Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hamish McCallum, Professor, Griffith School of Environment and Science, Griffith University

In the midst of a human pandemic, we have some good news about a wildlife one: our new research, published today in Science, shows Tasmanian devils are likely to survive despite the infectious cancer that has ravaged their populations.

Tasmanian devils have been devastated by a bizarre transmissible cancer. Devil facial tumour disease, or DFTD for short, was first detected in 1996 in northeast Tasmania. Transmitted via biting, DFTD has spread over almost the entire state, reaching the west coast in the past two or three years. It has led to a decline of at least 80% in the total devil population.

Ten years ago, we thought there was a real chance DFTD would drive the Tasmanian devil to extinction. Our concern arose not just because the cancer was almost inevitably lethal, but also because the transmission rate did not appear to slow down, even as devils became very rare.

Our new research has some good news: by pioneering application of genomic analysis typically used for viruses, we have discovered the curve has flattened and the rate of increase of infections has slowed. This means while the disease is probably not going away, neither are Tasmanian devils.

Genomics is a relatively new field of science that uses the vast amounts of data available from modern genetic sequencing techniques to answer some of the most difficult and important questions in biology.

Read more: We developed tools to study cancer in Tasmanian devils. They could help fight disease in humans

The genomic approach we used is called phylodynamics. It uses sophisticated mathematical analysis of small changes in DNA to reconstruct the evolution and spread of the tumour through devil populations. This is the same method used to track the COVID-19 pandemic, and it was first developed to study the influenza virus. Viruses have small genomes and evolve rapidly. This is the first time the method has been used for a pathogen with a much more complex and slowly evolving genome.

Screening more than 11,000 genes, we found the R number (the average number of secondary cases for each primary case, now familiar from COVID-19) has fallen from about 3.5 at the peak of the epidemic to about one now. This suggests some sort of steady state has been reached, and the disease and devils are now coexisting.

This discovery backs up a paper we published last year, in which we reached a similar conclusion using mathematical models based on marking and recapturing Tasmanian devils at a single study site, without taking genetics into account.

Our new study is based on samples collected across Tasmania since the early 2000s. Given the very different nature of the two methods, the agreement between the results lends us increased confidence in our conclusions.

This paper, in addition to several we have published recently, shows there have been rapid evolutionary changes in Tasmanian devils and in the tumours themselves since the emergence of this transmissible cancer. Already, frequencies of gene variants known to be associated with immune function in humans have increased in Tasmanian devil populations, suggesting the devils are evolving and adapting to the threat.

We also now know a relatively small number of genes has a large influence on whether devils become infected, and whether they survive if they do.

Finally, and perhaps most encouragingly of all, we have now seen tumours shrink and disappear — something that was unheard of when the disease first emerged. What’s more, we also know this has a strong genetic basis, again suggesting the devils are genetically adapting to their foe.

Together, all of these discoveries show wild Tasmanian devils can evolve very rapidly — over just five generations or so — in response to this disease. This has profoundly encouraging implications for their likely future survival.

There is still much more to learn about the evolution of the devils and their tumours. But meanwhile, our results provide a warning that a strategy of reintroducing captive-reared animals to supplement diseased wild devil populations is likely to be counterproductive.

When devils from populations that have never been exposed to the disease interbreed with wild animals in diseased populations, the evolution we have seen in wild populations is likely to slow down or even reverse, endangering those populations.

What’s more, the slowing rate of disease transmission may be partly a consequence of reduced devil population densities, resulting in fewer bites. Artificially boosting population densities might accelerate disease transmission, the opposite of the intended effect.

Read more: Sexual aggression key to spread of deadly tumours in Tasmanian devils

With the growing body of evidence showing extinction of devils is quite unlikely even over the next 100 years, we have time for careful consideration of management strategies. Specifically, models can be developed to assess the evolutionary and epidemiological consequences of reintroductions or translocations.

