Zealand discussed introducing a DST in 2018-19, business and advisory groups in both countries criticised the idea. In particular, it was argued such a tax earns too little revenue relative to the cost of implementation.

And yet, the new BEPS tax scheme would generate even less revenue while still requiring a complex system of rules. This complexity risks imposing high compliance costs on countries, creating opportunities for avoidance and increasing tax disputes.

Ideally, a BEPS scheme should at least promise more tax revenue than a 3% DST. The portion of profits allocated to individual market jurisdictions should be increased, and efforts made to ensure low margin but profitable giants such as Amazon don’t escape paying tax where they do business.

Compensation for personal data

Finally, a BEPS scheme should account for the free use of data extracted from local internet users by these digital giants.

The common assumption that personal data and attention have no (or trivial) economic value is wrong. Google might claim it charges customers for access to its infrastructure and algorithms, but these are often of little value without the personal data they process in the first place.

Uber wouldn’t exist without access to data about passengers and drivers. Facebook couldn’t generate multi-billion dollar revenues without the information exchange and attention of its millions of users.

Read more:
US lawmakers are taking a massive swipe at big tech. If it lands, the impact will be felt globally

Personal data and attention are key resources for the provision of automated digital services. An adequate tax on those service providers is fair compensation.

More importantly, any final international agreement on a BEPS scheme should be conditional. Countries need an opt-out provision allowing them to switch to a DST (or other unilateral measure) if the new system fails to generate sufficient revenue.

This would both protect national interests as well as create a disincentive for the big multinational firms to avoid paying their fair share of tax wherever they make a profit.

Victoria Plekhanova 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. Australia and New Zealand are signing up for an international tax on the tech giants — but will it be enough? – https://theconversation.com/australia-and-new-zealand-are-signing-up-for-an-international-tax-on-the-tech-giants-but-will-it-be-enough-162507

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heidi Norman, Professor, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney

Anthropologist Peter Sutton and archaeologist Keryn Walshe, recently published a book titled Farmers or Hunter-gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate. This book offers a dramatically different account of the social, spiritual and economic worlds of Australia’s First Peoples “before conquest” to what is presented in the acclaimed work by Yuin writer Bruce Pascoe, Dark Emu.

The debate Sutton and Walshe seek to have is whether farmers or hunter-gatherers is the right way to describe my maternal ancestry, the people who lived in Australia before colonisation by Europeans.

Sutton and Walshe want to strip the debate of any contemporary meaning, and return our thoughts to the facts of what went on before their own ancestors arrived on the scene to record, in English using foreign concepts, the truth about what they want to call hunter-gatherer societies or now, the “Old People”.

The central debate between these books is the characterisation of Aboriginal worlds at 1788.

Pascoe draws on colonial archives and actively and creatively offers a different interpretation to colonial bias to tell the story of Aboriginal peoples’ farming and associated practices. Sutton and Walshe, meanwhile, reject the label agriculture or “farming”. Instead, they prefer the descriptor “hunter-gatherers-plus” in relation to who they refer to as the “Old People”.

Rather than organising Aboriginal worlds along a spectrum weighted according to their agricultural development and progress, Sutton and Walshe argue there was a far more complex system that involved modifications to one’s environment and its resources, as well as elaborate spiritual work to keep it all going. This system was at least as complex as gardening or farming.

Read more:
Friday essay: how our new archaeological research investigates Dark Emu’s idea of Aboriginal ‘agriculture’ and villages

Characterisation of Aboriginal peoples as hunter-gatherers or farmers/agriculturists is a long running and shifting debate among anthropologists and archaeologists.

These characterisations and classifications seem to hinge on definitions and interpretations established by the academy. It would be unsurprising if anthropologists critiqued these labels, one another’s field work and conclusions almost entirely in the absence of Aboriginal people.

Sutton and Walshe state their intention to “avoid identity politics and racial polemics”, instead claiming to offer their critique in the spirit of debate.

However, they are clearly on the side of academic anthropology and archaeology — and the past — while Pascoe’s work is focused on the history of the present. Even with this claim, debates over interpretations of the past shape the politics of Aboriginal recognition today.

Agriculturists or hunter-gatherers?

In his book, Pascoe crafted a persuasive account of Aboriginal people and the way they lived, largely unknown by a nation still viewing this land and First Peoples through a foggy colonial lens. Through his writing and speaking appearances, Pascoe has made the deep ancient past and the present intelligible and imaginable for a wide audience.

Dark Emu’s case for appreciating First People as agriculturalists has proven remarkably popular and is critically acclaimed. Dark Emu was named book of the year and won the Indigenous writers’ prize in the 2016 NSW Premier’s Literary Awards.

In 2018, Pascoe received the Australia Council award for lifetime achievement in literature. His work has also attracted careful and considered, and not always supportive, reviews and articles in the academic sphere of peer-reviewed journals.

Now, Sutton and Walshe seek “to set the record straighter”.

Sutton and Walshe’s critique of Dark Emu at times comes across as churlish and pre-occupied with the historically dominant position of anthropologists in their claim to know Aboriginal people. With statements such as “Pascoe is some 50 years behind the scholarly discussions” and “a garden by definition is not wild”, we are reminded repeatedly that Western definitions and labels are supreme.

Farmers or Hunter-gatherers? is occasionally scathing of the use of archival sources in Dark Emu, suggesting they have been misquoted, selectively deployed, and excluded large areas of relevant scholarship. The text provides numerous examples: some are significant omissions, others do not change the meaning Pascoe conveys.

Sutton and Walshe assert Pascoe’s conclusions about village life and population numbers, among other points, are flawed. Elsewhere, they deem Pascoe’s use of sources in Dark Emu to be correct. Some of this critique seems unnecessary and exceeds the authors’ declared concern for fact, scholarship, countering the popularised mythology of history, and truthfulness.

Sutton and Walshe’s book is interesting for the account of how they arrived at the label of First Peoples as “hunter-gatherers-plus” or “The Old People”.

They detail the complexity of classical Aboriginal life: including mental and aesthetic culture, intricate webs of kinship, ritual performance, visual arts and land tenure systems.

Rather than farming, the authors highlight how spiritual propagation, magic and Dreaming were maintained by human reverence and direct action — despite the introduction of gardening and agricultural methods by the invading settlers being consciously resisted.

Sutton and Walshe’s overarching criticism is that Dark Emu does not engage with these non-physical complexities and instead “places high value on technological and economic complexity as a standard of a people’s worth”.

This, as Sutton and Walshe state, is the gap in the book. However, this feedback also explains its audience appeal because it is largely confined to material economic behaviour and “separated from meaning, from intent, from values, from culture, from the spiritual, and from the emotional.”

Read more:
Secondary school textbooks teach our kids the myth that Aboriginal Australians were nomadic hunter-gatherers

Constructive critical debate should serve First Peoples’ futures

With only a few exceptions, anthropologists working in Australia have long fixed their gaze north, to the peoples who Sutton and Walshe are enamoured with and sometimes refer to as “before conquest”, on the “other side” of the frontier.

Anthropologists rarely canvas the adjustments that Aboriginal peoples made after European invasion, especially as this hallmarks survival in southeastern Australia.

Sutton and Walshe offer several examples from the 1960s and 1970s of anthropological work that engaged public interest and some key and comprehensive texts. One example they cite is Catherine and Ronald Berndt’s seminal anthropology work, The World of the First Australians.

They offer these examples as a critical counterpoint to the claim in Dark Emu of a pervasive and wilful ignorance of the complexity and sophistication of Aboriginal worlds.

My experience teaching undergraduate students more closely aligns with Pascoe’s observations – students continue to arrive at their studies with little intellectual depth or appetite for engaging in debates over Aboriginal worlds or futures. They cite repeat viewings of popular films as the extent of their school curriculum.

The legal recognition of Aboriginal land tenure may have dispensed with the myths of nomadism, yet rejection of the rightful place of First Peoples in the national political discourse attests to the need for more effective communication with the public, which includes popular and relatable texts.

This is the sweet spot in the public imagination that works such as Dark Emu have appealed to. However, constructive and critical debate should accurately represent the history of First Peoples and, importantly, comprehend and better serve our present and future.

This weeks marks the commencement of the annual NAIDOC celebration with the theme “Heal Country”. This should hopefully lead to consideration of landscapes and all our relationships to them, before 1788, since, and into the future.

Heidi Norman receives funding from the Australian Research Council and NSW Government.

– ref. How the Dark Emu debate limits representation of Aboriginal people in Australia – https://theconversation.com/how-the-dark-emu-debate-limits-representation-of-aboriginal-people-in-australia-163006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lara Herrero, Research Leader in Virology and Infectious Disease, Griffith University

When a COVID cluster includes people who are vaccinated against the virus, we inevitably hear rumblings of complaint from people who wonder what the point is of vaccination.

But when you read past the headlines, you usually see the answer: in most cases, those who were vaccinated and contracted COVID-19 didn’t die, didn’t develop severe symptoms and didn’t need to be hospitalised.

For unvaccinated Australians in their later years, the chance of dying from COVID is high. For unvaccinated people in their 80s, around 32% who contract COVID will die from it. For people in their 70s, it’s around 14%. (For unvaccinated people in their 60s, it drops to around 3%. And for under-50s, it’s less than 1%.)

The good news is both Pfizer and AstraZeneca are very effective at preventing severe disease and death from COVID-19, even from the more virulent Delta strain.

So how effective are our vaccines?

Preliminary data from the United Kingdom shows after your first dose of either Pfizer or AstraZeneca, you’re 33% less likely than an unvaccinated person to contract the Delta variant.

Two weeks after your second dose, this rises to 60% for AstraZeneca and 88% for Pfizer. This data is for any form of COVID-19, from mild to severe.

But when you look at how much the vaccines reduce your risk of developing severe illness that requires hospitalisation, the coverage is high for both. Pfizer and Astrazeneca vaccines are 96% and 92% effective (respectively) in preventing Delta variant hospitalisations.

Why do some people still get COVID after being vaccinated?

Vaccines aren’t magic barriers. They don’t kill the virus or pathogen they target.

Rather, vaccines stimulate a person’s immune system to create antibodies. These antibodies are specific against the virus or pathogen for the vaccine and allows the body to fight infection before it takes hold and causes severe disease.

However, some people won’t have a strong enough immune response to the vaccine and may still be susceptible to developing COVID-19 if exposed to the virus.

How a person responds to a vaccine is impacted by a number of host factors, including our age, gender, medications, diet, exercise, health and stress levels.

Read more:
The symptoms of the Delta variant appear to differ from traditional COVID symptoms. Here’s what to look out for

It’s not easy to tell who hasn’t developed a strong enough immune response to the vaccine. Measuring a person’s immune response to a vaccine is not simple and requires detailed laboratory tests.

And while side effects from the vaccine indicate you’re having a response, the absence of symptoms doesn’t mean you’re having a weak response.

It also takes time for the immune system to respond to vaccines and produce antibodies. For most two-shot vaccines, antibody levels rise and then dip after the first dose. These antibodies are then boosted after the second.

But you’re not optimally covered until your antibody levels rise after the second dose.

What does COVID look like after being vaccinated?

The PCR tests we use to detect SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, are very sensitive and can detect a positive case even if you have low levels of the virus in your system. This means a person can test positive for SARS-CoV-2 but still not have symptoms of COVID-19.

Of those vaccinated people who have reported symptoms, the vast majority report mild ones, with a shorter duration.

Read more:
The symptoms of the Delta variant appear to differ from traditional COVID symptoms. Here’s what to look out for

There is always a chance a vaccinated person could pass the virus onto a non-vaccinated person without having symptoms themselves.

But vaccinated people who develop COVID-19 will likely have a lower viral load than unvaccinated people, meaning they’re less likely to spread the virus.

One study estimated those who were vaccinated with either Pfizer or AstraZeneca were 50% less likely to pass it on to an unvaccinated household contact than someone who wasn’t vaccinated. This transmission will likely reduce again if both household members are vaccinated.

But if you’re not vaccinated and contract COVID-19, you’re much more likely to spread the virus.

What about future variants?

So far, the preliminary data (some of which is ongoing and/or yet to be peer reviewed) shows our current vaccines are effective at protecting against circulating variants.

But as the virus mutates, there is increasing chance of viral escape. This means there is a greater chance the virus will develop mutations that make it fitter against, or more easily able to evade, vaccinations.

Scientist are closely monitoring to ensure our current and/or future vaccines are effective against the circulating strains.

To help the fight against COVID-19 the best thing we can do is minimise the spread of the virus. This means get vaccinated when you can, ensure you maintain social distancing when required and get tested if you have any symptoms.

Read more:
No, vaccine side effects don’t tell you how well your immune system will protect you from COVID-19

Lara Herrero 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. Yes, you can still get COVID after being vaccinated, but you’re unlikely to get as sick – https://theconversation.com/yes-you-can-still-get-covid-after-being-vaccinated-but-youre-unlikely-to-get-as-sick-163870

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Black, PhD Candidate, School of History, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University

Political memoirs in Australia often create splashy headlines and controversy. But we should not dismiss the publication of former Liberal MP Julia Banks’ book, Power Play, as just the latest in a genre full of scandals and secrets.

There is a long tradition of female parliamentarians using memoirs to reshape the culture around them. Banks — whose book includes claims of bullying, sexism and harassment — is the latest to push for equality and understanding of what life is like for women in Canberra.

The power of a memoir

There are many ways to tell your story — from social media posts to podcasts and speeches to parliament.

But there is something enduring about memoir. Sales figures aside, the political memoir can be a significant event. The inevitable round of media interviews, book tours and literary festivals can allow an author to stamp their broader ideas onto the public debate and shed light on the culture of our institutions.

Read more:
The ‘madness’ of Julia Banks — why narratives about ‘hysterical’ women are so toxic

They also have the advantage of usually being written when women have left parliament, and no longer need to place their party’s interests ahead of all others. Indeed, Banks tells us that her story is that of “an insider who’s now out”.

It started with Enid Lyons

In 1972, Dame Enid Lyons (the first woman elected to the House of Representatives and wife of former prime minister Joe Lyons) published Among the Carrion Crows.

In her memoir, she offered a compelling insight into how she dealt with the male-dominated environment of parliament house. She recalled feeling like a “risky political experiment”, as if the very “value of women in politics would be judged” by the virtue of her conduct. She joyfully described how her maiden speech had moved men to tears.

In that place of endless speaking … no one ever made men weep. Apparently I had done so.

She also recorded key moments when she had vigorously presented her views in the party room and the parliament. She asserted the right of women to stand — and more importantly, to be heard — in parliament.

Encouraging women, challenging men

Since Lyons, women have continued to use autobiographies to promote women’s participation in politics and challenge the masculine histories of political parties.

When the ALP celebrated its centenary in 1991, it was the male history that was celebrated. Senator Margaret Reynolds (Queensland’s first female senator) “decided that the record had to be corrected”.

Reynolds’ writings on Labor women occurred alongside the ALP’s moves toward affirmative action quotas in the early 1990s. As well as a memoir, she wrote a series of newsletters called Some of Them Sheilas, and a book about Labor’s women called The Last Bastion. In it, she recorded the experiences and achievements of ALP women over the past 100 years.

In her 1999 book, Catching the Waves, Labor’s first female cabinet minister Susan Ryan acknowledged there was “a lot of bad male behaviour in parliament”. But she argued this should not “dissuade women from seeking parliamentary careers”. Importantly, Ryan saw her autobiography as a collective story about the women’s movement and its “breakthrough into parliamentary politics” in the 1970s and 1980s.

Read more:
Why is it taking so long to achieve gender equality in parliament?

While Labor women like Reynolds, Ryan and Cheryl Kernot were publishing their memoirs, few Liberal women put their stories on the public record. Former NSW Liberal leader Kerry Chikarovski’s 2004 memoir, Chika, was billed as the story of a woman who

learnt to cope with some of the toughest and nastiest politics any female has ever encountered in Australia’s political history.

In 2007 Pauline Hanson published an autobiography called Untamed and Unashamed, telling journalists, “I wanted to set the record straight”. But these were exceptions to the rule.

Julia Gillard’s story

Following the sexism and misogyny that disfigured her prime ministership, Julia Gillard’s 2014 memoir My Story helped revitalise the national conversation about women and power. Hoping to help Australia “work patiently and carefully through” the question of gender and politics, Gillard promised to “describe how I lived it and felt it” as prime minister.

Importantly, she held not only her opponents but also the media to account for their gender bias. Critics like journalist Paul Kelly derided Gillard’s version of history as “nonsense”, but the success of her account suggests otherwise. My Story sold 72,000 copies in just three years.

In her 2020 book, Women and Leadership co-authored with former Nigerian finance minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Gillard interviewed eight women leaders from around the world, further showing how gender continues to shape political lives.

The risks of writing

A political memoir can be fraught, however. After a decade in parliament, Democract-turned-Labor MP Cheryl Kernot published her memoir Speaking for Myself Again in 2002.
She had hoped it would argue the case for Australian women “participating fully” in politics to promote “their own values and interests and shift the underlying male agenda”.

But the release was quickly overshadowed by revelations of an extra-marital affair with Labor’s Gareth Evans (which were not in the book). Her book tour was halted amid the fallout. Kernot later despaired journalist Laurie Oakes — who broke the story — had managed to “sabotage people’s interest in the book”.

Others, such as Labor’s Ros Kelly, have told their stories in private or semi-private ways. Kelly’s autobiography was privately published as a gift to her granddaughter, but she also gives copies to women in politics, many of whom “have read it, and sent me really nice notes”.

Power in numbers

In the past five years, several women from across the political spectrum have published life stories.

In her memoir, An Activist Life, former Greens leader Christine Milne argued that women should perform feminist leadership rather than being “co-opted into being one of the boys”. In Finding My Place, Labor MP Anne Aly, showed women of non-Anglo, non-Christian backgrounds belong in parliament too. Independents Jacqui Lambie and Cathy McGowan used their memoirs to show female MPs can thrive without the backing of the major parties.

Read more:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Former MP Kate Ellis on the culture in parliament house

Most recently, former Labor MP Kate Ellis published Sex, Lies and Question Time, which includes reflections on the experiences of nearly a dozen other women in parliament.

For fifty years, Australia’s female politicians have used their memoirs to assert the equal rights of women in parliament, party rooms, and the media. Drawing on that lineage, Banks is the latest to help reveal and disrupt the sexism and misogyny in political life.

This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

– ref. Julia Banks’ new book is part of a 50-year tradition of female MPs using memoirs to fight for equality – https://theconversation.com/julia-banks-new-book-is-part-of-a-50-year-tradition-of-female-mps-using-memoirs-to-fight-for-equality-163888

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Yong, Academic, Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University

Until recently it was thought neutron star mergers were the only way heavy elements (heavier than Zinc) could be produced. These mergers involve the mashup of the remnants of two massive stars in a binary system.

But we know heavy elements were first produced not long after the Big Bang, when the universe was really young. Back then, not enough time had passed for neutron star mergers to have even occurred. Thus, another source was needed to explain the presence of early heavy elements in the Milky Way.

The discovery of an ancient star SMSS J2003-1142 in the Milky Way’s halo — which is the roughly spherical region that surrounds the galaxy — is providing the first evidence for another source for heavy elements, including uranium and possibly gold.