One possibility would be to captively breed devils that have the right genes to boost their chance of surviving the disease. More broadly, our research underlines the vital importance of taking evolutionary considerations into account when managing endangered species. We now have the genomic tools to do so.

Many thanks to Andrew Storfer at Washington State University, Menna Jones and Rodrigo Hamede at the University of Tasmania, and Paul Hohenlohe at the University of Idaho for their contributions to this article and the research it describes.

– ref. Tasmanian devils look set to conquer their own pandemic – https://theconversation.com/tasmanian-devils-look-set-to-conquer-their-own-pandemic-151842

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Rockett, Virologist, University of Sydney

“Coronavirus” has already established itself as the scary new word of 2020. Add the word “mutant”, and you’ve got an even stronger candidate for the scary new phrase of 2021.

One fear is that critical parts of the coronavirus genome will mutate, making any vaccine obsolete before it’s widely rolled out next year.

But how much of an issue is this really? As we’ll see, SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, mutates, as do all viruses. But unlike other RNA viruses, it’s actually quite stable.

That’s largely good news for the first crop of vaccines that are set to be rolled out around the world in 2021.

What’s a mutation anyway?

In genetic terms, a mutation is just a scary word for a mistake. As cells make new copies of a virus, mistakes happen. These mistakes sometimes result in a stronger virus, sometimes a weaker virus.

But in most cases mutations in the coronavirus are irrelevant anomalies that cause changes to the genetic material (RNA) but not the resulting proteins that make up its composition and structure.

In fact, SARS-CoV-2 seems to have a slower rate of mutation than other RNA viruses. That’s because it belongs to a family of viruses with genetic proofreading mechanisms that can identify and remove most mistakes in its RNA when the virus replicates.

This means SARS-CoV-2 has about half the mutation rate of influenza and a quarter the mutation rate of HIV.

Read more: Mutating coronavirus: what it means for all of us

What about mutations and spike proteins?

If there are lots of mutations in non-essential regions of a virus’ genetic material, it can likely still function. But mutations in critical regions can disable a virus, so these don’t occur very often.

This is why vaccines are typically designed against these critical regions — to safeguard against mutations that would make them ineffective.

And it’s mutations in one of these critical regions, the COVID-19 spike protein, that has gained significant attention recently.

This is the protein many COVID-19 vaccines use to generate a protective immune response. In fact, the four vaccines Australia has signed agreements for, should they pass clinical trials, all either contain the virus’ spike protein or carry the instructions your body needs to make it.

What’s all this to do with mink?

One mutation that has attracted controversy is the D614G mutation, partly because it leads to a spike protein with a slightly altered shape.

And some scientists were concerned this mutation, plus three others in the spike protein, would help the virus bypass the type of immunity generated following vaccination.

These mutations emerged when the coronavirus jumped from humans to minks and back again.

To avoid the potentially disastrous implications of this new combination of variants rapidly spreading in humans, millions of minks were culled in Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands.

However, not all scientists are convinced of the potential impact of this combination of mutations. So studies are currently under way to better understand their impact.

Read more: Denmark to cull mink herd over coronavirus mutation fears – here’s what the science says

Syringes at ten paces

Considering what we know about how the virus mutates and the rate of these mutations, the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines look likely to provide some protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains.

However, researchers are monitoring the possible emergence of any new mutations in the spike protein from isolates around the world to ensure ongoing vaccine effectiveness.

We can identify any mutations using a technique called genome sequencing, which allows scientists to read the complete genetic sequence, or genome, of the virus.

Since January, scientists around the world have generated and made publicly available more than 246,000 COVID-19 genomes. Scientists can then compare these with the early COVID-19 genomes sequenced in Wuhan. These early sequences are the templates for the vaccines we are waiting impatiently for.

This surveillance will provide an early warning system for potentially critical mutations. And if researchers find mutations, they need to work out what these mutations actually do, using so-called “functional tests”.

Such tests can tell us whether a new mutation influences our immune response to the spike protein, compared to those induced by the original Wuhan strain. We can also investigate if antibodies following vaccination can continue to bind to the spike protein of emerging strains and prevent the virus from infecting human cells.

So should we be worried?

Researchers have only been able to study this coronavirus for a very short time. So only time will tell if it mutates at a frequency and at limited positions in the essential regions, as we have come to expect. That’s why surveillance is so important.

The current crop of vaccines have been developed using decades of accumulated scientific knowledge and are based on what we know about mutations in this and other coronaviruses. So we shouldn’t be too worried when we read scary headlines about a “mutant coronavirus”.

This past year has demonstrated the capacity to rapidly produce vaccines, which hopefully can be modified to reflect new mutations and merging strains should they occur.

– ref. Yes, the coronavirus mutates. But that shouldn’t affect the current crop of vaccines – https://theconversation.com/yes-the-coronavirus-mutates-but-that-shouldnt-affect-the-current-crop-of-vaccines-150541

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Sharrock, Honorary Senior Fellow, Centre for Vocational and Educational Policy, University of Melbourne

The French Review didn’t confirm a “free speech crisis” in Australian universities. But nor did its report last year confirm free speech was “alive and well”, as Universities Australia would have it. In many university policies the report found vague language, which could rule out voicing a view deemed offensive.

Most universities have updated their policies in response to the French Review’s Model Code on Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom, and related amendments to higher education legislation are before the parliament. On Wednesday, the Walker Review of universities’ implementation of the code reported that many don’t fully reflect the code yet.

Read more: University free speech bill a sop to Pauline Hanson and other critics, but what difference will it make?

However they fare on this, many will also recall the French Review’s observation:

A culture powerfully predisposed to the exercise of freedom of speech and academic freedom is ultimately a more effective protection than the most tightly drawn rule. A culture not so predisposed will undermine the most emphatic statement of principles.

Of course, universities promote respect for others’ rights, and civility more generally. They have a duty to foster the well-being of students and staff. But in the model code this doesn’t “extend to a duty to protect any person from feeling offended or shocked or insulted by the lawful speech of another”.

Like the Chicago Principles, the model code reflects legal limits on free expression, but doesn’t seek to enforce civility as a formal campus rule. It recognises universities as institutions where disagreement runs deep and where diverse views — even those some find offensive — should be exchanged freely and challenged openly.

Read more: Four fundamental principles for upholding freedom of speech on campus

So, apart from clarifying policy, how can universities promote a “free to disagree” culture on campus? Not just in name, but in norms?

Learning how to disagree well

One way may be to focus more on teaching students how to argue persuasively. On topics where positions are polarised, ad hominem attacks are common. On the topic of climate change, for example, debates often slide into shouting matches between “deniers” and “zealots”. Or they may proceed mainly in the form of petty point-scoring, as in the recent US presidential debates.

Read more: The first US presidential debate was pure chaos. Here’s what our experts thought

To keep debates robust and constructive, it helps to recognise other diversionary tactics and defensive routines. My “Disagree Well On Campus” model (shown below — click to enlarge) calls on scholars to aim high.

This means they should contest an opponent’s claims with logic and evidence, a level 2 counter argument. If they can do this well enough, the case at hand — whether mainstream or minority — may be refuted (or reframed, or reaffirmed) to a scholarly standard, level 1.

But, as the list of level 3 “dogmatic avoidance” tactics suggests, there are many ways to differ without resolving anything. At the low end, personal accusations and name-calling aren’t arguments in a level 2 sense. Often they signal a refusal to debate the substance of this kind of topic with that kind of person.

Consider how your last big argument went. Was it level 1, 2 or 3?

Level 3 tactics explained

At level 3, the first two “appeal” tactics enlist support for a view by appealing to a higher authority or greater good. (But how far do we rely on one, or prioritise the other?)

The next four “misdirection” tactics evade the point of an opponent’s view. This is done mainly by raising other concerns. (But how relevant and significant are these to the main argument?)