In our research published today in Nature, we show the heavy elements detected in SMSS J2003-1142 were likely produced, not by a neutron star merger, but through the collapse and explosion of a rapidly spinning star with a strong magnetic field and a mass about 25 times that of the Sun.

We call this explosion event a “magnetorotational hypernova”.

Stellar alchemy

It was recently confirmed that neutron star mergers are indeed one source of the heavy elements in our galaxy. As the name suggests, this is when two neutron stars in a binary system merge together in an energetic event called a “kilonova”. This process produces heavy elements.

However, existing models of the chemical evolution of our galaxy indicate that neutron star mergers alone could not have produced the specific patterns of elements we see in multiple ancient stars, including SMSS J2003-1142.

Read more:
Signals from a spectacular neutron star merger that made gravitational waves are slowly fading away

A relic from the early universe

SMSS J2003-1142 was first observed in 2016 from Australia, and then again in September 2019 using a telescope at the European Southern Observatory in Chile.

From these observations, we studied the star’s chemical composition. Our analysis revealed an iron content roughly 3,000 times lower than the Sun’s. In other words, SMSS J2003-1142 is chemically primitive.

The elements we observed in it were likely produced by a single parent star, just after the Big Bang.

Signatures of a collapsed rapidly spinning star

The chemical composition of SMSS J2003-1142 can reveal the nature and properties of its parent star. Particularly important are its unusually high amounts of nitrogen, zinc and heavy elements including europium and uranium.

The high nitrogen levels in SMSS J2003-1142 indicate the parent star had rapid rotation, while high zinc levels indicate the energy of the explosion was about ten times that of a “normal” supernova — which means it would have been a hypernova. Also, large amounts of uranium would have required the presence of lots of neutrons.

The heavy elements we can observe in SMSS J2003-1142 today are all evidence that this star was produced as a result of an early magnetorotational hypernova explosion.

And our work has therefore provided the first evidence that magnetorotational hypernova events are a source of heavy elements in our galaxy (alongside neutron star mergers).

What about neutron star mergers?

But how do we know it wasn’t just neutron star mergers that led to the particular elements we find in SMSS J2003-1142? There’s a few reasons for this.

In our hypothesis, a single parent star would have made all the elements observed in SMSS J2003-1142. On the other hand, it would have taken much, much longer for the same elements to have been made only through neutron star mergers. But this time wouldn’t have even existed this early in the galaxy’s formation when these elements were made.

Also, neutron star mergers make only heavy elements, so additional sources such as regular supernova would had to have occurred to explain other heavy elements, such as calcium, observed in SMSS J2003-1142. This scenario, while possible, is more complicated and therefore less likely.

The magnetorotational hypernovae model not only provides a better fit to the data, it can also explain the composition of SMSS J2003-1142 through a single event. It could be neutron star mergers, together with magnetorotational supernovae, could in unison explain how all the heavy elements in the Milky Way were created.

Read more:
The race to find even more new elements to add to the periodic table

David Yong receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D).

Gary Da Costa has received funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D).

– ref. We found a new type of stellar explosion that could explain a 13-billion-year-old mystery of the Milky Way’s elements – https://theconversation.com/we-found-a-new-type-of-stellar-explosion-that-could-explain-a-13-billion-year-old-mystery-of-the-milky-ways-elements-163986

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keith Rathbone, Lecturer, Modern European History and Sports History, Macquarie University

Since the global pandemic began, debate has raged over whether Tokyo should go ahead with the Olympic Games, now set to open on July 23.

The same heated debates were heard the last time an Olympic Games were staged following a global pandemic — the 1920 Summer Olympics in Antwerp.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) strongly believed the Olympics would help bring the world back together — not just after the devastating Spanish Flu pandemic that killed at least 50 million people, but also the tumult of the first world war.

Only six months after the armistice that ended the conflict — and in the midst of the pandemic — Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympics and president of the IOC, called an extraordinary IOC session to award the 1920 Olympics to Antwerp in recognition of Belgium’s suffering.

Newspapers around the world agreed. In France’s premier sports paper, L’Auto, journalists asked “Belgium – didn’t they earn the Games?”.

Despite the IOC’s enthusiasm, worries about the resurgence of the Spanish Flu stalked the competition. Although the last wave hit Europe in the spring of 1920, newspapers still reported on rumours of new outbreaks in the weeks leading up to the games.

Though a number of Olympic athletes died from the flu in the years leading up to the games, historical records show the virus had no direct impact on the event itself. Nonetheless, planning an Olympics in the aftermath of both a war and pandemic was far from easy for the under-resourced and overstretched Belgians.

An Olympic farce?

The Antwerp Games followed closely after the Inter-Allied Games, held in Paris in 1919, which brought together soldiers from the Allied powers who were stationed in France and Belgium and had yet to be demobilised.

The popular event saw large crowds, despite concerns about the flu, and provided greater impetus to move ahead with the even more ambitious Olympics. British Olympic officials said in a letter to The Referee newspaper in Sydney,

By renewing her claim to this Olympiad, she [the city of Antwerp] says to her tyrants of yesterday, ‘You thought you had broken my spirit and ruined my fortunes. You have failed.’

The Belgian Olympic Committee refused to invite athletes from the Central Powers who fought in the war — Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire. The newly created Soviet Union also declined to attend.

This intrusion of politics on the games proved challenging for the IOC. During the first world war, de Coubertin had avowed Olympic neutrality, and was quoted in the Italian newspaper La Stampa in 1915 as being open to Germany hosting the games the following year. (The 1916 Berlin Olympics were ultimately cancelled due to the war.)

The IOC also made every effort to sell the 1920 Olympics as a celebration of peace. Antwerp was the first Olympics, for example, to feature the famed five interlocking rings designed to represent “the union of the five continents and the meeting of athletes from throughout the world”.

But not everyone was supportive of the idea that “Olympism” could promote peace in the wake of the war. The UK assistant under-secretary for foreign affairs, Eyre Crowe, decried the Olympics as “an international farce” and joined a chorus of government officials arguing against funding a British Olympic team.

The Belgian Olympic Committee, and the athletes themselves, explicitly connected the games to the war, as well.

At the opening ceremonies, the organisers released doves into the air, but also held a religious service in memory of the Allied athletes who had been killed. Military officials also played a key role in organising and staging events: the American team only arrived in Europe, for instance, thanks to a last-minute military transport.

Few fans and a financial failure

Just like the Tokyo Games, De Coubertin and the IOC were under considerable pressure to ensure the Antwerp Olympics went ahead, despite the challenging circumstances.

After an eight-year break following the 1912 Olympics, de Coubertin realised that hosting Olympics in 1920 was essential to defending their position as the world’s premier international sporting competition.

He was aware that alternative games were being organised, including the 1921 Women’s Olympiad in Monte Carlo, which was planned, in part, because of the unwillingness of the Olympics to allow a full range of women’s events.

On August 14, 1920, the Antwerp Games opened with more than 2,600 competing athletes. Several achieved remarkable success, including the Hawaiian-American swimmer, Duke Kahanamoku, who won gold and set a world record in the 100-metre freestyle. But overall, the quality of competition had dipped significantly.

The war was the cause: many star athletes died or returned injured and unable to compete. The British team, for instance, lost several track and field stars — Gerald Anderson, Kenneth Powell and Henry Ashington — all from Oxbridge sporting clubs.

Other athletes had died from the flu, including nine-time Olympic medallist Martin Sheridan.

The number of fans were also lower than organisers expected: many locals were unable to afford the high cost of tickets. The low local interest resulted in a loss of 600 million francs for Belgium, and within three years, the Belgian Olympic Committee had gone bankrupt.

The rush to host the games could only partially explain its financial failure. The Belgian government set aside 4 million francs to fund the competition, but quickly ran out of money and was forced to scrape up money through local fund-raising drives and by selling memorabilia.

American, British, and French Olympic committees similarly faced difficulty raising funds to send athletes to Belgium. In the wake of the war, amid a global economic recession, few governments had money to spend on sport.

‘We were heartsick when we saw it’

Cash-strapped Belgium was hardly ready to welcome athletes, let alone large numbers of fans. Walker Smith, an American track and field athlete, described sleeping on cots “without mattresses” in dormitories housing 10 to 15 men per room.

The food situation was similarly bleak, with athletes given only a roll, coffee and “one little sardine” for breakfast. They were forced to buy their own food — Belgium was still receiving aid because of food shortages.

Sporting facilities, too, were in shambles. The Olympic Stadium was barely finished when the games began — the track was incomplete and many of the races were conducted in muddy conditions.

Swimmers faced even tougher circumstances: the Belgians had not built a pool but instead constructed a wooden frame in an existing waterway.

Aileen Riggin, the gold medallist in the women’s three-meter springboard event, remembers diving into a canal, part of the city’s ancient defences, and into water being shared by all the nautical sports.

We were heartsick when we saw it. […] A 50-meter pool was not asking too much, but of course Belgium did the very best they could. This was right after the war.

It was so cold that many swimmers had to be rescued from hypothermia. They were unconscious, and some of them were really in a bad way and had to be dragged out.

Antwerp’s legacy

Despite these hardships, Belgians reported a successful Olympiad. The IOC’s report called the games a noble cause, but admitted that “for Belgians the success was relative”.

According to the IOC, one of the lessons they learned was

how expensive it was to host the games [and] that it is imprudent to undertake them without having the necessary capital in hand.

In the rush to host the 1920 games, the IOC, local organisers, and other national committees made avoidable and costly mistakes.

Unfortunately, as the long history of politicised and costly Olympics has shown, some of these mistakes were doomed to be repeated.

À lire aussi :
The Tokyo Olympics are going ahead, but they will be a much compromised and watered-down event

Keith Rathbone ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Sardines for breakfast, hypothermia rescues: the story of the cash-strapped, post-pandemic 1920 Olympics – https://theconversation.com/sardines-for-breakfast-hypothermia-rescues-the-story-of-the-cash-strapped-post-pandemic-1920-olympics-162246

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margie Danchin, Paediatrician at the Royal Childrens Hospital and Associate Professor and Clinician Scientist, University of Melbourne and MCRI, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

The Delta variant is surging across the globe, and the World Health Organization warns it will rapidly become the world’s dominant strain of COVID-19.

Delta is more infectious than the Alpha variant, and preliminary data suggest children and adolescents are at greater risk of becoming infected with this variant, and transmitting it.

Is this true? And with Sydney school students set to begin term 3 remotely, what’s the best way to manage school outbreaks?

Let’s take a look at the evidence.

Delta in children and young people

In the United Kingdom, where the Delta variant has been predominating since May, infections are rising fastest among 17-29-year-olds, who are mostly unvaccinated. Infections are also increasing in younger age groups, but at a lower rate.

Overall, increased transmission among children and young people may partly be due to Delta. But also, in countries like the UK, these age groups are most susceptible to infection because older groups have been largely vaccinated.

While we don’t yet have data on the severity of illness in children associated with the Delta variant specifically, we know with COVID generally, kids are much less likely to become very unwell.

Research from the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute found children clear the virus more quickly than adults, which might go some way to explaining this.

Read more:
Why is Delta such a worry? It’s more infectious, probably causes more severe disease, and challenges our vaccines

How is Delta affecting transmission in schools?

In 2020, face-to-face learning wasn’t a significant contributor to community transmission in Victoria. Similarly, during the first wave in New South Wales, transmission rates were low in education settings. Concerns children may bring infections home to vulnerable family members weren’t supported by the evidence.

However, the situation is looking somewhat different now with the emergence of new variants and varying levels of vaccine coverage in different countries.

There does appear to be more transmission in schools. In the week ending June 27 there were outbreaks in 11 nursery schools, 78 primary schools, 112 secondary schools and 18 special needs schools in the UK.

While outbreaks in schools are increasing, the vast majority of transmission still occurs in households.

In 2021 in Australia, there have been very few school infections with Delta. In Western Australia, where schools have remained open, an infectious case attended three schools but this didn’t result in any school outbreaks.

During the current NSW outbreak, there have been several schools and early childhood centres with COVID-19 cases, and we have seen one outbreak at a primary school.

Although schools in Australia have largely been spared, transmission rates have been higher than we’ve seen with other variants. Almost all household contacts of cases are becoming infected.

In the recent Melbourne primary school outbreak, our research yet to be published showed that 100% of the household contacts of children who were infected at school went on to test positive.

Fortunately, testing, tracing and isolating were very effective in containing the outbreak, even with the Delta variant.

But these recent school outbreaks highlight why it’s so important adults of all ages, especially parents and teachers, get vaccinated.

Should we vaccinate children?

There are benefits of vaccinating children, particularly teenagers. These include direct protection against the disease, but also reducing transmission to vulnerable adults and enabling continued school attendance.

The risks and benefits need to be carefully calculated in a low transmission setting like Australia. In terms of risks, emerging data suggest the mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna are associated with a very small risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart lining) in young adolescents and adults, particularly males. Although most cases are mild, it can be a serious condition and is being closely monitored.

Read more:
Let’s hold off vaccinating children and teens against COVID-19. Prioritising adults is our best shot for now

The United States, Canada, and a few countries in Europe are already vaccinating children over 12. Australia’s drug regulator is currently weighing this up.

For now, we should continue to vaccinate adults in priority groups. We have a long way to go to get the most vulnerable vaccinated first, and are still constrained by vaccine supply.

As we grapple with the benefits and risks for teenagers, it’s also worth asking them if they want to be vaccinated and why. Many have been adversely impacted by the pandemic and are desperate to move on with their lives.

What should parents look out for?

With the Delta variant, a headache, sore throat and runny nose are now the most commonly reported symptoms among unvaccinated people.

These symptoms have eclipsed fever and cough, the most common symptoms earlier in the pandemic.

So it’s imperative parents still take their children to be tested if they become unwell, even if the symptoms appear more like the common cold.

Where to from here?

When adults are more widely vaccinated and our borders open, school outbreaks will likely continue to happen. Even in places like Israel, where a high proportion of the population has received two doses, school outbreaks have recently occurred.

Australia needs a clear plan that outlines how best to keep schools open, while preventing transmission and keeping children and teachers safe during any outbreaks.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians last week called for a national plan to this end.

This should include school staff being prioritised for vaccination.

And until we have high vaccination coverage, there’s evidence that well implemented school-based mitigation measures work to prevent transmission in education settings.

This could include a range of measures, adjusted according to risk, such as keeping non-essential adults off school grounds, mask use in high school students (and possibly primary students too), staggering timetables, reducing class sizes and improving classroom ventilation.

Read more:
The symptoms of the Delta variant appear to differ from traditional COVID symptoms. Here’s what to look out for

By monitoring the effects of new variants on children’s health, coupled with detailed risk-benefit analyses, we will determine the best time for children and adolescents to be vaccinated.

In the meantime, parents and all eligible adults can do their bit to protect children and reduce the risk of school outbreaks by getting vaccinated themselves.

Margie Danchin receives funding from the Victorian and Commonwealth Departments of Health, NHMRC, DFAT and WHO. She is chair, Collaboration on Social Science and Immunisation (COSSI).

Archana Koirala receives funding from the NSW and Commonwealth Departments of Health. She is on the WHO MCAH COVID Research in School Group.

Fiona Russell receives funding from NHMRC, The Wellcome Trust, WHO and DFAT. She is on the WHO MNCAH COVID-19 Research in Schools Technical Advisory Group. She advises DFAT and WHO on COVID-19 vaccine in the Asia-Pacific.

Philip Britton receives funding from NHMRC, the NSW and Commonwealth Departments of Health. He clinical lead of the paediatric active enhanced disease surveillance (PAEDS) network coordinating centre.

– ref. Is it more infectious? Is it spreading in schools? This is what we know about the Delta variant and kids – https://theconversation.com/is-it-more-infectious-is-it-spreading-in-schools-this-is-what-we-know-about-the-delta-variant-and-kids-163724

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Serrin Rutledge-Prior, PhD Candidate; Sessional Academic, Australian National University

An Australian animal advocacy group is taking its campaign for greater transparency in animal-use industries from the streets to the High Court.

Last week, the Farm Transparency Project filed a case to challenge the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (SDA), a New South Wales law that restricts the use of cameras and audio recorders on private premises. If the bid is successful, it’ll be the first time so-called “ag-gag” legislation in Australia will be challenged in the High Court.

Animal rights groups claim laws like the SDA are increasingly silencing those advocating for greater transparency around animal-use industries.

Meanwhile, organisations representing animal-use industries, such as the National Farmers Federation, say covert footage represents a “huge breach of privacy”.

Balancing the interests of animal advocacy groups and animal-use industries will not be easy. However, the way to resolve this impasse is not to silence animal advocacy groups. Instead, it’s to make their actions unnecessary by ensuring meaningful transparency in the industry.

What are ag-gag laws?

“Ag-gag” describes laws that can be used to target animal advocates and whistleblowers bringing operations of commercial animal-use industries, especially intensive factory farms, to light.

The United States was the first country to pass ag-gag legislation, with a Kansas law in 1990 criminalising the act of taking covert pictures or film in animal facilities. Since then, ag-gag legislation has been introduced in most US states, and is in effect in several states.

But since 2013, pressure from animal advocacy groups has seen courts in a handful of US states strike down ag-gag laws as an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Australia has followed the trend by repurposing existing laws (such as the SDA) as ag-gag laws, or passing new and explicitly anti-animal activist laws.

The latter includes the Right to Farm Bill 2019 in NSW, which introduced harsh penalties for trespassing on agricultural land, and the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Act 2019 at the federal level, which creates an offence of using, for instance, a phone or the internet to encourage others to trespass on agricultural land.

What are the activists arguing?

The first Australian animal activist to be charged under Australian ag-gag legislation — in this case, the SDA — was Chris Delforce, the executive director of the Farm Transparency Project.

Before a NSW court dismissed the charges, Delforce faced a maximum of five years in prison for allegedly publishing footage purportedly taken from intensive piggeries and abattoirs in NSW.

Unlike in the US, the Australian constitution has no explicit right to freedom of expression. In 1992, however, the High Court recognised the constitution contains an “implied freedom” to discuss political matters.

Read more:
Not just activists, 9 out of 10 people are concerned about animal welfare in Australian farming

After another High Court case in 2001, this implied freedom of political communication was recognised as extending to animal welfare issues.

In the current High Court bid, the Farm Transparency Project argues the NSW law represents an unreasonable restriction on the implied freedom of political communication.

According to the group, the SDA unduly restricts this implied freedom because, unlike similar laws in other Australian jurisdictions, the NSW law doesn’t exempt material published in the public interest.

Failures in animal welfare regulation

It might be argued even if animal advocacy groups are trying to bring instances of animal abuse to light, they’re not appropriately placed to do so. After all, animal industries already face the scrutiny of police and the RSPCA, bodies tasked with ensuring compliance with, and prosecuting violations of, animal welfare standards.

But, as Australians have seen over the past few years, this regulatory framework doesn’t always work so well in practice.

Recent scandals surrounding the mistreatment of animals in the live export, greyhound racing, and horse racing industries weren’t uncovered in the course of standard compliance processes. Instead, it took covert footage to capture evidence of abuses.

This, in turn, led to widespread condemnation of the industries and, finally, to formal investigations.