The final three “exclusion” tactics withdraw the commitment to engage with an opponent’s viewpoint, or take it seriously, by casting doubt on their morality, sincerity or credibility.

At level 3, common avoidance tactics include “straw man” arguments (Misdirect 4). An opponent’s view is restated in a way that gives it unintended meanings. This caricature is then refuted, instead of the actual claim.

Another tactic is to cite a technical fact as a trump card, which seems to settle which side is right (Misdirect 2). But this may be a “red herring” that leads away from the point at issue (Misdirect 1). Or it may be an unreliable form of evidence. The phrase “lies, damned lies and statistics” refers to the use of carefully selected factoids to prop up or put down a case. Often this amounts to spin by omission, not the level of proof that independent experts would accept.

Another level 3 tactic is to take offence at the tone or terms of an opposing view, without addressing its substance (BadHom 1). This is more civil than calling someone an FBDZS — a fool, bigot, denier, zealot or snowflake (BadHom 3). But by shifting off-topic to invoke rules of civility, it offers scope to censor or end the exchange without conceding any substantive point.

Read more: There are differences between free speech, hate speech and academic freedom – and they matter

‘Heretic protection’ on campus – but with rigour

Many debates mix level 2 and level 3 ways of arguing. Some are “won on the day” with level 3 tactics alone. But rhetorical point-scoring doesn’t amount to scholarly refutation.

Once a majority view seems settled on this basis, any dissenting minority view — even one with valid points to make — may become undiscussable. In a university context, this is where the principle of academic freedom does its work. As one scholar observes: “popular or mainstream ideas generally need no protection”.

As places of higher learning, universities assume responsibility for protecting free expression and open exchange when views diverge, while also promoting the practice of scholarly refutation. This stance affords “heretic protection” to minority views, while also exposing them to robust counter-argument.

As future leaders and experts, university graduates will need to reach and justify decisions that have wide real-world consequences. Often these decisions will be made in the face of firm opposition from many of those affected. Being able to argue clearly and persuasively, and to tell the difference between a well-reasoned case and slippery rhetoric, will be critical professional skills.

– ref. Feel free to disagree on campus … by learning to do it well – https://theconversation.com/feel-free-to-disagree-on-campus-by-learning-to-do-it-well-151019

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Alexander, Research fellow, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne

Based in Melbourne, we set out to find new ways of seeing and understanding aspects of Australian urban life in the 21st century. We did this by walking the city without preconceptions, open and ready to absorb what the streets and sidewalks had to teach.

In search of disturbance and enchantment, we moved, journeyed, observed, discovered, wandered (and wondered), got lost, found ourselves, listened, smelled and meandered through the main streets and back alleyways, the CBDs and suburbs, the parks, cemeteries, buildings and cultures of Melbourne.

We have reported our year-long project in our new book, Urban Awakenings. We conceived it in early 2019 as a series of urban investigations. We were inspired and guided by the thesis set out in American philosopher Jane Bennett’s book The Enchantment of Modern Life.

Bennett acknowledges that modern life in industrialised society comes with heavy environmental burdens and deep social justice concerns. But, troubled though modern life is, she argues it still has the capacity to enchant (and disturb) in ways that inspire engagement with the world and each other.

Why seek out enchantment?

In Bennett’s hands, a willingness to seek enchantment in everyday life is a necessary precondition of ethical practice and political engagement. It can create the emotional capacity for wonder, compassion, engagement and generosity.

Conversely, disenchantment with life poses an ethical and political problem, she maintains, in that it can lead to apathy and resignation. To be disenchanted is to feel one lives in a world that lacks meaning and purpose. A better world becomes unimaginable and so not worth fighting for.

Readers might agree it is easy to feel disenchanted in a modern, industrial city, with its concrete, cars, noise, pollution and crowding.

Read more: What actually is a good city?

On the other hand, to actively seek out and appreciate moments of urban enchantment has ethical potential. It can give people the energy — the impulse — to care and engage in a world desperately in need of ethical and political re-evaluation and provocation.