Read more:
New findings show Australian sheep face dangerous heat stress on export ships

Given the failures in Australia’s animal welfare regulatory and compliance systems, advocacy groups are clearly playing a crucial and neglected role in revealing systemic animal mistreatment, both legal and otherwise, in a range of industries.

What have they got to hide?

The advocates’ goal to protect the implied freedom of political communication is not the only interest at stake in the High Court bid.

Take for example the largest recall of beef in US history, which occurred in 2008. Footage covertly obtained by an animal advocacy group revealed cows too sick to walk were being slaughtered, with some of the meat sold to use in school lunch programs.

Given such revelations of breaches of food safety laws in animal processing facilities, consumers have a strong interest in having access to information about how their meat, dairy and eggs are produced.

On the other hand, those working in animal facilities also have an interest in ensuring their privacy isn’t infringed by activists or whistleblowers collecting footage.

But we should differentiate between the privacy of an individual and that of a business.

Many farmers live and work on their properties. However, there’s no evidence to suggest animal advocacy groups are filming or recording footage of private homes instead of animal processing operations.

In the 2001 High Court case, most justices agreed businesses don’t have a right to privacy. Instead, they saw privacy as something associated with the notion of human dignity. In filming their business operations, farmers’ or workers’ human dignity is arguably not being infringed.

Read more:
National plan to allow battery cages until 2036 favours cheap eggs over animal welfare

At the end of the day, these activists are filling a regulatory gap. Putting barriers between consumers and animal-use industries by criminalising the activists’ actions won’t encourage trust in such industries.

As Paul McCartney once claimed, “if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian”. Failing to prioritise transparency will reinforce the idea these industries have something to hide.

Rather than attempting to silence groups such as the Farm Transparency Project with laws like the SDA, animal-use industries should respond by developing and enforcing stringent standards of transparency and compliance.

Only this will demonstrate they have nothing to hide.

Serrin Rutledge-Prior is a volunteer with the Animal Defenders Office (ACT). She ran as a candidate for the Animal Justice Party in the 2020 ACT election.

Tara Ward is the co-founder and volunteer managing solicitor with the Animal Defenders Office, a volunteer-run community legal centre. Tara has also worked in the offices of the Hon. Mark Pearson MLC and the Hon. Emma Hurst MLC, members of Animal Justice Party NSW.

– ref. Should slaughterhouses have glass walls? The campaign for greater farm transparency goes to the High Court – https://theconversation.com/should-slaughterhouses-have-glass-walls-the-campaign-for-greater-farm-transparency-goes-to-the-high-court-163811

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joyce Y.M. Nip, Associate professor, University of Sydney

Human Rights Watch released a report last week on the Chinese government’s surveillance of Chinese mainland and Hong Kong students in Australian universities. The report found students and academics critical of China’s Communist Party are being harassed and intimidated by supporters of Beijing.

Interviews with 24 pro-democracy students from mainland China and Hong Kong, and 22 academics at Australian universities, showed these students and academics had been self-censoring “to avoid threats, harassment, and surveillance”.

Read more:
Academic freedom is paramount for universities. They can do more to protect it from China’s interference

In our small closed-door discussion at the University of Sydney in June, arts and social sciences lecturers identified similar experiences.

Where ideological issues such as Hong Kong and Taiwan are concerned, lecturers told of how a vocal minority of international Chinese students are attempting to police teaching materials and class discussions. These students are pushing their classmates into self-imposed silence.

Lecturers are being challenged

Several lecturers reported they had been challenged by some students about teaching certain content and reading materials around China.

One lecturer talked of a discussion in an introductory liberal arts class. He had shown a breakdown of where the university’s students came from as part of a discussion about diversity. Later, the lecturer received an email from an international Chinese student. The student asserted Taiwan and Hong Kong were not individual state entities (as indicated on the demographic breakdown) but were part of China, and that the information needed to be corrected.

Another lecturer in a business studies course was challenged in class by an international student after mentioning the COVID-19 pandemic originated from the Chinese city of Wuhan.

On another occasion, an international Chinese student in a Chinese media class used his presentation to read out what sounded like a declaration that Western media were biased against China, instead of addressing the presentation topic.

Lecturers and students are self-censoring

Faced with such challenges, one lecturer said she felt compelled to exclude controversial topics as, if they were raised, the short time of the class wouldn’t be enough for a productive discussion. This contrasts with the mid-2000s when she started teaching, at which time she said she had felt free to raise any issue for discussion in class.

Another lecturer said: “I just don’t talk about Taiwan anymore”.

Often, it is not the lecturer but the students who avoid ideological issues. A lecturer who teaches languages reported international students were inclined to self-silence for fear of repercussions.

Read more:
Why the Australia-China relationship is unravelling faster than we could have imagined

On the other hand, lecturers reported students from English-speaking countries, including Australia, who would otherwise describe China as authoritarian with little respect for freedom or human rights, were shying away from ideological issues out of concern for offending other students.

Where does cultural sensitivity stop?

Before COVID, international education was Australia’s third largest export. Despite an overall drop in international university students in Australia due to COVID, the proportion of students from China actually increased slightly in January 2021 — from 38% in January 2020 to 39% of the international cohort.

The implications of the ideological rivalry we heard about, as well as what has been described in the Human Rights Watch report, on university education are concerning.

Sydney university lecturer in international relations, Dr Minglu Chen, has written on how teaching Chinese politics is becoming more challenging, and being squeezed between the opposing ideologies of students. She wrote:

[…] if students come to class with pre-existing rigid mindsets and refuse to engage with different opinions and viewpoints, then education simply fails in its purpose.

In a globalised world where cultures meet, educators are expected to be culturally sensitive and inclusive, but at what cost? Are we to exclude topics and perspectives in our teaching because they may offend the sensitivity of some of our students?

When does cultural sensitivity stop and self-censorship start?

Read more:
Teaching Chinese politics in Australia: polarised views leave academics between a rock and a hard place

We need to uphold the values of academic freedom and inquiry that are central to a university education. Universities must be a safe space for ideologically charged issues to be discussed freely, logically and critically with an open mind based on facts not emotions. We can’t let them be uncomfortably passed over, vaguely alluded to or outright avoided.

Ideological difference is, of course, only one of the many layers of cultural difference that exist between students of varied backgrounds. Language, learning styles and preferences, interests and lifestyle are some others. But it is a strong layer that can keep people apart.

This being said, there are also, of course, positive experiences in the classroom.

We can meet the challenge

In the closed-room discussion, one lecturer talked of a postgraduate class on film theory, in which 70% of students are from mainland China. Many students said the class provided them with a space to articulate their personal and political views on gender, sexuality and, more broadly, identity, which they said are considered “antiestablishment” in China.

In another class on news reading, international Chinese students were assigned the task of role playing the American figure while others played the Chinese figure in a propaganda animation produced by the People’s Republic of China about the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Students agreed both China and the United States had made mistakes, and that one’s wrongs did not make the other side right.

While Australia faces the challenge in teaching classes with a large share of international students from China, lecturers also have a unique opportunity to find innovative ways to meet the challenge.

Before anything else though, we need to go beyond anecdotal evidence to understand how students perceive ideological discourses, and how they position themselves in relation to the ideology of their political authorities. Research like this can then become the foundation for designing a non-discriminatory and critical learning environment. This will help to mitigate the influence of ideological discourses.

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

– ref. Cultural sensitivity or censorship? Lecturers are finding it difficult to talk about China in class – https://theconversation.com/cultural-sensitivity-or-censorship-lecturers-are-finding-it-difficult-to-talk-about-china-in-class-164066

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

The history of cinema as an art parallels its history as a technology. Ever wondered why the colour in The Wizard of Oz is so saturated? Well, it wasn’t the first technicolor film, but it was the first to effectively advertise MGM’s new 3-strip colour process to a global audience. Why advertise something at half mast?

This kind of technological innovation in cinema is, of course, spurred by economic motives. For instance, 3D thrived in three waves in direct response to the economic threats posed by new technologies: in the 1950s, in response to television, in the 1980s, responding to VHS, and in the 21st century in the face of increased online streaming. (Now we have 4DX, a gimmick one suspects won’t take off.)

In this era of digital cinema, with celluloid virtually replaced by video technology, the latest technological battle concerns image resolution.

A digital image is made up of pixels — little shapes (usually boxes) that are the smallest controllable element of the image. Resolution refers to the number of pixels appearing in an image, and is usually measured in pixels per inch. As a rule, the more pixels, the crisper the image — that is, the sharper the edges of the subject appear.

In digital cinema’s resolution wars, you will often hear people speak about 4K — as in, 4000 — or 8K, or now even 12K resolution. This number refers to the number of horizontal pixels. A typical 4K digital cinema image for instance, has a resolution of 4,096 (horizontal) x 2,160 (vertical) pixels.

Image capture resolution is only one factor in how an image looks — dynamic range, that is, difference between the darkest and lightest parts of the image, is another. But most cinematographers and techies agree the camera’s resolution is crucial to the crispness of the image.

In 2018, Netflix were snubbed by the Cannes Film Festival on the basis Netflix-produced films are not true cinema. This year again, there are no Netflix-produced films in the festival competition due to a rule all films selected to compete must have a local theatrical release.

Cannes is right. Most made-for-Netflix productions don’t look like the cinema we’re used to. Why? There’s a technical answer. Though the company streams some films that are not “Netflix Originals”, it requires narrative feature films made for Netflix be shot on cameras with a “true 4K UHD sensor”.

In other words, the sensor — which detects and conveys the information required to make an image — must be at least 3,840 pixels wide, or “Ultra High Definition”.

Read more:
Cannes is right, Netflix movies just aren’t the same

Flat and depthless

This technical specification is strikingly evident in David Fincher’s recent Netflix Original production, Mank, a black and white biopic about Herman J. Mankiewicz’s ghostwriting of Citizen Kane.

An old black and white film, shot on celluloid, has a grainy texture that draws the eye into and around the image. This is partly the result of the degradation of the film print, which occurs over time, but primarily because of the physical processing of the film itself.

All celluloid film has a grainy look. This “grain” is an optical effect related to the small particles of metallic silver that emerge through the film’s chemical processing.

This is not the case with digital cameras. Thus video images captured by high resolution sensors look different to those shot on celluloid. The images in Mank look flat, depthless, they are too clean and clear.

This is not as much of a problem on a big screen, when the images are huge, but the high resolution is really noticeable when the images are compressed on the kind of domestic TV or computer screens most people use to stream Netflix. The edges look too sharp, the shades too clearly delineated — compared to what we have been used to as cinemagoers.

Read more:
Pass the popcorn – Scorsese cinema boycott will shape the future of movies

The absurd thing is companies like CineGrain now sell digital overlays of film stock that can endow video with the grainy film look. (Their company motto is “make digital more cinematic using CineGrain.”) The natural result of the physical process has been superseded by video, but digital cinema makers reintroduce this as one component in achieving a “film look”.

Netflix does allow limited exceptions to its rule, with use of non-approved cameras requiring its explicit approval and a “more flexible” approach to non-fiction productions. According to Y.M. Cinema magazine, 30% of Netflix’s “best movies of 2020” were made on non-approved cameras. Still, in stipulating the use of 4K (or higher) sensor cameras, Netflix radically reduces the aesthetic autonomy of film directors and producers.

If we think of Netflix as a production studio, this is not surprising — all studios (like all major corporations) dictate the nature of their products, including the aesthetics and feel of their films. But this requirement means their productions look similar, and the imagery (to a cinephile, anyway), too clinical.

Glorious granularity

All film festivals, distributors and networks request delivery of films conforming to their specifications, but this usually has nothing to do with the source camera behind the delivered file. If it looks and plays well, it looks and plays well.

The film Open Water (2003), for example, which made over US$50 million at the box office (from a budget of under US$200,000), was shot on mini-DV, a low quality and now obsolete video format, but it perfectly suited the film and thus works.

Netflix, in stipulating 4K camera sensors, reproduces the assumption higher resolution is necessarily better, for all (or even most) films.

But one of the reasons American film noir still looks so good — or the New Hollywood films of the 1960s and 1970s, like Easy Rider and Bonnie and Clyde — is partly because of the celluloid technology itself, in all its glorious granularity. The beauty of these cinematic images has nothing to do with the sharpness of the edges of the photographed subjects.

From where is this assumption that sharper images are better, and more aesthetically effective? Art has always sought to say something in its deviation from its realistic reproduction of the world — that is, in its expression.

As with all technological innovation in a capitalist context, this assumption stems from the competitive impulse to appear to be doing something better than everyone else — the bigger, more expensive, clearer, the better. But when it comes to aesthetics, this is a redundant form of economy.

Ari Mattes 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. Films made for Netflix look more like TV shows — here’s the technical reason why – https://theconversation.com/films-made-for-netflix-look-more-like-tv-shows-heres-the-technical-reason-why-160259

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, La Trobe University

New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian today confirmed what Sydney was fearing: the city’s lockdown will be extended for another week.

With 27 locally acquired cases identified in the past 24 hours, this decision isn’t surprising.

Of some concern, seven of these people had been moving around in the community during part of their infectious period. Another seven appear to have been in the community for the whole of their infectious period.

These aren’t the numbers you want to be seeing when considering emerging out of a lockdown.

So what are health authorities looking for when when making decisions about relaxing restrictions?

The first key factor is whether the public health team is identifying the epidemiological links between cases.

The second is whether contact tracers are able to identify all potential cases and quarantine them before they’re infectious. This is clearly not yet the case in NSW.

Remind me, why did Sydney go into lockdown?

After health authorities identified the initial cluster, it looked like it could be brought under control. But then they discovered a new, significant chain of transmission.

While it could be traced back to the Bondi Junction cluster, there had been more than one generation of spread in the community. This included a seafood wholesaler in Marrickville, with transmissions going back a week before they caught it, and a flight crew member who travelled interstate while likely to be infectious.

It would take some days to identify, trace, isolate and test all contacts.

The second and equally important reason for lockdown was contact tracers weren’t able to keep up with all the cases, despite identifying this outbreak within the first generation of spread.

Read more:
Did Sydney’s lockdown come too late? Here’s why it’s not that simple

Contact tracers were finding the interval between exposure and becoming infectious could, in some cases, be as short as 24 to 48 hours.

They were concerned that known chains were still active and other significant chains of transmission were yet to be discovered. So they needed the extra level of transmission suppression that lockdown brings.

What’s happened since?

Fortunately, no other chains have been unearthed linked to large workplaces or complex setting. But the outbreak isn’t yet contained, so restrictions are still needed.

However, this could turn around quickly, as the number of new exposure sites diminishes.

An important element of the public health response has been the decision to ask the households of those who have been to key exposure sites to also isolate while the infection status of the person exposed is worked out.

This, along with people rapidly self-identifying when new exposure sites are listed or older sites are reclassified to “close cotact” status, will allow the contact tracers to get ahead of the virus. Then, new cases will only be found in quarantine.

At that point, new cases may continue to be reported, but lockdown will no longer be necessary.

So what needs to happen for Sydney to end lockdown?

When it comes to relaxing restrictions in Sydney next week, there is a lot to consider.

First, we have to take into account we’re dealing with the more infectious Delta variant. It’s around twice as infectious as the original strain that emerged from Wuhan. This has considerably changed the risk assessment, given the ease and speed at which it seems to spread from one person to another.

Read more:
Why is Delta such a worry? It’s more infectious, probably causes more severe disease, and challenges our vaccines

It’s also important to consider we’ve seen casual exposures in shared public indoor places contribute more to the spread in this outbreak. Indeed, this outbreak was seeded with a number of casual exposures resulting in new cases and widespread transmission within the first generation of spread.

Schools have become key transmission sites in this outbreak, and also in the smaller Delta outbreak in Melbourne in May. So, while schools were once seen as less worrisome locations, they’re now a more important consideration.

So far, the NSW government has delayed the return of students, with those in greater Sydney moving to home learning next week. The premier said this wasn’t because they were risky places, but to “stop literally hundreds of thousands of adults moving around and interacting with each other” at pick up and drop off times.

Hopefully the extra week of lockdown and home learning is enough to stamp out transmission, so NSW can start to get back to where it was a few weeks ago.

As Berejiklian said today, there is only one thing worse than a lockdown and that is cycling in and out of lockdowns, given the huge economic and social costs.

All the evidence shows that going hard to suppress transmission pays dividends many times over for both health and economic outcomes.

And of course, as soon as we reach a high enough level of vaccine coverage, lockdowns will be a thing of the past. This should be a big motivation for all of us to get vaccinated.

Read more:
Australia has a new four-phase plan for a return to normality. Here’s what we know so far

Catherine Bennett receives funding from Medical Research Future Fund and National Health and Medical Research Council. Catherine was also an invited independent expert on an AstraZeneca Expert Advisory Committee.

Hassan Vally 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. Sydney is locked down for another 7 days. So what will it take to lift restrictions? – https://theconversation.com/sydney-is-locked-down-for-another-7-days-so-what-will-it-take-to-lift-restrictions-163967

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roberto Musotto, Research fellow, Edith Cowan University

On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog!

These words from Peter Steiner’s famous cartoon could easily be applied to the recent ransomware attack on Florida-based software supplier Kaseya.

Kaseya provides software services to thousands of clients around the world. It’s estimated between 800 and 1,500 medium to small businesses may be impacted by the attack, with the hackers demanding US$50 million
(lower than the previously reported US$70 million) in exchange for restoring access to data being held for ransom.

The global ransomware attack has been labelled the biggest on record. Russian cybercriminal organisation REvil is the alleged culprit.

Despite its notoriety, nobody really knows what REvil is, what it’s capable of or why it does what they does — apart from the immediate benefit of huge sums of money. Also, ransomware attacks often involve vast distributed networks, so it’s not even certain the individuals involved would know each other.

Ransomware attacks are growing exponentially in size and ransom demand — changing the way we operate online. Understanding who these groups are and what they want is critical to taking them down.

Here, we list the top five most dangerous criminal organisations currently online. As far as we know, these rogue groups aren’t backed or sponsored by any state.

DarkSide

DarkSide is the group behind the Colonial Pipeline ransom attack in May, which shut down the US Colonial Pipeline’s fuel distribution network, triggering gasoline shortage concerns.

The group seemingly first emerged in August last year. It targets large companies that will suffer from any disruption to their services — a key factor, as they’re then more likely to pay ransom. Such companies are also more likely to have cyber insurance which, for criminals, means easy moneymaking.

DarkSide’s business model is to offer a ransomware service. In other words, it carries out ransomware attacks on behalf of other, hidden perpetrator/s so they can lessen their liability. The executor and perpetrator then share profits.

Groups that offer cybercrime-as-a-service also provide online forum communications to support others who may want to improve their cybercrime skills.

This might involve teaching someone how to combine distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) and ransomware attacks, to put extra pressure on negotiations. The ransomware would prevent a business from working on past and current orders, while a DDoS attack would block any new orders.

REvil

The ransomware-as-a-service group REvil is currently making headlines due to the ongoing Kaseya incident, as well as another recent attack on global meat processing company JBS. This group has been particularly active in 2020-2021.

In April, REvil stole technical data on unreleased Apple products from Quanta Computer, a Taiwanese company that assembles Apple laptops. A ransom of US$50 million was demanded to prevent public release of the stolen data. It hasn’t been revealed whether or not this money was paid.