To be enchanted — if only for a moment — is to see life as worth living. We can then start to see the world as a place that has the latent capacity to be transformed in more humane and ecologically sane ways.

More importantly, enchantment, as we are using the term, provides the propulsion to act and engage. It’s an antidote to apathy, resignation and perhaps even despair.

Based on these insights, we contend that effective urban politics must change or challenge not only the way we think about the world, but also how we feel, perceive, judge and experience the world.

Urban tramping as method

In our book we apply Bennett’s critical philosophy to the urban landscape. We did this by walking our home city, Melbourne, with eyes open to the possibility of enchantment.

We describe this as “urban tramping”. We urban tramps were to be free-thinking, free walkers of the city, encumbered only by the duty to absorb what the city had to teach.

The “tramp” was to be a distinguishing critical identity that at the same time related us to the various traditions of urban observation: flâneurs, slum journalists, ethnographers, psychogeographers, and so on.

Read more: Psychogeography: a way to delve into the soul of a city

In other words, we set out to sojourn through urban landscapes with the same sense of wonder and critical attention that a nature walker like Henry David Thoreau embodied as he sauntered through Walden Woods. Nature can enchant and disturb, but what about the city?

Urban Awakenings draws inspiration and content from the variety of our urban tramps over the past year or so. We started out from grounds never ceded by the Aboriginal peoples who have lived in what we call Melbourne for countless generations. We recognise the false claims to exclusive sovereignty of a social order established through invasion and violence.

In a collection of brief essays based on our perambulations, we record the myriad ways in which we found holes in the main narrative of Western societies today — that free markets and economic growth are the necessary and natural preconditions for modern urban life. Indeed, one journey took us through various cemeteries of Melbourne, inviting reflection on themes of death and finitude even in this (second-most-liveable) city.

Read more: Imagining a better world: the art of degrowth

A disturbed book

Little did we know a pandemic would disrupt our book midway through. It was split into two parts — before-COVID (BC) and after-COVID (AC).

Heraclitus, the ancient Greek philosopher, famously said one can never step into the same river twice, since it is always in flux. We would say the same thing about cities. Our BC and AC experience of Melbourne testifies to this rather starkly.

As it unfolded, the pandemic was yet another historical proof of the vulnerability and contingency of capitalism, especially its latest form, globalised neoliberalism. We recognised this huge, sudden superimposition on our project as an affirmation of its purpose. We walked Melbourne under lockdown (in accordance with the rules) with a keen eye for the many disruptions the virus imposed on free market societies like Australia, especially their paid and unpaid working lives.

Read more: I’ve seriously tried to believe capitalism and the planet can coexist, but I’ve lost faith

Without diminishing the social and physical injuries of the pandemic, it was clear that many of the apparently rigid processes and rhythms of the industrial order could in fact be rapidly suspended and even permanently changed.

The sudden relocalisation of everyday life, for example, showed the stressful, polluting rhythms of urban commuting were part of a constructed, not natural, order. In traffic-calmed cities, nature took a breather and found new friends in social hordes who happily occupied newly available green spaces, even median strips in once-busy roads.

Many more disturbing enchantments and enchanting disturbances were observable to the tramps’ eyes.

Our project ended just as the long lockdown in Melbourne was relaxing. Everyone began to wonder what permanent changes might have been wrought on the hard-wiring of Australia’s “growth machine” cities. It was a good time to reflect on Bennett’s point that to seek enchantment is not to seek magic but rather possibilities for change in the stultifying and unjust workings of the industrial order.

The tramps took the project out on the road in Melbourne in 2020 at a time when change was certainly in the air. When we step into the city again tomorrow, no doubt we will find the urban landscape and its inhabitants still in flux.

– ref. Tramping the city to find enchantment in a disenchanting world – https://theconversation.com/tramping-the-city-to-find-enchantment-in-a-disenchanting-world-150938

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Ralston, Professorial fellow, Monash University

When the government’s retirement incomes review of which I was a part examined superannuation, the age pension and voluntary savings, home ownership had a surprisingly important role.