Clop

The ransomware Clop was created in 2019 by a financially-motivated group responsible for yielding half a billion US dollars.

The Clop group’s speciality is “double-extortion”. This involves targeting organisations with ransom money in exchange for a decryption key that will restore the organisation’s access to stolen data. However, targets will then have to pay extra ransom to not have the data released publicly.

Historical examples reveal that organisations which pay a ransom once are more likely to pay again in the future. So hackers will tend to target the same organisations again and again, asking for more money each time.

Syrian Electronic Army

Far from a typical cybercrime gang, the Syrian Electronic Army has been launching online attacks since 2011 to promote political propaganda. With this motive, they have been dubbed a hactivist group.

While the group has links with Bashar al-Assad’s regime, it’s more likely made up of online vigilantes trying to be media auxiliary for the Syrian army.

Their technique is to distribute fake news through reputable sources. In 2013, a single tweet sent by them from the official account of the Associated Press, the world’s leading news agency, had the effect of wiping billions from the stock market.

The Syrian Electronic Army exploits the fact that most people online have a tendency to interpret and react to content with an implicit sense of trust. And they’re a prime example of how the boundaries between crime and terror groups online are less distinct than in the physical world.

FIN7

If this list could contain a “super villain”, it would be FIN7. Another Russian-based group, FIN7 is arguably the most successful online criminal organisation of all time. Operating since 2012, it mainly works as a business.

Many of its operations have been undetected for years. Its data breaches have exploited cross-attack scenarios, wherein the data breach serves multiple purposes. For example, it may enable extortion through ransom while also allowing the attacker to use data against victims, such as by reselling it to a third party.

In early 2017, FIN7 was alleged to be behind an attack targeting companies providing filings to the US Security and Exchange Commission. This confidential information was exploited and used to obtain ransom which was then invested on the stock exchange.

As such, the groups made huge sums of money by trading on confidential information. The insider trading scheme facilitated by hacking went on for many years — which is why it’s not possible to quantify the exact amount of economic damage. But it’s estimated to be well over US$1 billion.

Organised crime vs organised criminals

When it comes to complex criminal organisations, techniques evolve and motives vary.

The way they organise themselves and commit crimes online is very different from your local offline gang. Ransomware can be launched from anywhere in the world, so it’s very difficult to prosecute these criminals. Matters are made even more complicated when several parties coordinate across borders.

It’s no wonder the challenge for law enforcement agencies is significant. It’s crucial that authorities investigating an attack are sure it was indeed perpetrated by who they suspect. But to know this, they need all the help they can get.

Read more:
Nothing like the mafia: cybercriminals are much like the everyday, poorly paid business worker

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Holding the world to ransom: the top 5 most dangerous criminal organisations online right now – https://theconversation.com/holding-the-world-to-ransom-the-top-5-most-dangerous-criminal-organisations-online-right-now-163977

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

Barnaby Joyce’s sudden elevation to deputy prime minister has put a significant obstacle in the way of Scott Morrison’s creep this year to a commitment to a net zero 2050 target. More generally, it has made internal Coalition relations more unpredictable.

In this podcast Joyce reiterates his opposition to embracing the target, while leaving some wriggle room. “With the information that I’ve got at the moment, it’s not on […] And that’s because there is no information.”

“What we know at the moment is that there is no list of ‘these are the costs to people in regional Australia’.” Still, he says, it’s not a binary choice. And he stresses that the final decision on the Nationals’ stance will be taken in its party room, although he wouldn’t expect a formal vote.

Pressed about his controversial dropping of the resources portfolio from cabinet to the outer ministry in his reshuffle, Joyce redefines “cabinet”, saying resources is “still in cabinet, even if it is in the outer cabinet”.

On the proposal for a coal-fired power station at Collinsville in Queensland – which most observers do not believe will get off the ground – Joyce says he would have “no objections” to the government underwriting the project, but he’d want to see the details before being more positive. “I’m very consistent in the approach I take, which is before you want me to underwrite what you’re doing, let me have a look at what it costs and then I’ll decide.”

Asked about his future if the Coalition wins the election, Joyce says he would intend to stay the full term as leader – but he is also “quite open” to transitioning the party. “I’m not going to hang around like Sir Earle Page [leader of the Country party 1921-39]”.

Meanwhile he wants to grow the number of Nationals seats at the election, not just hold onto current ones. He says his eyes are on Lingiari (NT), opportunities in NSW’s Hunter Valley and Senate positions.

Transcript (edited for clarity)

Michelle Grattan: With Barnaby Joyce back as Nationals leader, Scott Morrison now has a very unpredictable and feisty deputy prime minister. Opinion is divided over whether Joyce will be an electoral plus for the Coalition or a minus. But there’s a general agreement that it will be a bumpy ride with him in the sidecar. The deputy prime minister joins us today.

So, Barnaby Joyce, let’s start with climate. You’ve been strongly against signing up to a 2050 net zero target. Do you totally oppose the prime minister doing that, embracing that target firmly, or are you open to a deal about this in which farmers get some financial benefit?

Barnaby Joyce: Well, sometimes that question is posed in such a way as one side looks all rosy and the other side looks all nasty and I don’t think the question is really that binary. Really, what you have to say is if you’re talking about a deal, then what is the deal? Who pays the money? Who gets the money? What are the costs? There are so many discussions I’ve heard from people such as Professor Peter Wynn, who is one of the lead scientists for the CSIRO, to the IPCC meetings in South Korea, where they clearly state that some of the things that farmers believe that they will get paid for, such as carbon sequestration in their soils, they say, well no that’s in the baseline. You’re not, we’re not going to get paid for something that’s already there. You’ll have to look for what goes on top of that. And what goes on top of that would be, they believe, methane emission reduction. ANd of course, that’s in bovine ruminants, cattle. And regional Australia, that is a big issue. And so that’s just one example of many where you want to see all the details before you start saying whether you will or whether you won’t. And I… what I always worry about is people when you leave that option there, whether you will or whether you won’t, means you open it to negotiation, if you just hang around long enough, they’ll negotiate to a conclusion. No, it means whether you will or whether you won’t. And that should not be read as most likely yes.

MG: Well, you’re saying it’s not a binary choice…

BJ: It’s not.

MG: But I think I’ve heard you many times say it’s not on, that you are against that target being embraced before the Glasgow Conference.

BJ: With the information that I’ve got at the moment, it’s not on. So, you know, and that’s because there is no information.

MG: So to be just absolutely clear on this, you’re saying on what you know, it is not on, but you don’t have a completely closed mind if there was more information?

BJ: Well, what we know at the moment is that there is no list of ‘these are the costs to people in regional Australia’. Remember, regional Australia, we’re emission intensive. Whether it’s farming, whether it’s abattoirs, whether it’s electricity use, whether it’s manufacturing, which we still have, whether it’s coal mining, of course, or any other form of mining. These are completely different industries to the power in a white collar, multi-storey, urban, CBD type scenario, which is vastly less emission intensive. If we were to say that the way we will deal with emission intensity is not through carbon as emissions, but reducing, I don’t know, carriageways on major arterial chokepoints. And by so doing saying, well the way we’re going to reduce emissions is close down three lanes on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Everybody in Tamworth would think that was a splendid idea, but the people in Sydney would have a completely different view. And that is a simile. So you can understand that different areas have different views of a policy objective because of how it affects them.

MG: Obviously, the farming groups have views. Will you be consulting with them before any decisions are made?

BJ: Well, we consult with them all the time. I don’t have go too far to consult with them, I am one. I’m a farmer myself. So, and once more, I’d be saying to any person, well, have you got all the details of what the costs are here? Do you know exactly what this entails? Because if [I/A] signs up and they say, okay well now we’re going to move to a methane trading system which is going to impede further emissions from bovine ruminants, it’s going to obviously be an [I/A] in the cattle industry. I’ll be saying to them, don’t come back to me and say that you didn’t support it because you told me you did and the fact you supported it blind, well fool is you. Now, you have to explain that to your members. What I’m going to say is until I see the details, until, just saying do you want to buy a house is not good enough. You tell me the sort of house and you tell me the price is, tell me everything from the condition of the tiles to the state of the carpet before I start making decisions about whether I want to buy it.

MG: And would the final position be put to a vote in the Nationals party room?

BJ: The most important thing is that the decision of myself, is only one person in a room, and if the room decides not to make the decision and support, then that is the decision. I’m a reflection on the view of the room. I’m not some sort of omnipotent presence in there. I hope maybe I have a slightly better capacity to sway a debate. But I can assure you 100% that there will be people going over this forensically. And if they’re not happy with it, it won’t get through the room.

MG: And so there would be a vote, a formal vote.

BJ: You don’t, you don’t… Very rarely do you have a formal vote. You don’t need to. There are 21 people in the room, and everybody has got a rough idea to count.

MG: Well, some of them didn’t have a very good idea, but we’ll let that pass! The mining industry is a big part of the national constituency. And yet you’ve relegated Resources Minister Keith Pitt to the outer ministry. Why did you do this? Why did you put resources outside the cabinet?

BJ: Well, it’s not outside the cabinet. You got inner cabinet and outer cabinets and outer cabinets still in cabinet. It’s still in the blue carpet. It’s still gets asked questions at…

MG: Well, it’s still in the ministry, not the cabinet.

BJ: Well, the assistant ministry, as they are noted now, is now what we used to be parliamentary secretary. So…

MG: But he’s a minister, not an assistant minister…

BJ: Maybe the nomenclature has changed, but if you go into the ministerial wing, you will find resources and water infrastructure and Keith, who does an incredibly good job. Now, I would also like to say that Northern Australia is part of resources, agriculture is obviously part of resources and most certainly water. My own role as, in infrastructure and transport. I’m 100% in support of resources. I think there’s a whole team approach in how we deal with the resources for which the leader of that team, when it comes to resources and water is Keith. And this is, this is very interesting that we have other people who are now talking about the only thing, the only feather they can fly with is they can, is they talk about whereabouts in an office, in the ministerial wing, water and resources… water and resources was, and where it is now. I’ve never had a question, I’ve never, I cannot remember one question in question time for the last few years that has been asked by the Labor Party about resources, about their support of the coal industry, because they don’t have it, or mining or anything else because it’s not important to them. If they want to show authenticity in where their belief is, talk about the subject matter, not about, you know, in which office resides a portfolio that is still in cabinet, even if it is in the outer cabinet, or the inner cabinet.

MG: Talking about coal, have you seen the draft report for the coal fired power station at Collinsville, which I think is circulating around? And should the government underwrite this project?

BJ: Well, no, I haven’t. Yes, I should. And I believe that Australia has got a role.

MG: I think Angus Taylor’s got it, hasn’t he…

BJ: I think Australia has got a role in one of its major exports, which coal is. The best way for people to understand, people say ‘oh coal, thermal coal’s dead, thermal coal fired power stations are dying’. No, they’re not. And the proof to that is to be seen off the coast of Newcastle, off the coast of Hay’s Point, off Mackay, off Gladstone, off Port Kembla, where you will see very large ships collecting lots and lots of thermal coal for thermal coal power stations, which they are still building. They’re building vastly more each year in China than Australia has. And so I think Australia has one thing that really can do for emission reduction if it want, if we are serious and authentic about this, then we should be exporting the technology to use this major export of our nation that pays for your health, that pays for you, your social security payments, your NDIS all the other things you want, that we should be exporting the technology to use it in the most efficient way. So, yes, I would support, I would support the construction of a new high efficiency, low emission coal fired power station. In fact, I would try and [I/A] the Australian people and people in that industry to build the most effective one they possibly could, because the export of that technology would do vastly more for emission reduction than any other proclamations and sermons from Australia.

MG: So you would like to see the government underwrite the Collinsville project?

BJ: To say I would like – I have no objections to.

MG: Not more positive than that?

BJ: I’d have no objections to. I mean, cause you’re, once more you’re asking me to say, would I underwrite something? I said, well, show me what I’m underwriting first. I’m going to, I’m very consistent in the approach I take, which is before you want me to underwrite what you’re doing, let me have a look at what it costs and then I’ll decide whether underwrite it or not.

MG: Now, have you now concluded the partnership agreement with Scott Morrison, the Coalition partnership?

BJ: Well, the on a legalistic terms, it’s not actually… You need a Coalition agreement to go to the Governor-General for a person who intends to be the prime minister to prove that they have the numbers to be the prime minister.

MG: But the broad agreement, you know what I mean?

BJ: Yeah, I know. And I’m just saying that because the prime minister’s already the prime minister, they don’t technically need an agreement. But obviously, as we go through, we work out and I try to make sure I bargain for the best deal for the Nationals, not because the Nationals themselves, but to try and get the best deal for regional Australia, which the Nationals represent.

MG: Have you done that?

BJ: I’m doing it all the time.

MG: Will you release that…

BJ: No I won’t.

MG: Why not?

BJ: Well, because if anything, I do, if I wanted to negotiate anything in the public sphere, then I would do it online and everybody could have a comment about it. No I won’t. Just like I imagined when the Labor Party talks to the Greens, they don’t release every discussion they have and every iteration of every discussion they have. Nor when anybody talks to the crossbenchers, is it publicised for everybody to read and disseminate. There is you know, if I have an agreement with a person to try and get a better outcome for regional Australia, then I don’t start those negotiations by saying everything we will say will now become public.

MG: No, but that letter that came out some years ago when Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister…

BJ: That’s different, Michelle, because Malcolm Turnbull wanted to be the prime minister. In fact, I think Malcolm Turnbull would have eaten cut glass to become the prime minister. So he did need a piece of paper. And otherwise he had nothing to go to the Governor-General with and Mr Turnbull, certainly as he wanted to be the prime minister, he certainly needs to prove to the Governor-General that he had the numbers to be the prime minister.

MG: But that agreement did show what the Nationals were standing for, you recall.

BJ: That’s a different, yeah, it’s a different circumstances and a completely different requirement because Mr Turnbull needed a letter from the Nationals.

MG: Now, on issues affecting women, you said you’re a better person than you were a few years ago. But are you going to personally reach out to some of your critics among rural women to hear directly some of their concerns? Are you open to meeting those rural women?

BJ: Absolutely. I’ve got I mean, look, I think that this is an area where. I have four daughters, and so I have an obligation even to my own family to be, to do the very best job I can for, for people to have an equality of opportunity, no matter what their creed, what their colour, what their gender and where they live. And that’s you know that’s, I have people, Michelle, who are women who dislike me, I have women who like me. I have men who passionately dislike me, and I have men who like me. And that is politics, that is not stepping away from, I understand the hurt and concern, but that’s most profoundly felt by those in my family. And that’s my primary, my primary position of basically being humble and asking and presenting myself to be a better person out of the women who are closest in my life, which were my own family.

MG: But those rural women who’ve spoken out, your door is open to them.

BJ: Any person…my door was never closed. You know, I don’t think I’ve ever rejected a call from any person who’s come to this office wanting to say hello.

MG: How do you want to sharpen the profile of the Nationals, within the Coalition, to your constituency?

BJ: I think you’ve always, you’ve got to be resonating the issues that they bring up to you rather than representing the issues you want to bring up to them. So if in central Queensland they’re talking about coal fired power, then you’re brave enough down here to talk about coal fired power. If people on the Murray-Darling are concerned about access to water, then you talk about access to water. If people in other areas want to have access to whatever the benefits of renewable energy, you emphasise that, in other areas they say they don’t want to be next to renewable energy. Then you’ve got to emphasise that. You’ve got to reflect the concerns of your constituency. And you’ve also got to explain to an urban constituency, and remember Australia’s is one of the most urbanised nations on earth, why issues are different in regional areas in some instances, and they are in urban areas. And, you know, and that’s and that’s important to understand why someone, why a community at Nundle or at Kentucky might be split down the middle because of their different views over things such as renewable energy. When if you looked at the DNA of those people, they would have the same, they would be some Greens, some Labor, some and at all, but they would differentiate on a single issue. And that’s one of the…country areas are different because people are very, very aware of the constituency, the the seat they’re in, more so possibily, than in many, not all but many urban seats. People in the New England know they’re in the New England, people in the Riverina know they’re in the Riverina, people in Flynn know they’re in Flynn and in Parkes, know that they’re in Parkes. But if you said to someone in Jagajaga, where does it start? Where does it finish? Many would not know the answer.

MG: Now, it’s been suggested that there’s some implicit succession plan, that you will go through the next election and if the Coalition is re-elected, you’d serve some time, but not go through the full term, hand over to someone. Do you intend, if the Coalition wins the next election, to stay as leader throughout that term?

BJ: Yes, I do. But in the same breath, I also say that I’ve been here in the Nationals and now I’m the longest serving member of the Nationals currently in Canberra. And it is a statement of the obvious to say that I’ll probably be the most likely to be the next person to be moving on. And I believe absolutely in renewal. I see that in accountancy practices, as I see the biggest things on farms is that intergenerational shift and it’s also in politics. And so I don’t jealously say I’ll be here forever. And I do say it’s not so much a transition to me, it’s a transition to a whole suite of people who I believe will have great competencies to take the party forward. And that’s one of my roles.

MG: That seemed a bit of a yes/no answer.

BJ: Well it is a yes/no answer because it’s a yes/no answer. The reason it’s a yes/no answer is yes, I intend to stay for the full term…

MG: As leader…

BJ: And also, yes, I do intend to transition the party as well. And I’m quite open to that, to them and to you and to everybody, I’m not going to hang around like Sir Earle Page [Leader of the Country Party 1921-39, prime minister for 19 days].

MG: Just finally, do you think the Nationals can actually win more seats…

BJ: Yes.

MG: At the election or is it a case of holding what you’ve got?

BJ: No, absolutely.

MG: And could you give some examples?

BJ: Sure, well, when, since myself and Warren Truss when we were he was leader and I was deputy, and when I was leader myself, we did nothing more than win seats and grow the party. We grew the party from a, from a point where before they were actually talking about closing the party down and you… and I believe absolutely there are opportunities, in fact, I’m now in planning with others where those opportunities lie. And I’ll be making sure that we have the tactics, have the resources, and put forward the campaign to make the Nationals an even bigger party. And if we can do that, then I will feel that my job to my party, which I joined in 1997 in Charleville, has been well and truly fulfilled.

MG: Can you give a couple of examples?

BJ: I can give a number. I think that Lingiari is, has can be in play with the retirement of Warren Snowdon. I think in the Hunter Valley there are opportunities and there will be other areas and Senate, Senate positions that come up. It’s, it’s a, there’s, it’s a long road that has no turn. And I’ll be making sure that any opportunity we get, we capitalise on.

MG: Barnaby Joyce, thank you very much.

Additional audio

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

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Barnaby Joyce on net zero 2050, a coal-fired power station – and how resources is (sort of) in cabinet – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-barnaby-joyce-on-net-zero-2050-a-coal-fired-power-station-and-how-resources-is-sort-of-in-cabinet-164079

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vlad Demsar, Lecturer of Marketing, Swinburne University of Technology

In recent months, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has faced pressure both domestically and internationally to do more on climate change. In contrast, state governments have been applauded for adopting more ambitious emissions reduction targets.