The home is the largest form of voluntary saving and is far more entwined with super and the pension than might be thought, with threads that travel from homeownership to access to the pension, from homeownership to the size of the pension, and from superannuation to homeownership.

Homeownership keeps pension costs low

At present, about 76% of retirees own the homes they live in, about 12% rent and a further 11% either live rent-free with family or are in residential care or another arrangement.

This is an unusually high rate of homeownership by international standards that not only benefits individuals but the public purse.

It lowers age pensioners’ living expenses and lowers the required size of the pension.

At 2.4% of gross domestic product, Australia has one of the lowest-cost age pension schemes in the OECD.

But there are indications that homeownership is on the decline.

People are entering the workforce, marrying, forming households and buying their first home later in life.

Between 1981 and 2016 the average age at which Australians purchased a home climbed from 24 to 33.

As a consequence, the average age at which mortgages were paid out climbed from 52 to 62.

Now, one in every ten retired Australians enters retirement with a mortgage.

Wealth tied up in homes escapes the assets test

As wealth tied up in housing is exempt from the age pension assets test, it is for many people a preferred form of retirement saving.

At present, around 15% of age pensioners live in homes valued at more than A$1 million, although these figures partly reflect Sydney and Melbourne property prices which have escalated over recent years.

These retirees are often “asset rich and income poor”, having chosen to store their wealth in an asset that doesn’t pay income.

They do well out of the pension. One fifth of age pension expenditure goes to the wealthiest two fifths of retirees.

Non-homeowners live poorly

Non-homeowners, on the other hand, are among those most likely to experience poverty in retirement.

Commonwealth Rent Assistance helps with the rent of those reliant on the pension and other payments and is much more targeted than the pension, with 90% going to the poorest fifth of retirees.

But the indexation of rent assistance payments to the consumer price index instead of rents for more than three decades has eroded their value to the point where they now cover less than half the rental costs of the people who get them.

Boosting rent assistance would help, but it is only part of the solution.

Income poverty rates of retirees

Other parts of the solution include increasing the supply and affordability of housing, creating a market in longer-term rental contracts, and boosting access to public housing, outside the terms of the review.

Super supports home ownership

Super gets diverted into financing homeownership in three ways.

First, voluntary contributions can be redrawn by first homebuyers for the purpose of a home deposit, for a sum of up to $15,000 from any one year and up to up to a maximum of $30,000 plus earnings across all years.

For couples, this can provide up to $60,000 plus earnings to buy a house.

Second, retirees can make a downsizer contribution into their super fund of up to $300,000 per person from the proceeds of selling one home to buy another. Such contributions don’t count towards their super contributions caps.

The third way in which super is financing home ownership is the increasing tendency for people to use their super payouts on retirement to pay out their mortgages.

In addition there is what’s known as the “wealth effect”, a phenomenon seen in contributory pension systems around the world.

Research conducted for the review found that increasing compulsory super balances increase household wealth and provide a degree of confidence for households to increase debt to invest in property, knowing that superannuation savings can be accessed to extinguish debt in the future and that the residential home is not counted in the age pension assets test.

Read more: What matters is the home: review finds most retirees well off, some very badly off

Over a four-year period, it was found that a $1 contribution to compulsory super increased net household wealth by $2.51, through an increase in super wealth of $1.51 plus an increase in housing wealth of $1.21, offset by a 51 cent decline in non-super, non-housing savings.

In each of these ways super makes a contribution to homeownership. The review did not conclude there was a case for allowing further withdrawals from super to enable it to more.

Homes can contribute to retirement incomes

For typical homeowner at retirement, home equity represents about two to three times as much of their wealth as does super.

It ought to make accessing the equity in the home through a schemes such as the government’s Pension Loans Scheme attractive.

As an example, drawing down $5,000 each year against the equity in a $500,000 home would eat into only a quarter of its value by the time retiree reached 92.

Consumer protections around the pension loans scheme and other reverse mortgage products limit loan to value ratios, ensure that retirees have guaranteed occupancy and can’t run up negative equity in their homes.

It’s time to use them

These schemes are at last becoming more popular, perhaps in part to the growing proportion of lifetime income tied up in homes, a figure that has grown from about 6% in the mid 1990s to around 16% for homes bought today.

Homes are a critical part of the retirement system. They are not only a place to live, but are a substantial part of householder wealth and should be considered when planning retirement income. Especially for those older Australians who have not had the benefit of higher superannuation contributions over their working lives.

Read more: Retirement incomes review finds problems more super won’t solve

– ref. Home ownership and super are far more entwined than you might think – https://theconversation.com/home-ownership-and-super-are-far-more-entwined-than-you-might-think-151693

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

When New Zealand digital media giant Stuff stopped using Facebook as an advertising partner in July this year, it joined the ranks of other openly activist brands. But it also showed how brand activism is moving from speaking directly to consumers to companies policing their own supply chains.

The trial decision was in response to concerns over “fake news, hate speech and fraudulent advertising” on Facebook, which conflicted with Stuff’s charter under its new local ownership.

As such, it is part of a broad trend towards companies applying their own checks and balances on commercial ethics and activity. But this evolving role for business-to-business (B2B) brands is not without controversy or risk of financial blowback.

When does the act of removing products from stock, or boycotting a major supplier, move beyond marketing strategy to moral act? And when does it become censorship?

These questions relate directly to the tangible impacts of B2B activism: removing products from shelves, terminating licensing contracts, removing content from online platforms and firing clients and supply-chain partners who don’t align with a corporate brand’s avowed values and purpose.

Supply-chain activism is growing

Such activism may happen behind the retail face of a brand, but is nevertheless often about the perceptions of the end consumer.

For example, when Australian celebrity chef Pete Evans tweeted a neo-Nazi meme in November, publisher Pan Macmillan and licensed cookware makers Baccarat and House ended their partnerships with him. Baccarat said in a statement:

In our view, the images and views expressed by Mr Evans are abhorrent, unacceptable and deeply offensive.

Retailers across Australasia followed suit, pulling cookbooks and kitchenware lines from their shelves. There’s an important distinction here between retailers simply refusing to stock products because they are offensive or defective, and refusing to stock products because of something a supplier has said or done.

Read more: Athlete activism or corporate woke washing? Getting it right in the age of Black Lives Matter is a tough game

This has been likened to “cancel culture” by some supply-chain partners vetoed by activist brands, and is forcing businesses to ask where they draw the line on perceived moral and ethical issues.

Consumers demand transparency

This is new territory for manufacturing and client-facing corporate brands, which had been somewhat exempted from the first wave of authentic brand activism.

Because B2B companies are insulated from direct customer contact, managers or buyers tasked with justifying corporate decision-making have tended to put costs ahead of social or emotional considerations.

But the rapid acceleration of brands as arbiters of social causes has inevitably moved back up the supply chain. Shoppers are increasingly aware of, and driven by, transparency.

For example, consumer watchdog groups wary of greenwashing or deceptive claims about green product performance have led to the rise of green supply-chain monitoring.

Read more: Woke washing: what happens when marketing communications don’t match corporate practice

Not business as usual

But end-consumer expectations now extend to social causes. This means we are witnessing the rise of the “pro-social supply chain”, increasingly driven by social and political considerations rather than the bottom line.

Locally, apparel maker Icebreaker followed Stuff and stopped advertising on Facebook. And online retailer Mighty Ape pulled books by an author who mocked New Zealand’s new foreign minister’s moko kauae (facial tatoo).

Overseas, the Facebook boycott movement #StopHateForProfit organised by civil rights groups saw more than 1,000 companies join and cut their advertising spends.