Data from the Australian Leadership Index suggests these differences may have electoral consequences. It found environmental outcomes increasingly shape how voters view their political leaders. And alarmingly for the Morrison government, the public has well and truly registered its lack of action on climate change.

In 2020, public attention on COVID-19 provided some cover for political leaders not acting on climate change. But from February to April this year, when climate issues rose to the fore, producing positive environmental outcomes became a key driver of public perceptions of political leadership.

As the next federal election looms, voters are watching closely to see whether the Morrison government’s environment and climate policies serve the public interest.

What is the Australian Leadership Index?

The Australian Leadership Index is a national survey which has been running since 2018. It seeks to provide a comprehensive picture of how perceptions of leadership change in response to events over time and across sectors and institutions.

Each quarter, the index surveys 1,000 adults to reveal how institutional leaders – those in government, private, public and the not-for-profit sectors – can show leadership for the greater good.

Such leadership is as much about process as outcomes. Given this, the survey measures public perceptions of the extent to which leaders try to create positive outcomes in three areas: social, economic and environmental. It also looks at perceptions of leaders’ transparency, ethical standards and accountability.

Among the questions asked of survey participants is whether state and federal governments are focused on producing positive environmental outcomes (such as protecting natural places and improving sustainability) and the extent to which this determines how favourably they view these institutions.

Who’s doing best on the environment?

On climate change policy, the Morrison government has opted to prioritise investment in low-emissions technology rather than introduce taxes or set emissions reduction targets.

In late April, the weakness of Australia’s national policies were laid bare during a global climate summit convened by US President Joe Biden. Australia was criticised before and after the summit for failing to set clear targets for emissions reduction.

This criticism did not go unnoticed by the voting public. Our survey showed from February to April 2021, the proportion of Australians who agreed the federal government was producing positive environmental outcomes declined from 38% to 25%.

The decline may also be linked to a major independent report by Professor Graeme Samuel in late January, which declared Australia’s environment was in a poor state and national laws protecting it were flawed and badly outdated.

Read more:
Spot the difference: as world leaders rose to the occasion at the Biden climate summit, Morrison faltered

The picture was different for perceptions of state governments. From February to April 2021, the proportion of Australians who believed state governments were producing positive environmental outcomes increased from 26% to 37%.

Australian states and territories have taken relatively ambitious action on climate change, including committing to net-zero emissions by 2050.

However, only around one-third of respondents believed governments at any level were focused on producing positive environmental outcomes. Clearly, even the states have more work to do in this area.

In the months since April, public attention has largely turned back to the COVID-19 pandemic, and scores on environmental performance reverted to previous levels. Last month, the proportion of Australians who agreed the federal government was producing positive environmental outcomes was at 37%. And it was 25% for state governments.

This reflects how national conversations about climate change and other environmental issues — including mainstream and social media and other forms of public debate – can shape voter opinions.

When people evaluated the overall leadership of governments in 2020, producing positive environmental outcomes had a 3% impact on their assessment. In January to April of 2021, this figure rose to 10%. This meant the environment became the third-largest driver of leadership perceptions, behind responsiveness to people’s needs (34%) and transparency (16%).

From May to June, however, the importance of environmental outcomes fell back to 3%. Again, this reflects the effect of media coverage in shaping voter attitudes to their leaders.

Keeping the environment in the spotlight

So what does all this mean? Governments wanting to be seen as good leaders must have strong, well-implemented climate and environment policies. And when media coverage and public debate is heavily focused on these issues, governments cannot easily brush them aside.

Concern about the environment is not guaranteed to sway a person’s vote. But our results suggest when public attention is focused on environmental issues, voters look to their leaders for an effective response.

It follows, then, that keeping climate change and the environment in the national spotlight will force governments to act with more urgency and serve the greater good.

Read more:
Let there be no doubt: blame for our failing environment laws lies squarely at the feet of government

Vlad Demsar receives philanthropic funding for the Australian Leadership Index.

Jason Pallant receives philanthropic funding for the Australian Leadership Index

Melissa Wheeler receives philanthropic funding for the Australian Leadership Index.

Samuel Wilson receives philanthropic funding for the Australian Leadership Index.

Sylvia T. Gray 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.

Timothy Colin Bednall receives philanthropic funding for the Australian Leadership Index.

– ref. Seen to be green? Research reveals how environmental performance shapes public perceptions of our leaders – https://theconversation.com/seen-to-be-green-research-reveals-how-environmental-performance-shapes-public-perceptions-of-our-leaders-162184

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Antonia Settle, Academic (McKenzie Postdoctoral Research Fellow), The University of Melbourne

As climate change intensifies extreme weather events, home and building insurance premiums have been rising, particularly in Northern Australia.

As premiums rise, more people are choosing drop their insurance coverage, risking financial disaster when the next natural disaster hits.

The consequences of this are so dire that the Morrison government has committed A$10 billion to a “reinsurance pool” to bring home insurance premiums down in northern Australia.

It’s an attractive policy option — simple and quick. Though it exposes the government to potentially huge costs, these won’t need to be paid until the next big disaster hits.

But it’s not the kind of policy we need. Analysis by myself and colleagues at the Melbourne Institute indicates it won’t be sufficient to stop record numbers of households — and not just in northern Australia — forgoing home insurance due to rising premiums.

The policy needed, for northern Australia now and the rest of the country in the coming years, must also mitigate the damage of fires, floods and cyclones to homes.

The coming crisis

As extreme weather events become more frequent and more ferocious, Australian households are making bigger claims more often.

This means higher costs for insurers. From the 1980s to the 2010s, insurers paid out about A$1.3 billion a year (adjusted for inflation) on claims for damage from natural disasters. Over the past 10 years, payouts doubled to an average annual cost of A$2.6 billion.

Higher payouts by insurers means higher insurance premiums for households. The average home insurance premium for all Australians now costs almost four times as much as it did in 2004, according to Insurance Council of Australia data. These patterns are only going to intensify.

Our research indicates many more households will drop their insurance coverage than experts have previously anticipated.

Those who decide premiums are no longer worth the money are more likely to be lower-risk customers. With a smaller pool of customers who are higher risk, insurers push premiums up further, prompting yet more households to opt out. This Fewer vicious circle will accelerate as costs climb with greater impacts from climate change.

So an insurance and social crisis looms, with financially devastating consequences for the uninsured.

No easy policy fixes

So what can policy makers do?

One option would be for the government to directly subsidise households’ insurance costs, similar to how it subsidises child-care costs.

Read more:
Underinsurance is entrenching poverty as the vulnerable are hit hardest by disasters

The federal government has instead opted for an indirect subsidy, by stepping into the “reinsurance” market.

Reinsurers are like wholesalers, providing insurance to retail insurance companies. By providing reinsurance at a cheaper cost than commercial reinsurers, the government can bring household premiums down.

The downside is it exposes the government to the risk of huge costs when insurers draw on that reinsurance to pay out households in the event of a disaster. That risk will rise as the climate warms. So in the long run it simply shifts risks and costs to the public purse.

The idea of a government providing a reinsurance pool has been rejected by the industry, regulators and consumer groups because it exposes the government to potentially massive costs without having any impact on the root of the problem.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said in its Northern Australia insurance inquiry (finalised in December 2020):

We do not consider government reinsurance pools or government insurers are well-suited to address affordability concerns in a targeted way.

It went on to conclude:

Improving the resilience of properties and communities to natural hazards will have significant benefits now and into the future, including through lower insurance claims costs. Greater consideration of the likely benefits (and costs) of mitigation and other resilience measures is required.

Mitigation activities

By mitigation the commission report means reducing the effects of extreme weather events. (Climate scientists tend to refer to this as adaptation, while mitigation is reducing global warming by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.)

The federal budget did commit A$600 million to a national mitigation program but this nowhere near as bold as needed.

Mitigation requires work at multiple levels.

Some efforts involve limiting the severity of disasters. Strategic fuel reduction, for example, can make bush fires less extreme.

Other efforts involve limiting the effect of disasters on the built environment. A key change is reforming land use regulations to stop more housing development on flood plains.

We can also do more to limit the damage that extreme weather events have on buildings. Construction codes have been improving to make the design and materials used in new houses more resistant to fire and heavy winds, but more can be done.

Read more:
It can’t all be insured: counting the hidden economic impact of floods and bushfires

Investment at all levels

Our best hope to bring premiums down and help the households that need it most is comprehensive mitigation combined with targeted direct subsidies for low-income households, as the Northern Australia insurance inquiry recommended.

This requires a multi-pronged policy package looking far beyond the next electoral cycle. It must support investment in mitigation by all levels of government as well as households. But unless this is done the insurance crisis is only only going to intensify.

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay foundation. You can read the rest of the stories here.

Antonia Settle 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. A national insurance crisis looms. The Morrison government’s $10 billion ‘pool’ plan won’t fix it – https://theconversation.com/a-national-insurance-crisis-looms-the-morrison-governments-10-billion-pool-plan-wont-fix-it-163796

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

Would you like to buy a micronation?

The Principality of Hutt River is on the market. For 50 years, the sprawling 6,100 hectare property, more than 500 kilometers from Perth, styled itself as the “second-largest country in Australia”.

It was formed in 1970 by Leonard Casley (Prince Leonard), who seceded from Australia following a dispute with the state government over wheat production quotas. Casley died in 2019 and in August 2020, his son, Prince Graeme announced he would sell the family farm to pay a A$3 million tax bill.

Despite the demise of Hutt River, many micronations continue to exist. During research for an upcoming book on micronations, I have identified at least 135 around the world.

Australia has a particular reputation for this phenomenon. Some estimates suggest a third of all micronations are located in Australia.

Why pretend to be a country?

Led by committed and eccentric people, micronations assert their claims to sovereignty in many ways. They issue passports, print stamps, mint coins, compose national anthems, design flags and sometimes even declare war on recognised states.

However, despite acting like a nation, micronations are not actual states. They are self-declared nations that mimic acts of sovereignty.

People decide to create their own micronation for many reasons.

Sometimes, it is an attempt to avoid the ordinary laws of the land — like in Hutt River.

Similarly, Prince Paul and Princess Helena founded the Snake Hill Principality (located near Mudgee in New South Wales) following a long-running dispute with their bank.

The Principality of Wy (Mosman, North Sydney) was established after the local council rejected an application to build a driveway.

Protest, tourism, art

Micronations may also be formed to protest government policy or legislation. In 2004, Dale Anderson sailed to the uninhabited island of Cato east of the Great Barrier Reef. He planted a flag and announced the formation of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands to protest the passage of Australian legislation banning same-sex marriage. In 2017, Emperor Dale dissolved the kingdom following the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia.

Not all micronations are so serious. The Republic of Whangamōmona on the North Island of New Zealand emerged when regional council boundaries were changed. Upset about the potential of having to play rugby for their neighbours, the residents decided to secede. Republic Day is now celebrated every second January, attracting thousands of tourists.

Micronations might also be used as a vehicle to critique the concept of statehood. The Kingdom of Elgaland & Vargaland, created by two Swedish artists, claims sovereignty over the areas between the borders of countries. It also asserts authority over other intervals, such as the transition from being asleep to wakefulness.

Why are there so many Australian micronations?

Three reasons explain why Australia is known as “micronation central”.

First, the act of seceding from the state and declaring one’s own country is consistent with an Australian culture that celebrates larrikinism and mocking authority. What better way to exemplify these traits than by founding your own country? As His Imperial Majesty George II of Atlantium notes, micronationalism in Australia stems “from our convict heritage and disrespect for authority”.

Read more:
Larrikin carnival: an Australian style of cultural subversion

Second, Australia is a secure and stable country. For this reason, it sees micronations as irrelevant or a nuisance, rather than a genuine threat. So long as you pay your taxes and follow the road rules, you can call yourself whatever you want.

Third, Australia is a large country with a relatively small population — its population density is just three people per square kilometre. This ranks Australia 192 out of 194 countries in the world for population density, ahead only of Namibia and Mongolia. There is plenty of room for people to create their own country.

Does it work?

If you are interested in avoiding the law, the answer is no. The Principality of Hutt River was never able to convince an Australian court it did not have to pay tax. As Justice Rene Le Miere of the WA Supreme Court noted in 2017,

Anyone can declare themselves a sovereign in their own home but they cannot ignore the laws of Australia or not pay tax.

Other would-be nation builders have faced similar challenges. The Republic of Minerva’s attempt to build a new state on a coral atoll in the South Pacific in the 1970s was ended by the Tongan military.

The nations of Abalonia and Taluga (located off the coast of San Diego) were both put down by the US Department of the Interior. The Republic of Liberland, which claims an uninhabited island on the Danube River between Croatia and Serbia, is unable to get its citizens across the Croatian border.

No micronation has ever become a state. It is very unlikely that any micronation will ever become one. This is because to be a state, an entity

must possess a government or system of government in general control of its territory, to the exclusion of other entities not claiming through or under it.

Prince Leonard may have been the lawful owner of his wheat farm, but he did not possess sovereignty over that land. Micronations may declare their independence, but they are unable to do so to the exclusion of other states.

What makes a successful micronation?

However, success should be measured against a range of motivations.

Artistic micronations, like the Kingdom of Elgaland & Vargaland, can raise challenging questions about the nature of statehood and borders. Those created for a laugh or for tourism can also succeed.

The small township of Whangamōmona welcomed about 1,000 visitors to its Republic Day in January of this year. Next year, the Conch Republic in Key West Florida will celebrate its 40th annual independence celebration.

The success of micronations can also be seen in the growth of community events and social media. Every two years, micronations from around the world meet at MicroCon. Many others discuss, compare notes and become friends online.

So while Hutt River may have ended, the future of micronationalism is bright.

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

– ref. Why is Australia ‘micronation central’? And do you still have to pay tax if you secede? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-australia-micronation-central-and-do-you-still-have-to-pay-tax-if-you-secede-162518

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

Would you like to buy a micronation?

The Principality of Hutt River is on the market. For 50 years, the sprawling 6,100 hectare property, more than 500 kilometers from Perth, styled itself as the “second-largest country in Australia”.

It was formed in 1970 by Leonard Casley (Prince Leonard), who seceded from Australia following a dispute with the state government over wheat production quotas. Casley died in 2019 and in August 2020, his son, Prince Graeme announced he would sell the family farm to pay a A$3 million tax bill.

Despite the demise of Hutt River, many micronations continue to exist. During research for an upcoming book on micronations, I have identified at least 135 around the world.

Australia has a particular reputation for this phenomenon. Some estimates suggest a third of all micronations are located in Australia.

Why pretend to be a country?

Led by committed and eccentric people, micronations assert their claims to sovereignty in many ways. They issue passports, print stamps, mint coins, compose national anthems, design flags and sometimes even declare war on recognised states.

However, despite acting like a nation, micronations are not actual states. They are self-declared nations that mimic acts of sovereignty.

People decide to create their own micronation for many reasons.

Sometimes, it is an attempt to avoid the ordinary laws of the land — like in Hutt River.

Similarly, Prince Paul and Princess Helena founded the Snake Hill Principality (located near Mudgee in New South Wales) following a long-running dispute with their bank.

The Principality of Wy (Mosman, North Sydney) was established after the local council rejected an application to build a driveway.

Protest, tourism, art

Micronations may also be formed to protest government policy or legislation. In 2004, Dale Anderson sailed to the uninhabited island of Cato east of the Great Barrier Reef. He planted a flag and announced the formation of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands to protest the passage of Australian legislation banning same-sex marriage. In 2017, Emperor Dale dissolved the kingdom following the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia.

Not all micronations are so serious. The Republic of Whangamōmona on the North Island of New Zealand emerged when regional council boundaries were changed. Upset about the potential of having to play rugby for their neighbours, the residents decided to secede. Republic Day is now celebrated every second January, attracting thousands of tourists.

Micronations might also be used as a vehicle to critique the concept of statehood. The Kingdom of Elgaland & Vargaland, created by two Swedish artists, claims sovereignty over the areas between the borders of countries. It also asserts authority over other intervals, such as the transition from being asleep to wakefulness.

Why are there so many Australian micronations?

Three reasons explain why Australia is known as “micronation central”.

First, the act of seceding from the state and declaring one’s own country is consistent with an Australian culture that celebrates larrikinism and mocking authority. What better way to exemplify these traits than by founding your own country? As His Imperial Majesty George II of Atlantium notes, micronationalism in Australia stems “from our convict heritage and disrespect for authority”.

Read more:
Larrikin carnival: an Australian style of cultural subversion

Second, Australia is a secure and stable country. For this reason, it sees micronations as irrelevant or a nuisance, rather than a genuine threat. So long as you pay your taxes and follow the road rules, you can call yourself whatever you want.

Third, Australia is a large country with a relatively small population — its population density is just three people per square kilometre. This ranks Australia 192 out of 194 countries in the world for population density, ahead only of Namibia and Mongolia. There is plenty of room for people to create their own country.

Does it work?

If you are interested in avoiding the law, the answer is no. The Principality of Hutt River was never able to convince an Australian court it did not have to pay tax. As Justice Rene Le Miere of the WA Supreme Court noted in 2017,

Anyone can declare themselves a sovereign in their own home but they cannot ignore the laws of Australia or not pay tax.

Other would-be nation builders have faced similar challenges. The Republic of Minerva’s attempt to build a new state on a coral atoll in the South Pacific in the 1970s was ended by the Tongan military.

The nations of Abalonia and Taluga (located off the coast of San Diego) were both put down by the US Department of the Interior. The Republic of Liberland, which claims an uninhabited island on the Danube River between Croatia and Serbia, is unable to get its citizens across the Croatian border.

No micronation has ever become a state. It is very unlikely that any micronation will ever become one. This is because to be a state, an entity

must possess a government or system of government in general control of its territory, to the exclusion of other entities not claiming through or under it.

Prince Leonard may have been the lawful owner of his wheat farm, but he did not possess sovereignty over that land. Micronations may declare their independence, but they are unable to do so to the exclusion of other states.

What makes a successful micronation?

However, success should be measured against a range of motivations.

Artistic micronations, like the Kingdom of Elgaland & Vargaland, can raise challenging questions about the nature of statehood and borders. Those created for a laugh or for tourism can also succeed.

The small township of Whangamōmona welcomed about 1,000 visitors to its Republic Day in January of this year. Next year, the Conch Republic in Key West Florida will celebrate its 40th annual independence celebration.

The success of micronations can also be seen in the growth of community events and social media. Every two years, micronations from around the world meet at MicroCon. Many others discuss, compare notes and become friends online.

So while Hutt River may have ended, the future of micronationalism is bright.

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

– ref. Why is Australia ‘micronation central’? And do you still have pay tax if you secede? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-australia-micronation-central-and-do-you-still-have-pay-tax-if-you-secede-162518

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Bruised by its divorce from the European Union, Britain is busy getting out more, making new friends and renewing old acquaintances.

Serenaded with promises of cheaper cars, whiskey and marmite, Australia was first to sign a free trade agreement (FTA) with the UK — but New Zealand is not far behind.

The National Party opposition was quick to criticise the Labour government for being too slow with a UK deal, but Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern responded pointedly by saying New Zealand wanted “quality over speed”.

The significance of the Australian deal has also been downplayed, with the credit rating agency Moody’s saying, “the economic impact of the trade deal is negligible”. Others have argued the deal is more about demonstrating post-Brexit sovereignty than economic gain.

Yet there’s no denying Britain needs to diversify its markets to offset the negative economic impacts of Brexit. New Zealand, too, is keen to grow trade after the pandemic disruptions and diversify its trade markets beyond China.

With a deal expected this August, the big questions are: what’s really in it for New Zealand, and what considerations will have guided negotiations?

Much has changed since Britain joined the old European Common Market and cut the colonial apron strings. New Zealand is a different country now, and can cut a deal on its own terms.

Priority 1: product

Where once Britain was New Zealand’s most important trading partner in the 19th century, today it ranks sixth. Well behind China, Australia and (ironically) the European Union, trade with the UK was nonetheless worth nearly NZ$6 billion by 2019. But it’s not exactly a two-way street.

While New Zealand embraced free trade and did away with many import tariffs, Britain still imposes tariffs on imports. So, while British motor vehicles attract very little in the way of tariffs (other than GST) in New Zealand, there remain prohibitively high tariffs and quota restrictions on New Zealand’s key exports to the UK.

For example, beyond limited quota volumes, British tariffs on New Zealand butter and cheese are equivalent to 45% of the product value, 16% on honey and up to 20% on seafood products. The tariff on New Zealand wine ranges between £10 and £26 ($18–$48) per litre.

Read more:
The UK–Australia trade deal is not really about economic gain – it’s about demonstrating post-Brexit sovereignty

So, New Zealand should expect nothing less for it exports than the gains Australia has just made. While there is a lot of detail yet to come about the Australia-UK FTA, it appears British quotas will rise and tariffs drop quickly over the next decade. According to some analysis, this is effectively an elimination of the old trade barriers.

The same must be a bottom line for New Zealand’s primary products, too. There may be resistance from the British agricultural sector, which has been sounding the alarm that free trade could “could spell the end” for farmers. It won’t, but the Australian FTA reportedly caused a “ferocious row” within Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s cabinet.

Regardless, settling for anything less than Canberra achieved would be a national disgrace for New Zealand.

Priority 2: principle

The FTA’s scope needs to be wider than just product exchange. For example, New Zealand is part of an international initiative pushing for an agreement on climate change, trade and sustainability.

Including the guiding principles of that agreement – removing tariffs on environmental goods, eliminating harmful fossil fuel subsidies, and the development of eco-labelling programmes – should be a priority.

As New Zealand continues to improve its agricultural response to climate change and humane farming standards, this will help deflect any blowback against its exports. It also represents a competitive advantage, with New Zealand being seen to be using international trade to drive sustainability standards.

Read more:
There’s a lot we don’t know about the UK trade agreement we are about to sign

Māori interests must be the other main priority in this area. After all, Māori have a unique relationship with the British Crown, given it was the emissaries of Queen Victoria with whom the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.

As the emissaries of Elizabeth II (the great-great-granddaughter of Victoria) negotiate this latest milestone in the relationship, they must be made fully aware of the importance and relevance of the Treaty to any new agreement, especially with Māori-led trade initiatives.

Priority 3: people

Finally, the agreement must also be about people. Britain will be seeking to mitigate the reduced migration flows caused by Brexit, and New Zealanders will be prime targets. Aside from the tourist potential, Britain will want Kiwi students, workers and entrepreneurs.

Retaining and expanding British access for New Zealanders, however, must be reciprocal. If not, New Zealand risks losing one of the few positive outcomes of COVID-19, namely the “brain gain” of returning expats.

Read more:
Australia–UK trade deal can help spur post-pandemic recovery

The government’s so-called “once-in-a-generation reset” of the immigration system is central to this, moving New Zealand away from relying on low-skilled workers to attracting those with higher skills. Making New Zealand an attractive and viable option for Britain’s best and brightest should be a byproduct of the FTA.

With formal negotiations concluded, the “quality” of the eventual deal remains to be seen. But New Zealanders should expect an agreement that appropriately acknowledges the special relationship between the two countries.

More than that, New Zealand is no longer the junior partner. The reality is, for post-Brexit Britain, a good deal for New Zealand is still a good deal.

Alexander Gillespie 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 New Zealand should win from its trade agreement with post-Brexit Britain – https://theconversation.com/what-new-zealand-should-win-from-its-trade-agreement-with-post-brexit-britain-163423

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma Paech, Conjoint Senior Lecturer, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle

The school holidays are here, and parents struggling to get their children to bed will no doubt be thinking: what is wrong with you? I would do anything to get more sleep!

Children seem to do everything possible to avoid sleep, yet many adults can’t seem to get enough of it. It may seem kids’ resistance to sleep, and adults’ longing for it, are underpinned by different factors. But it’s likely similar issues are at play for both.

Factors such as as insufficient sleep, behavioural sleep issues and sleep disorders may explain our strong feelings towards sleep, and why they differ at different stages of our lives.

Read more:
Curious Kids: Do animals sleep like people? Do snails sleep in their shells?

How much sleep is enough?

Reports from the Sleep Health Foundation indicate four in ten Australian adults don’t get enough sleep. We don’t know exactly what this number is for children, but one Swedish study showed it could be about the same for them.

Research has shown sleep is essential for a child’s development, but the amount needed varies with age. Children aged 3-5 years should get 10 to 13 hours of sleep daily, including naps — while those aged 6-12 years should get 9 to 11 hours. Adults 18 years and older should aim to sleep between 7 and 9 hours.

Insufficient sleep in kids isn’t always easy to identify. They may not be able to communicate when they are sleepy, or may not even recognise sleep deprivation in themselves. Children are unlikely to know how much sleep they should be getting, so they look to their parents as a guide.

There are telltale signs when children are suffering from insufficient or poor sleep, including poorer behaviour, overactivity, poorer performance at school and poorer physical growth.

Meanwhile, adults are usually aware of their own lack of sleep and can report increased sleepiness, trouble staying awake, difficulty concentrating, poorer memory and slower reaction times.

An accumulation of sleep loss over many years can even lead to “sleep debt” in adults. This increases sleepiness and can worsen the impact of further sleep loss. These changes can happen so gradually we don’t always notice them, but they’re probably why many adults are desperate to get more sleep.

Fear of missing out

Difficult behaviour around bedtime is the most common sleep issue among children. Refusing to get into (or stay) in bed, not settling into sleep, waking up during the night, getting up very early — all of these are examples of sleep behaviour problems in children.

Such behaviours may start at a young age without a trigger, or may follow significant life events such as moving houses, family upsets or starting school. Children can also develop behavioural sleep problems due to FOMO (fear of missing out), or not understanding why the grownups are allowed to stay awake.

In adults, behavioural sleep problems are often described as poor sleep hygiene or poor sleep habits. It’s when you promise yourself you’ll only watch one more episode of a show, or only scroll through your feed for ten more minutes — and then fail to cut yourself off.

Having an irregular sleep schedule and not prioritising sleep are symptoms of behavioural sleep issues in adults. While children usually have someone to tell them when they need to go to bed, adults must set their own (often poor) sleep routines.

Bedtime doesn’t have to be all-out war

On the bright side, setting rules around sleep can help both children and adults overcome their sleep issues.

Children and adults should both go to bed and wake up around the same time daily. They should also develop a consistent bedtime routine of around 30 to 60 minutes to prepare for sleep each night. This is especially important for children. It could include taking a warm bath or reading a book.

Stimulating activities should be avoided, such as watching TV, using social media, playing video games or doing vigorous physical activity.

It also helps to have a sleep-friendly bedroom: a dark, quiet and welcoming environment free from distractions such as computers, phones or TV. Night lights are useful for children who don’t like the dark.

And finally, during the day both children and adults should limit their caffeine consumption, including from energy drinks, soda, tea and coffee. Outdoor exercise is a great option if possible. Napping is normal in pre-school children, but should be limited in older kids and adults.

More serious sleep disorders

Some sleep issues may not always be related to behaviour. It’s possible a sleep disorder may be causing issues around sleep for an adult or child.

Examples of “parasomnias”, or abnormal sleep behaviours, include sleepwalking, sleep talking, nightmares and sleep terrors. These behaviours are generally more common in children than adults, although we don’t know why. Most children outgrow them as they age.

Parasomnias can be caused by stress, traumatic life events and sleep loss or can also be hereditary. In adults they’re more often a result of stress, trauma, mental health illness or neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.

Read more:
Curious Kids: What happens in our bodies when we sleep?

Fortunately, treatment for these behaviours generally isn’t needed unless they’re frequent, distressing or risk injury. Sleep apnoea is also common. While it presents slightly differently in children and adults, signs include snoring, increased efforts to breath during sleep, pauses in breathing and gasping.

Sleep apnoea can result in sleep loss which can lead to either a resistance to, or strong desire for, sleep. If you suspect you or your child may have a sleep disorder, consult your GP.

x

Gemma Paech is a board member of the Sleep Health Foundation

– ref. Why do kids hate going to sleep, while adults usually love it? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-kids-hate-going-to-sleep-while-adults-usually-love-it-160703

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Bowtell, Adjunct professor, Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity, UNSW

All-encompassing crises like a pandemic can expose systemic flaws and failures in government and society, clearing the decks for radical reform and renovation.

The question is in which direction and in whose interests.

Last week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a four-phase plan to lead Australia out of the COVID-19 crisis. The plan was devoid of numbers, facts, targets or commitments. But Morrison nonetheless declared it to be a “New Deal”.

It would be tempting, but mistaken, to pass this off as just one more politician riffing off US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who coined the phrase in 1932.

Yet, the disruption caused by the fear of COVID has delivered the Morrison government an unexpected opportunity to reshape Australian politics and society along neo-liberal lines.

Roosevelt’s vision for a new America

In the early 1930s, Roosevelt was confronted by a social and economic catastrophe — the Great Depression.

His genius was to understand that a bold, radical reshaping of the economy and society was required to overcome the crisis and forestall the rise of alternatives to democracy from both the right and left.

The core of Roosevelt’s New Deal was redistribution of wealth from the few to the many. He ran large budget deficits, increased government spending and taxation, imposed regulations to rein in the worst excesses of the banks, and commissioned massive public and social works programs.

Roosevelt’s New Deal shifted the balance from profits to wages, created millions of new, better-paid jobs and stabilised society at a higher and better level for the American people.

The New Deal spent big to save on the grandest scale.

Neo-liberalism’s impact on the COVID response

The resurgence of casino capitalism in the 1980s reinvigorated the free-market opponents of the New Deal era.

In the US, the neo-liberals laid waste to much of the New Deal public health system. In the UK, decades of “market reforms” to the National Health System steadily eroded the principles of public health provision.

These reforms were prosecuted in the name of providing choice and efficiency and went largely uncontested by public opinion.

But they had long-term and serious consequences that the COVID pandemic cruelly exposed. Neo-liberalism undermined the ability of public health structures and institutions to provide independent and open scientific advice.

Read more:
COVID won’t kill populism, even though populist leaders have handled the crisis badly

The US, UK and Brazil were all run by neo-liberal governments when the pandemic emerged, committed to free markets, small governments and budgets balanced by massive reductions in outlays on education, welfare and, ominously, public health.

Eighteen months into the pandemic, the three countries have recorded a combined 57 million cases and 1.25 million deaths (and counting) from COVID-19, with the actual death tolls considerably higher.

By contrast, in countries that moved rapidly to apply tried and tested public health principles through long-established and resilient structures, COVID deaths and illnesses were, with difficulty, contained.

These countries dealt with the realities of COVID as best they could and strengthened their responses as dictated by the accumulation of facts and evidence. Broadly, science dictated the response.

Morrison government’s initial hands-off approach

In Australia, the split between traditional public health principles and the neo-liberal response to COVID was apparent from early 2020.

The initial response of the Morrison government and its planning for COVID was deeply influenced by the UK and US.

The Morrison government did not accept the Commonwealth government had an over-arching national responsibility for public health outcomes. As cases occurred in the states and territories, the responsibility for the response rested with them.

Read more:
Thanks to coronavirus, Scott Morrison will become a significant prime minister

In the critical early months, the Morrison government kept most borders open, limited surveillance of incoming travellers, moved too slowly to ban the export of PPE packs and let aged care operators follow free-market, self-regulation principles in the hope of reducing risk to residents and staff.

This laissez-faire approach provoked dismay and incredulity within the robust public health system.

Propelled by public health professionals and the public, the country locked down at the end of March, and after a rocky few months, brought about COVID zero.

This brought time and options to build an effective quarantine system and organise vaccine supply. But the Morrison government squandered the gift.

A recovery prolonged by two big missteps

From mid-2020, the economic and social disruption caused by the COVID response should have begun to dissipate. But instead, the Morrison government made the critical decision that prolonged and intensified the misery of the pandemic.

Rather than sign contracts with a number of vaccine manufacturers to guarantee adequate supplies this year, the government put much of its faith in one candidate – AstraZeneca.

And after the more infectious Delta variant emerged in December 2020, the Morrison government resisted all entreaties, pleas and scientific evidence to build Delta-proof quarantine facilities.

The effect of these two decisions has been to prolong Australia’s emergence from the botched COVID response until next year.

On the present trajectory, there is no way most Australians will travel abroad again until sometime after March 2022 — the second anniversary of the lockdown that saved Australia.

A ‘New Deal’ that leaves people behind

The Morrison government did not create COVID, but it has skilfully magnified the impacts of COVID in Australia to clear the decks for its own “New Deal”.

But the only thing Morrison’s New Deal has in common with FDR’s is massive deficit spending.

When faced with mass dismissals of employees early in the pandemic, the federal government’s huge stimulus packages fell short. The sharpest blows and cuts fell on the universities, the arts sector and casual and gig economy workers.

JobKeeper arrangements largely excluded the hundreds of thousands employed in these sectors.

Businesses applied for JobKeeper on the basis that earnings would fall. But as was reported earlier this year, more than 30 ASX-listed companies recorded higher profits last year after receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in JobKeeper subsidies than before the pandemic.

Shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh has said between $10-20 billion could have gone to firms with rising profits.

Unlike Roosevelt’s New Deal, which lifted millions of people from poverty to sustained prosperity with a commitment to open democracy, Morrison’s plan for the future doesn’t contain a strong enough safety net to support those in need.

The need for openness and transparency

It is also deeply wrong such a blueprint is being put together behind closed doors, with the input of like-minded politicians, sectional interests and lobbyists, but without the involvement of the Australian people.

All the goals, assumptions, modelling, advice and arguments should be published in a white paper.

Let the Morrison government make its best case for reopening Australia’s borders without full vaccination of the population and a variant-proof quarantine system.

Read more:
JobKeeper and JobMaker have left too many young people on the dole queue

Put on the table the plans for vaccine passports and how the international travel system might be reconstructed to let people travel and not the virus.

Rather than concentrate on the gauzy benefits of “freedom”, the government needs to outline the costs in lives and jobs that will accrue to vulnerable and less-wealthy Australians.

Let’s have a full and frank discussion of the increase in surveillance and the erosion of rights and liberties that have taken place in the name of containing COVID.

And be told what, if anything, is being planned to ensure the next pandemic will be managed far better than the government has managed COVID.

Only a process based on the values of truth, transparency and debate can rebuild people’s confidence and trust in government. The New Deal Australia wants and needs is not the Old Deal being constructed in Scott Morrison’s Canberra office.

William Bowtell 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. Morrison’s ‘new deal’ for a return to post-COVID normal is not the deal most Australians want – https://theconversation.com/morrisons-new-deal-for-a-return-to-post-covid-normal-is-not-the-deal-most-australians-want-163889

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maximilian de Courten, Professor in Global Public Health and Director of the Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

Nearly half of Australia’s population was in lockdown last week, as parts of New South Wales, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland enacted strict coronavirus restrictions.

But this angst-driven reaction of locking down with low community transmission of COVID is not a viable long-term strategy. This is because the coronavirus is increasingly likely to become endemic, meaning it will settle into the human population.

Vaccination markedly reduces your chance of getting severely ill and dying from COVID. Vaccination also reduces transmission to some extent. As vaccination rates start to climb, we need to start moving to a calmer, more planned and balanced strategy to help us all learn to live with the virus.

That needs a simultaneous focus on achieving high vaccination rates as fast as possible, while continuing with a consistent strategy of test, trace and isolate. Instead of daily announcements of new cases at press conferences, we should start reporting on vaccination rates and on severe outcomes like hospitalisations and deaths.

Last month Singapore announced its long-term strategy to prepare the country for life with COVID as a recurring, controllable disease. And last week, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a similar four-phase plan for Australia.

COVID is likely to become a regular part of life

There’s a theory that viruses often become more transmissible over time. SARS-CoV-2 might be heading that way.

One of the newer variants of the virus, Delta, is estimated to be significantly more transmissible than the Alpha variant, which is more infectious than the original strain of the virus discovered in Wuhan.

Though it’s not guaranteed, the coronavirus might also become less harmful to the population over time, as more people build up immunity.

Research in Nature found the majority of the 119 scientists it surveyed believed the coronavirus would become endemic, meaning it settles into the population, becoming a part of our environment like the flu.

We can’t continue an elimination strategy forever

When the pandemic was first taking hold, Australian health authorities aimed to “flatten the curve” by reducing new cases to a manageable level. In July 2020, the federal government’s own Deputy Chief Medical Officer declared eliminating COVID-19 a “false hope”.

But then Australia (and New Zealand) achieved success in not only suppressing the virus but reducing community spread to zero using lockdowns, social distancing measures and severe restrictions on incoming travellers. Elimination then became the new goal for many chief health officers around Australia, and many public health experts declared it the optimal strategy.

However, the high costs of the repeated elimination attempts over time are evident in the economy, in people’s livelihoods and businesses, and people’s broader health and well-being.

While we continue to debate whether the huge costs of lockdown are worth it, the costs of not having lockdowns in an unvaccinated population would be far higher. However, it’s likely the benefits of lockdowns will greatly diminish once we have rising vaccination rates and treatments for COVID continue to become more successful.

Elimination also requires really tight control of our borders. Very limited numbers of travellers (mostly returning Australians) are allowed through our quarantine system. This creation of “fortress Australia” ignores thousands of Australian citizens stranded overseas and prohibits overseas travel for almost all residents.

Despite this, our system continues to leak the virus into the community and to spark snap lockdowns. Australia currently experiences about one to two outbreaks per month from hotel quarantine.

Australia needs a more mature COVID approach for the long-term

Three Singaporean ministers, writing in The Straits Times, sum it up perfectly:

The bad news is that COVID-19 may never go away. The good news is that it is possible to live normally with it in our midst.

Moving away from an elimination approach to a long-term management strategy requires us to rapidly vaccinate most, if not all, of the population, as vaccination significantly reduces severe outcomes from COVID.

We need vaccine development to keep pace with the emergence of variants of the virus, as these seem to reduce the efficacy of vaccines to some extent. This will require booster vaccinations and continued research and development of new vaccines.

Developing effective treatments for COVID is also crucial. As we find effective treatments, these will make COVID a “milder” disease, lowering the risk of hospitals and intensive care units becoming overwhelmed.

Although we don’t yet have a gold-standard treatment, methods to treat the disease are rapidly improving. Steroid treatment dexamethasone is one example, which cuts the risk of death by one third for patients on ventilators. Antibody therapy is another.

The federal government’s four-phase plan doesn’t mention treatment at all. But we should accelerate support for ongoing research into COVID treatments.

Read more:
Stopping, blocking and dampening – how Aussie drugs in the pipeline could treat COVID-19

We need to learn to live with yet another viral disease among us

Given COVID is likely to become endemic, the national cabinet decision to commit to a four-phase plan is a welcome recognition that Australia needs to begin treating COVID-19 “like the flu” in a long term approach.

Read more:
Australia has a new four-phase plan for a return to normality. Here’s what we know so far

This transition of Australia’s approach should be based less on anxiety-inducing reports of daily new cases and where they might have strolled near you.

Instead it should focus more on how many people are partially and fully vaccinated, as well as how many people become very ill from the coronavirus and other health outcome measures.

This will give a consistent set of messages aimed at encouraging much stronger vaccination take-up. This looks to be included in “phase 3” of the federal government’s transition timeline and therefore we estimate this isn’t likely to occur until well into next year.

We’d argue this phase should begin much earlier, in tandem with the move from phase 1 to 2 and paired with sustainable public health measures to reduce exposure to infection. Public health measures should focus on community awareness, knowledge and engagement and on restoring community calm, economic livelihoods, health and well-being.

Masks, rapid and routine COVID testing, and tracing and isolation of contacts will be important when cluster infections occur.

What’s more, there should be particular engagement and protective measures for highly vulnerable people, such as the elderly, those who are disadvantaged, minority groups and people living with mental ill-health and with a disability.

We need to learn to live with yet another viral disease among us. Our health system should move rapidly to reduce fear, improve vaccination rates, improve treatments and reduce complications as it does with other diseases we cannot eliminate or fully protect against.

Maximilian de Courten is the director of the Mitchell Institute a Think Tank for Education and Health Policy.

Rosemary Calder is Professor, Health Policy at the Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

– ref. We probably can’t eliminate COVID in Australia forever. As we vaccinate, we should move to a more sustainable strategy – https://theconversation.com/we-probably-cant-eliminate-covid-in-australia-forever-as-we-vaccinate-we-should-move-to-a-more-sustainable-strategy-163570

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thami Croeser, Research Officer, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

The idea of transforming cities from concrete jungles to urban forests is a popular one, and there have been some truly inspiring, exemplar projects in recent years. The transformation of a Seoul freeway to Cheonggyecheon parkland, exposing the historical river that once flowed there, is one celebrated example (pictured above).

Projects like this are commendable, as urban nature has considerable benefits including, for instance, improving mental health and boosting urban biodiversity.

But has your city actually turned into a lush oasis yet? No, neither has ours.

Our new research looked at what’s holding back greening in our cities. And we found the issue is often internal — cities just aren’t really set up to deliver their plans. Fortunately, this is a very fixable problem.

Cities are falling short

The global experience is that greening a grey city isn’t as simple as setting a bold target and writing a glossy strategy. All over the world, we’re seeing that urban greening projects and plans run into significant barriers.

Results are slow, successful pilot projects aren’t scaled up, and in some cases the work simply doesn’t happen.

Read more:
Thousands of city trees have been lost to development, when we need them more than ever

Many cities are still losing green infrastructure, especially trees on streets. A recent report commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation found canopy cover in all major Australian cities except for Hobart had declined in the last decade.

So, what’s going on? Well, the simple answer is that, despite being ambitious and well-intentioned, cities rarely have the full set of skills and capabilities required to successfully implement their plans.

Here’s what it takes

Dozens of studies of barriers to urban greening from across the planet have shown us where things go wrong.

One way to think about these barriers simply and constructively is to instead see them as a set of “success factors” cities need in place to avoid typical stumbling blocks. Here are a few that cities should keep in mind:

First, urban greening projects need strong leadership and support at the political and executive level, alongside a well-resourced project team.

Often greening teams assigned to deliver major plans have only one or two staff members, an inadequate budget, and unrealistic timeframes that don’t correspond to the project’s ambition.

Read more:
People’s odds of loneliness could fall by up to half if cities hit 30% green space targets

A positive, supportive organisational culture is also necessary, recognising new projects often have inherent risks and trade-offs.

Delivering major urban greening projects often means reclaiming road space, procuring private property, or replacing trees and plants that struggle to establish. These are normal teething difficulties, but they can lead to projects being labelled “failures” when organisations don’t have a healthy attitude to risk.

Access to skilled, supportive teams is key. Greening urban spaces requires smooth technical collaboration between engineers, designers, horticulturists and maintenance crews.

One of the classic problems is that one or more key collaborators isn’t on board, and as a result is either unhelpful or actively obstructive.

Finally, effective community engagement is needed. Many urban greening projects need public support or consent from property owners to be successful.

This can be as direct as forming a legal agreement with a major property owner to establish a green roof, or something broader like involving the public in selecting what tree species are planted in their street.

Testing the success factors

In our research paper, we built a simple self-assessment tool (you can download here) based on the above success factors. This tool can help cities identify whether they’re capable to “walk the talk”, and where to improve.

We used it to explore urban greening in a range of cities participating in Urban GreenUP — a research project aimed at re-naturing cities in the European Union to reduce heat and flooding impacts, improve air and water quality, and create urban habitat.

Through Urban GreenUP, we’ve seen a range of innovative nature-based projects begin. This includes a major streambank restoration project in Izmir, Turkey that delivered 26.5 hectares of new parkland, and floating gardens in Liverpool to enhance water quality and biodiversity.

But across the cities we studied, many struggled with the same three issues, even as some delivered strong results: not enough staff, no clear processes for actually delivering the greening, and risk-averse organisational culture that made doing new things difficult.

When we spoke to staff in these cities about their results, they often already knew these were barriers, but they didn’t have the power to really resolve them. The issues tend to be well above the pay grade of officers in greening teams.

Read more:
Spending time in nature has always been important, but now it’s an essential part of coping with the pandemic

Greening depends on leaders

These findings highlight the reforms required to get urban greening out of the starting blocks, at least in the cities we studied.

Many local governments are likely already familiar with the issues we observed, but our study suggested that, in addition to some of the big headline problems we listed above, individual cities will each face their own particular challenges.

Fixing these problems largely depends on getting executive and political leaders with clout involved to assign resources, streamline processes and modernise attitudes to risk. It’ll be a hard sell — these fiddly organisational reforms aren’t as fun as giving bold speeches or cutting ribbons.

Read more:
3 ways nature in the city can do you good, even in self-isolation

Still, if these these powerful leaders can roll up their sleeves and ensure their organisations have all the success factors in place, the rewards are clear.

Delivering urban greening at large scale will leave our cities not only more pleasant and attractive, but also healthier, and more resilient to heatwaves and flooding.

Thami Croeser receives funding from the European Commission and the Australian Research Council.

Georgia Garrard receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Environmental Science Program.

Sarah Bekessy receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ian Potter Foundation, the National Environment Science Program and the European Commission.

– ref. It takes more than words and ambition: here’s why your city isn’t a lush, green oasis yet – https://theconversation.com/it-takes-more-than-words-and-ambition-heres-why-your-city-isnt-a-lush-green-oasis-yet-163727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Ross, Lecturer, Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of the Sunshine Coast

Financial literacy means having an understanding of financial concepts and risks, and the skills, motivation and confidence to make effective decisions across a range of financial contexts.

In Australia, many young people have trouble with financial literacy, especially young people in lower socioeconomic groups, who live in rural areas or who have a language background other than English.

According to Scott Pape — author of the Barefoot Investor and whose program Money Movement is screening on Foxtel’s Lifestyle Channel — most children don’t learn the necessary financial skills they need at school. More than 100,000 people have signed his recently launched petition to bring a “financial revolution” to schools.

There is no independent financial literacy strand in the Australian Curriculum, but a sub-strand exists within maths. This is clearly not enough. The financial literacy performance of Australian 15 year olds’ in the OECD’s 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) financial literacy assessment fell by by 15 points (or half a year of schooling) since 2012.

And yet, the draft of the revised Australian Curriculum downgrades financial literacy even further.

Read more:
Teaching kids about maths using money can set them up for financial security

What’s changed?

The current maths curriculum includes some content providing teachers with explicit direction to teach fundamental financial concepts. These include representing monetary values, rounding up to the nearest five cents, or solving simple and compound interest problems.

For example, in the current year 10 curriculum, students are required to

Connect the compound interest formula to repeated applications of simple interest using appropriate digital technologies.

This is a clear description of the need for teachers to help develop essential financial maths knowledge and skills.

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority in April released a draft of the proposed revised curriculum for consultation. The above year 10 content has changed to students having to:

use formulas involving exponents and real numbers to solve practical problems (including financial contexts) involving growth and decay and solve using digital tools as appropriate.

This wording no longer ensures students are taught about social aspects of, as well as how to calculate, compound interest. Previously it was the teacher’s discretion as to how they taught exponential growth and decay. Currently teachers are likely using transmission of COVID as the context to teach these concepts.

In terms of what students should achieve by the end of each year, the proposed curriculum has also removed explicit mentions to financial literacy. For instance, in the current curriculum, by the end of year 7 students will

[…] solve problems involving percentages and […] operations with fractions and decimals. They compare the cost of items to make financial decisions. Students represent numbers using variables.

In the proposed curriculum, students by the end of year 7

[…] solve problems involving rational numbers, percentages and ratios and explain their choice of representation of rational numbers and results when they model situations, including those in financial contexts.

Again, this doesn’t mean they will learn about financial matters — they might.

Why does this matter?

One aim of the curriculum review is to declutter content. This may be why applications of maths have been relegated to optional status.

By making financial concepts mere examples, the number of content descriptions decreases. This might provide the appearance the quantity of maths has decreased. But teachers still need to provide students with a context in which to apply their maths skills.

Read more:
A ‘crowded curriculum’? Sure, it may be complex, but so is the world kids must engage with

Systematically teaching financial concepts in a maths course can improve the financial outcomes of more disadvantaged students. But research shows there is a diversity in practising teachers’ ability to identify and interpret opportunities for teaching financial literacy in curriculum.

If financial literacy is left as an example, not all teachers will see the same opportunities for teaching it and financial teaching will be haphazard across schools, and classrooms.

The issue is further complicated by the fact 38% of maths teachers in years 7-10 are not qualified in maths or maths teaching. Teaching financial maths for these teachers will be much more difficult if there are no explicit guidelines in the curriculum.

After Scott Pape’s lobbying New South Wales announced from term 3 all school children could participate in a “financial literacy challenge” to encourage them to develop positive money habits and increase their financial literacy.

But teachers will still need time to teach these programs. So the elements that have been removed from the curriculum to declutter it will then reappear in the form of additional teaching programs.

The Australian Curriculum provides the content all teachers are required to teach. While many states and territories then reflect this in their own syllabuses or curriculum documents, they all use the national curriculum as the basis.

If the Australian Curriculum doesn’t value financial maths, then other states and territories can choose not to include it.

Read more:
Proposed new curriculum acknowledges First Nations’ view of British ‘invasion’ and a multicultural Australia

Once the revised Australian Curriculum is released, other states and territories will begin their processes of redeveloping their own curricula. A structured financial literacy program may need to be created, even more so in Queensland where the national curriculum is adopted as it is written.

We need to ensure the Australian Curriculum keeps the explicit language to embed financial literacy concepts into maths lessons. This way, kids will grow up with the financial knowledge they need to make important decisions and participate meaningfully in society and the economy.

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

– ref. Aussie kids’ financial knowledge is on the decline. The proposed national curriculum has downgraded it even further – https://theconversation.com/aussie-kids-financial-knowledge-is-on-the-decline-the-proposed-national-curriculum-has-downgraded-it-even-further-163110

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

Cate Shortland is not your standard gun-for-hire director. Known for her dramas, verging on art-house, the Australian director’s oeuvre is just three feature films and some television work in 20 years.

And while the features are quality work, accepted to Cannes and Sundance with impressive reviews, they didn’t exactly set the box office on fire.

Somersault (2004), Lore (2012) and Berlin Syndrome (2017) are modestly-budgeted, intense personal dramas, centred on young female characters who are having some sort of dysfunctional relationship with a male counterpart. There are few (if any) special effects. These are character-driven stories in natural, realistic settings.

So it is interesting Shortland was chosen as the director of the newest Marvel film, Black Widow, which opens this week in cinemas.

Black Widow is so far removed from Shortland’s previous story and aesthetic style I can’t imagine any Marvel movie fan having Shortland as their first choice as director — assuming they would know her name at all.

But if you look closely at her previous films and the Marvel cinematic universe, there are some startling similarities, especially regarding female protagonists.

Indeed, Shortland’s forensic examination of the struggles that shape women’s pain and strength makes her the perfect choice to direct this film.

Read more:
‘I didn’t have a superhero that looked like me’: Marvel’s new female, culturally diverse and queer protagonists mirror our times

Dreamy coming-of-age stories

Somersault, written and directed by Shortland, is the coming-of-age story of a teen who runs away from home to the snow-covered fields of Jindabyne. The film looks at the main character’s awakening sexuality, and how it influences those around her.

It’s a complex, yet nuanced work, with highly stylised cinematography that creates a ponderous pace.

Shortland’s aesthetic style is very European. Her films have a dream-like quality, enhanced by muted colours and subdued, ambient lighting.

With this in mind, it was not surprising that Shortland’s next two films were produced in Germany.

Lore, co-written by Shortland with Robin Mukherjee and based on a story by novelist Rachel Seiffert, is set just after the second world war, where five German children are sent to find safety in their grandmother’s house in fear of the approaching Soviet forces.

Shortland weaves a gentle tale of sibling care against external threats, underlying this story with a relationship between the main character, Lore, and a young Jewish boy, a concentration camp survivor.

Berlin Syndrome, written by Shaun Grant and based on Melanie Joosten’s book, is the story of a young Australian traveller who meets a local man while in Berlin. She is soon held hostage in his apartment and forced to become his “girlfriend”.

In each of these films, the lead characters are fragile, vulnerable women, isolated in unfamiliar territory. As the story unfolds, they find strength through their struggle against adverse situations and hostile characters.

These are introspective, character-focused stories with sexual undertones.

Complex women; complex CGI

There is no realism in Black Widow; no soft lighting with slow paced, character- driven, inner perspectives. It is plot-driven, with little time for nuance: hyperbolic action produced in massive green screen studios, with computer generated imagery creating a substantial portion of the film.

And yet, Scarlet Johansson’s titular character shares many of the same qualities as Shortland’s other leads.

The Marvel Universe is ever-increasing, with new films and television series exploring the origin stories of minor characters. In this film, we discover Black Widow had to claim her strength after a childhood of hardship and abuse. And, like Shortland’s other female characters, men in her life try to control and dominate her.

Johansson has portrayed Black Widow in six previous Marvel films. In 2018 she said:

I think there is definitely an opportunity to explore the Widow as a woman who has come into her own and is making independent and active choices for herself, probably for once in her life.

With the Marvel franchise looking for more diversity in its creative teams 70 female directors were interviewed for this film.

Shortland told Variety she couldn’t see herself directing a film so reliant on CGI effects and highly choreographed fight scenes. Initially, she turned it down.

But Johansson was so impressed by Shortland’s previous films she pushed hard for her to direct, and worked hard at convincing Shortland to take the job.

The connection Shortland felt with Johannsson, as well as Johansson’s explanation of the Black Widow character as a parallel to Shortland’s own films, eventually persuaded her to take the helm.

Women finding strength in the face of trauma drives the narrative of every Shortland film. In Black Widow, Shortland imbues the quieter moments with character complexity and her signature visual style. Her artful storytelling is as much a part of the film as the explosions and superhero brawls.

Daryl Sparkes 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. Marvel’s Black Widow has been handed to a small independent Aussie director. And she’s the perfect fit – https://theconversation.com/marvels-black-widow-has-been-handed-to-a-small-independent-aussie-director-and-shes-the-perfect-fit-163797

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic O’Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University

For many New Zealanders, He Puapua came shrouded in controversy from the moment it became public knowledge earlier this year.

Released only when opposition parties learned of its existence, the report on “realising” the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was labelled a “separatist” plan by National Party leader Judith Collins.

“Quite clearly there is a plan,” Collins said, “it is being implemented, and we are going to call it out.”

But He Puapua is not a plan and it’s not government policy. It’s a collection of ideas drafted by people who are not members of the government. To understand its real significance we need to examine how and why it was commissioned in the first place.

Self-determination for all

He Puapua’s origins can be traced back to 2007 when the UN adopted the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, confirming the human rights affirmed in all previous international declarations, covenants and agreements belonged to Indigenous peoples as much as anybody else.

It confirmed the right to self-determination belongs to everybody. Thus, in New Zealand, Pakeha have the right to self-determination, and so do Māori.

At the time, 143 UN member states voted for the declaration, including the major European colonial powers of Britain, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands.

There were 11 abstentions, but four states voted against — Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. They were especially concerned about the scope of Article 28(2) which deals with compensation for confiscated or other dishonestly acquired land:

Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.

New Zealand was worried this article would justify returning much more Māori land than was already occurring under te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) settlements.

Future aspirations

However, the phrase “other appropriate redress” is open to less restrictive interpretation. In 2010, the National-led government decided the declaration did not threaten freehold private property rights. Then-Prime Minister John Key argued:

While the declaration is non-binding, it both affirms accepted rights and establishes future aspirations. My objective is to build better relationships between Māori and the Crown, and I believe that supporting the declaration is a small but significant step in that direction.

Australia, Canada and the United States also changed their positions. In 2019, New Zealand’s Labour-led government established a working group to advise on developing a plan for achieving the aims of the UN declaration. These aims are not just concerned with land rights, but also with things like health, education, economic growth, broadcasting, criminal justice and political participation.

Read more:
New authority could transform Māori health, but only if it’s a leader, not a partner

Not government policy

He Puapua, the group’s report, was provided to the government in 2019. However, the government didn’t accept a recommendation that the report be promptly released for public discussion. According to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, this was due to the risk it could be “misconstrued” as government policy.

Nevertheless, it has now been released and the government appears to have accepted the recommendation that Māori should be actively involved in drafting a plan.

Collins also objected to the report’s description of this involvement as “co-design”. What she can’t say, however, is that including people in policy making is separatist. Inclusion is an essential democratic practice.

He Puapua also uses co-design to describe Māori involvement in the delivery of social services and the protection of the natural environment. This involvement isn’t new, but He Puapua says it should be strengthened.

And while there may be arguments against this kind of inclusivity (for example, co-design is a weaker authority than the rangatiratanga affirmed in te Tiriti), calling it separatist is an error of fact.

Read more:
The Crown is Māori too – citizenship, sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi

Securing rangatiratanga

Rangatiratanga describes an independent political authority and is consistent with international human rights norms. It has gradually influenced public administration in New Zealand under successive governments over more than 40 years.

He Puapua says there are human rights arguments for strengthening and securing rangatiratanga.

In fact, the UN declaration may help clarify how independent authority might work in practice, especially in the context of the Crown’s right to govern — which the declaration also affirms.

Separatism versus sameness

He Puapua’s potentially most controversial idea involves creating “a senate or upper house in Parliament that could scrutinise legislation for compliance with te Tiriti and/or the Declaration”.

There are reasons to think this won’t get far. The government has already rejected it, and the idea was raised in just one paragraph of a 106-page report. But its inclusive intent shows why “separatism versus sameness” is the wrong way to frame the debate.

Read more:
The road to reconciliation starts with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

What it means to ensure all, and not just some, people may exercise the right to self-determination requires deeper thought. In that sense, He Puapua might usefully be read in conjunction with British Columbia’s draft action plan on the UN declaration.

Released only last month for public consultation, the plan coincided with the Canadian federal parliament passing legislation committing to implement the declaration. The British Columbian plan addressed four themes:

• self-determination and inherent right of self-government
• title and rights of Indigenous peoples
• ending Indigenous-specific racism and discrimination
• social, cultural and economic well-being.

Read more:
Included, but still marginalised: Indigenous voices still missing in media stories on Indigenous affairs

He Puapua in practice

Some of the plan’s specific measures are not relevant to New Zealand and some may be contested. But its important general principles draw out some of the basic attributes of liberal inclusivity.

Those include ensuring people can live according to their own values, manage their own resources, participate in public life free of racism and discrimination, and define for themselves what it means to enjoy social, cultural and economic well-being.

British Columbia’s far-reaching proposals can inform New Zealand’s debate about what He Puapua’s proposals might mean in practice.

As I try to show in my book ‘We Are All Here to Stay’: citizenship, sovereignty and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there are ways state authority can be arranged to reject the colonial assumption that some people are less worthy of the right to self-determination than others.

This requires radical inclusivity.

Dominic O’Sullivan 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. Separatist or radically inclusive? What NZ’s He Puapua report really says about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – https://theconversation.com/separatist-or-radically-inclusive-what-nzs-he-puapua-report-really-says-about-the-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-163719

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

New Zealand’s Climate Change Commission is facing its first legal hurdle, as a group of 300 climate-concerned lawyers seek judicial review of the processes it used to calculate carbon budgets in its recently released advice to government.

Carbon budgets are a cornerstone of New Zealand’s climate change response under the Zero Carbon Act and lie at the heart of the commission’s advice package. They specify the allowed emissions over successive five-year periods, initially up to 2035. The advice calls for net emissions of all greenhouse gases to fall 27% between 2019 and 2030.

The Lawyers 4 Climate Action group claims the commission has misinterpreted pathways in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports in its calculations, making its advice inconsistent with the act, especially regarding the goal to limit global temperature rise to 1.5℃.

Pending the outcome of the legal challenge, the government is likely to adopt the recommended budgets, which would then flow into the settings of the Emissions Trading Scheme and all other aspects of climate policy.

The commission has engaged extensively with the more than 15,000 submissions it received on its draft advice. So it was surprising that in its final advice, the budgets were increased, allowing higher emissions.

The commission’s immediate reason for the increase was the significant blow-out of emissions in 2019, up by three million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions. It judged this was not a one-off, and has allowed another two million tonnes in each year to 2030.

The commission also had to balance a long list of requirements, including that the budgets be ambitious, achievable and fair to both present and future generations, while supporting the global effort to limit warming to 1.5℃. The commissioners write:

A transition that is fair, inclusive and equitable for people is crucial so that it is acceptable to New Zealanders. Putting the values of manaakitanga, tikanga, whanaungatanga and kotahitanga at the forefront means having a deep ethic of care for people and the land. Having support and buy-in from New Zealanders is vital for meeting and sustaining emissions reduction targets.

But consider Ireland. Like New Zealand, Ireland has high agricultural emissions and a poor climate track record to date. Yet Ireland recently adopted a new climate law that requires net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases by 2050 and cuts of at least 51% between 2018 and 2030. This is unquestionably much stronger than New Zealand’s act.

Many goals, but no easy options

New Zealand is indeed in a tight spot. Decades of delay and spurious manoeuvring have seen emissions rise steadily, with few transition plans in place.

The main emitting sectors are often also key export industries, which should not face unfair competition, while consumption sectors (like private cars) lie broadly across the whole society.

Some key approaches from the past — international carbon trading, and extensive forest planting — have fallen out of favour. Following a collapse in credibility, international carbon trading will need new rules to allow it to restart, while afforestation, though still playing a part, pushes the transition out to future generations.

Read more:
How children are taking European states to court over the climate crisis – and changing the law

The scope of the transition is challenging, and the commission argues its budgets are the best combination of ambitious and achievable.

A path towards lower emissions

A major part of the report describes in detail how the budgets could be met. For example, a relatively easy first step is to phase out coal burning for electricity generation.

Coal and gas use in the food industry, mostly for the production of milk powder, has to rapidly decrease. So far, one plant, at Te Awamutu, has been converted from gas to biomass, saving 83,000 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions per year. But by 2030, the industry needs to cut more than 20 times as much.

Fossil fuel use in buildings, like coal boilers in schools, gets a lot of attention, but only adds up to a small part of the cuts needed. All other industries (including steel, aluminium, methanol, cement, mining, hydrogen, and ammonia) need to cut fossil fuel use substantially, preferably without all having to close.

The table below shows the proposed emissions reductions for different sectors, under the commission’s demonstration path.

The transport sector has finally seen government action, with the introduction of an extensive system of fuel efficiency standards and fees and discounts for newly imported vehicles. The commission argued for all of these and more, with a substantial shift away from private cars to active and public transport on a scale beyond New Zealand’s experience.

This transformation is sure to be contentious, from local battles over car parking and cycleways to the entire operation of the public transport system.

New Zealand’s Paris commitments

Another significant piece of advice the commission was asked to give was whether New Zealand’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is adequate. Climate change minister James Shaw had punted this question to the commission, which has passed it right back like in a game of hot potato.

Read more:
New research suggests 1.5C climate target will be out of reach without greener COVID-19 recovery plans

There are two difficulties. First, the commission has already identified the biggest domestic emission cuts; anything further must come from overseas. That will be expensive, and there are no rules yet on how these “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes” will be conducted. This will be on the agenda at the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow later this year.

Second, the entire basis for the NDC stems from the requirements to balance equity, responsibility and need. For New Zealand, that points towards much higher ambition than at present.

The commission did advise the NDC should involve an international mitigation effort of “much more than” 10% of current gross emissions, at a cost of many billions of dollars per decade. But it argued this required political, social and ethical considerations only the government could determine.

All of these matters will now fall under the scrutiny of the High Court.

Robert McLachlan 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. Lawyers challenge New Zealand’s proposed emissions budgets as inconsistent with the 1.5℃ goal – https://theconversation.com/lawyers-challenge-new-zealands-proposed-emissions-budgets-as-inconsistent-with-the-1-5-goal-162504

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

Major companies and business groups are being brought into the rollout effort to speed up the rate of vaccination, opening the way potentially for workplace jabs later in the year.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and the rollout’s supremo, Lieutenant General John Frewen on Wednesday will hold a virtual roundtable with business representatives to identify both the opportunities and barriers for business and industry to support and participate in the program.

Frewen, who held a “wargaming” session with the states and territories on Tuesday, said workplaces were used to vaccinating their workforce against flu and this was “another efficiency in the program potentially”.

It would take the burden off both the primary healthcare system and the state mechanisms, he told a news conference. “It’s just another way of helping accelerate the program.”

But he indicated workplace vaccinations would not be until “around September and October, when we have greater access to the vaccines”. At present Pfizer is in short supply and Moderna is not yet available, leaving only AstraZenena, which is recommended for the over 60s, not those younger.

Frewen also said Wednesday’s meeting would discuss incentives to encourage people to get vaccinated, although he thought these would be more appropriate later.

“For now there is a lot of interest from the community about getting vaccinated. I think right now the incentivisation isn’t as necessary.” He said incentives fell into two categories – policy and “handouts”.

Asked when the Pfizer vaccine would be generally available for people under 40, Frewen said this was a supply issue. If the vaccine supplies were as forecast, more choice might be available for this group from September-October.

Scott Morrison has encouraged the under 40s to talk with their doctors about taking AstraZeneca on a basis of informed consent.

At Tuesday’s meeting, smaller jurisdictions were worried about having sufficient workforces for the vaccination task when the program entered its top speed towards the end of the year. Queensland was concerned it could be hit by weather conditions at that time.

The government says the business roundtable will seek agreement to:

• establish a framework for business to engage with the program, including partnerships to encourage workforces and communities to get vaccinated

• produce sector-specific strategies to engage with industry, with particular focus on regional areas

• develop “business tailored communications programs to ensure consistent messaging” and

• agree to a “national business partnership wargaming session”, being held in the next fortnight.

Among the companies participating will be Coles, Woolworths, the major banks, Qantas and and Virgin, Telstra, Optus, Deloitte, KPMG, Ernst and Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Melbourne Airport.

The groups range from the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Hotels Association to the National Farmers’ Federation and the Minerals Council.

Frydenberg said: “Throughout the pandemic we have partnered with the business community and we are looking to do so again to roll out the vaccine in a safe and efficient manner.”

“As we move our focus from suppression to living with the virus in line with the roadmap set out by National Cabinet, our largest employers will play an important role in supporting Lieutenant General Frewen roll out the vaccine.”

The initiative with business comes as the Australian Grand Prix has been cancelled for the second year running, with the Victorian government laying blame on the slow rollout.

Victorian Sports Minister Martin Pakula said: “Until we get much higher vaccination rates we cannot return to normal settings”.

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. Workplace COVID jabs on the agenda as business is brought into vaccination effort – https://theconversation.com/workplace-covid-jabs-on-the-agenda-as-business-is-brought-into-vaccination-effort-164006

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

As well as her usual interviews with experts and politicians about the news of the day, Politics with Michelle Grattan now includes “Word from The Hill”, where all things political will be discussed with members of The Conversations’s politics team.

In this episode, politics + society deputy editor Judith Ireland and Michelle discuss the allegation by former Liberal MP Julia Banks that she was inappropriately touched at Parliament House by an unnamed cabinet minister, and her labelling of Prime Minister Scott Morrison as a “menacing, controlling wallpaper”.

They also canvass the government’s decision to reduce the intake of returning international travellers, and the four-stage plan announced to eventually exit the pandemic’s restrictions.

Additional audio

Gaena, Blue Dot Sessions, from Free Music Archive.

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. Podcast with Michelle Grattan: Julia Banks and international travel caps – https://theconversation.com/podcast-with-michelle-grattan-julia-banks-and-international-travel-caps-163991

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

In line with expectations, the Reserve Bank of Australia has announced it will keep official interest rates on hold at 0.10%.

But is also ready to start tapering off its “unconventional” monetary policy measures introduced in response to the COVID-19 economic crisis.

These measures, designed to stimulate spending by keeping interest rates low for the next few years, have had two key components,

1) The “Yield Curve Control program” — involving the bank buying government bonds to keep interest rates at 0.1% for the next three years.

2) Quantitative Easing – involving the RBA buying long-term government bonds to help keep interest rates low over the five to ten years, but without a fixed goal for interest rates.

These measures will be wound back slowly.

Following the Reserve Bank board’s July meeting, at which these decisions were made, governor Philip Lowe said the Yield Curve Control program would end in April 2024 (the bank had been considering extending it to November 2024). The bond buying will continue but at a lower rate – at $4 billion a week rather than $5 billion.

A monetary policy dilemma

Heading into the meeting, the bank’s directors faced a dilemma. They knew the economy still required more support. Inflation remains below the target band. Unemployment is still too high. Lockdowns continue to periodically shutter large swathes of the economy.

Lowe has long promised the RBA won’t lift interest rates until inflation is back within its target band. He reiterated this today: “It will not increase the cash rate until actual inflation is sustainably within the 2-3% target range.”

It is not enough for inflation to be forecast in this range. The RBA wants to see results before it changes rates.

That still seems a long way off, with the central bank expecting the underlying inflation to be 1.5% over 2021, rising to 2% by mid-2023.

It maintains the key to getting wages and inflation higher is a stronger labour market. While unemployment is now at 5.1%, with underemployment also falling, that’s still a long way from “full employment”, which economists broadly agree is about 4.5-4.75%.

This starts the countdown to lift-off

Despite the still mediocre state of the economy, there has been rising concern the central bank’s stated commitment to keep interest rates at 0.1% until late 2024 would be risky if the economy continued to quickly improve as it has done over the past six months.

So the board’s solution to this dilemma is to wind back some of the unconventional monetary policy measures, in small bite-size chunks.

By doing this gradually, the RBA hopes to avoid a panic in the financial markets of the sort that occurred in the United States during the “Taper Tantrum” of 2013, when the US Federal Reserve announced it would start to wind back the quantitative easing programs first deployed in response to the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08.

Today thus officially starts a three-year countdown to when we can expect interest rates to gradually lift off.

Steady as she goes

By continuing its quantitative easing program – albeit at the lower rate of buying A$4 billion of government bonds each week – the RBA will help keep long-term interest rates low.

This policy combination allows the bank to continue supporting the economy today with flexibility down the road to lift interest rates if and when appropriate.

If these optimistic forecasts do not pan out and the economy slows in the months ahead, the RBA has made it clear it will step back in with more support.

This dovish response will be good news for home owners and sellers. Low interest rates will likely see strong buyer demand continue.

Read more:
Vital Signs: It’s not the Reserve Bank’s job to worry about housing prices

The RBA has said housing affordability is not an issue for it to resolve, but Lowe promised it “will be monitoring trends in housing borrowing carefully and it is important that lending standards are maintained.”

Isaac Gross 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. RBA starts three-year countdown to lift in interest rates – https://theconversation.com/rba-starts-three-year-countdown-to-lift-in-interest-rates-163805

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simone Buzwell, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

At a dinner party recently, my friend Kaity whispered, “I’ve been staring at my face in Zoom meetings and I look tired. I’m considering Botox. What are the risks?”

I shouldn’t have been surprised; Kaity isn’t alone in thinking cosmetic procedures could fix Zoom-face-fatigue. Our new research shows one in three Australians have new concerns about their appearance since the pandemic began.

What’s more, Kaity is in the primary demographic: 35-50 year old women. And she lives in Australia, where we have the highest cosmetic procedure rates per capita. We spend A$350 million to A$1 billion on cosmetic procedures per year – a figure expected to increase.

For most people, cosmetic procedures lead to improved self-esteem, confidence and body image. I never thought Kaity was shy, or had self-esteem issues, but she told me she’s different at work and after the last year she craves some self-care.

However, for a significant minority, there are negative outcomes. So before deciding if it was right for Kaity, she needed to consider a few things:

1. What type of cosmetic procedure?

First, the type of cosmetic procedure is important. There are two forms: major and minor.

Major cosmetic procedures (“cosmetic surgery”) involve cutting the skin, such as for facelifts or breast augmentation. These are conducted under anaesthetic by medical doctors bound by Medical Board of Australia guidelines.

Minor cosmetic procedures, such as fillers and botox, are different. There is no anaesthetic, or cutting the skin, although they may involve piercing the skin. Fillers involve injecting subtances under the surface of the skin to add volume, while botox is a drug that relaxes the muscle to reduce wrinkles.

The category of minor cosmetic procedures also includes microdermabrasion, which removes superficial layers of dead skin cells to “polish” the skin.

Read more:
Will microdermabrasion or skin needling give me better skin?

2. What provider do you choose?

Minor cosmetic procedures aren’t regulated in Australia and can be administered by doctors, nurses, dentists or beauticians. They aren’t funded by Medicare, so the outcomes are not monitored.

Concern about shonky operators prompted a warning from NSW Health Commission about unsafe and illegal practices, with a number of women experiencing significant harm.

So it’s essential to choose a reputable practitioner. But how do you find one?

Providers of minor cosmetic procedures don’t require registration. But if you choose someone registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), you know you’re being treated by a practitioner who is bound to minimum professional standards of safety and patient care.

If you’re unsure, you can always ask your GP and check for verified reviews of your preferred cosmetic practitioner.

3. How much does it cost?

The cost of minor cosmetic procedures range up to thousands of dollars per session. One session lasts for about four months so must be repeated, making them an ongoing cost.

Luckily Kaity could afford it, but there are reports of cosmetic customers going without food to pay for procedures, and feeling the need to go back for more and more.

Minor cosmetic procedures shouldn’t cause financial strain. If it would cause Kaity financial pressure, she should not go ahead.

4. What are the side effects?

The possible side effects vary depending on the procedure and may include:

• pain
• swelling or bruising at the injection site
• infections
• dry eyes or throat
• headaches or flu-like symptoms
• muscle stiffness.

They’re usually not long-lasting.

Read more:
Cosmetic facial procedures are not risk free – here are some of the most popular

5. What could go wrong?

Botox and dermal fillers can be administered incorrectly, resulting in “droopy eyelid”, “cockeyed eyebrows”, odd lumps or scarring.

Rashes or bleeding are possible, as is necrosis, where skin cells die. There are also reports of blurred vision and even blindness.

It’s assumed these are rare, but given the lack of data, rates are unknown.

6. Could it cause psychological distress?

The psychological consequences of minor cosmetic procedures are often ignored. For most people, they are positive.

However, some people rely on cosmetic treatments to self-manage psychological disorders or stress.

Minor cosmetic procedures don’t solve psychological problems and may exacerbate underlying emotional difficulties and relationship strain. Indeed for some patients, cosmetic procedures have contributed to self-harm, even suicide.

Importantly, some psychological factors predispose people to negative outcomes and in turn are exacerbated by cosmetic procedures. These include body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) – which has long been a contraindication for cosmetic work, meaning people with BDD shouldn’t have cosmetic procedures.

BDD involves preoccupation with appearance flaws, with some spending hours checking their appearance, with negative impacts on employment and relationships.

BDD symptoms usually worsen after cosmetic procedures, or concern shifts to a new body part. Other psychological and social factors, as well as identity concerns, are also linked to negative outcomes.

Read more:
Body dysmorphic disorder and cosmetic surgery: are surgeons too quick to nip and tuck?

Customers of minor cosmetic procedures are more likely than average to have psychological disorders. We found more than 25% of minor cosmetic procedure customers had potential BDD and high numbers reported psychological distress, including anxiety, stress and/or depression. But some providers fail to adequately screen for these conditions, putting their customers at risk.

During lockdowns and COVID restrictions, people with BDD struggled because they couldn’t access beauty treatments, which fuelled their desire for future therapies.

7. Are your expectations realistic?

A final risk factor involves the motivations for procedures. Previously, only external motivations were considered unhealthy: having minor cosmetic procedures to please others, or believing the procedures would lead to friends and career success.

We did find this in our research, but in addition, we discovered unrealistic internal motivations – such as believing minor cosmetic procedures would change your personality – are similarly problematic.

Read more:
New year, new you? Why we think a better body will be a better self

Essentially, your expectations must be realistic because if they’re not, it’s likely the procedures will result in distress.

These red flags can indicate if cosmetic procedures are a safe choice – and ethical cosmetic providers will screen customers for these before proceeding.

Gemma Sharp receives funding from an NHMRC Early Career Research Fellowship (Health Professional Category).

Susan Rossell receives funding from an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship.

Toni Pikoos received funding from the Australian government.

Simone Buzwell 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. Thinking of getting a minor cosmetic procedure like botox or fillers? Here’s what to consider first – https://theconversation.com/thinking-of-getting-a-minor-cosmetic-procedure-like-botox-or-fillers-heres-what-to-consider-first-161271