Elsewhere, American hotel brand Motel 6 and others fired its longstanding advertising agency due to the founder’s reportedly racist comments. And law firms Jones Day and Porter Wright pulled back from representing outgoing president Donald Trump in post-election lawsuits.

No actions without consequences

B2B brand activism in the supply chain is not without consequences, however. Suppliers can lose contracts, revenue and livelihoods when they are “cancelled” by clients further down the supply chain.

Activist brands are also at financial risk themselves — as Stuff would have been by forgoing market share due to its Facebook decision. The ideal outcome is that positive brand awareness drives business to offset any losses.

But, as our work on brand activism shows, authenticity is paramount: B2B brands’ marketing and communication must align with purpose and genuine action. Once a corporate brand takes a stand, it must continue to advocate for sustainable ethical supply-chain practices — or risk being accused of “woke washing”.

The next challenge is clear: B2B brand activism must also involve actively infiltrating the supply chain to prioritise workplace safety, workers’ rights and sustainability to keep pace with consumer demand for social purpose.

– ref. Brand activism is moving up the supply chain — corporate accountability or commercial censorship? – https://theconversation.com/brand-activism-is-moving-up-the-supply-chain-corporate-accountability-or-commercial-censorship-151749

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giselle Bastin, Associate Professor of English, Flinders University

The recent outcry from royal biographers about the accuracy and fairness of series 4 of The Crown taps into narratives that have surrounded the field of royal life writing since it emerged in the early 20th century.

There has been much hand-wringing by (royal) trainspotters, biographers, journalists and even Britain’s Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden and the actor who plays Princess Margaret, Helena Bonham Carter, about the accuracy of the Netflix series written and produced by Peter Morgan.

Criticisms of series 4 have ranged from historical inaccuracy (the Queen being wrongly dressed for the Trooping the Colour; Princess Anne’s horsemanship) to a propensity to flesh out the narrative with half-truths and downright falsities. (For example, the suggestion that Charles and Camilla remained an item all the way through his marriage to Diana, and the idea that Prince Philip gave Diana a veiled threat about what could await her if she didn’t play by the script.)

One royal biographer, Hugo Vickers, has been so incensed by The Crown’s playing hard and fast with the facts he’s sprung to action and released his own book devoted to fact-checking it.

In addition to criticising the biopic’s misrepresentation of royal lives, the show’s detractors express concerns long aired about popular history — that an admiring and gullible viewing public will assume the program is factual and treat it as real history. The public, it is implied, need protection from fake news turning into fake history.

Critics of The Crown profess to have the royals’ best interests at heart because the royal family is not prone — at least it wasn’t before Harry and Meghan — to going to the courts or on the public record to defend itself. The Windsors, they imply, are being subject to unethical treatment and are also in need of protection.

Peter Morgan and Robert Lacey (a leading royal expert consulting on The Crown) have been open about the program’s blending of fact and fiction. Netflix has announced there is no need for it to carry a disclaimer about efficacy or accuracy. People will know it’s drama, they’ve said, so move on.

Read more: The Crown season 4 review: a triumphant portrait of the 1980s with a perfectly wide-eyed Diana

I would contend there is a lot more going on than first meets the eye with these debates about The Crown’s legitimacy and accuracy. What we are witnessing are discourses that surround notions of who has the legitimate right to talk about royal lives.

In this, the field of royal biography is unique. It is tied implicitly, and often explicitly, to the systems governing the royal houses, and derives meaning and stature from its relative proximity to the locus of royal power — the monarch and inner circle of royal members and their senior servants.

In the case of current criticisms of The Crown, the chorus of disapproving voices is sending coded messages to the royals (and their royal handlers) about their social and professional suitability to qualify for the holiest of holy grails: to be the official biographer of Queen Elizabeth II upon her death.

They may have missed out on the riches and splendours of co-writing and advising on The Crown, but they’ll scramble cheerfully to secure their place in the royal firmament.

Touching ‘sore places’

In the early 20th century, a culture of royal life writing developed that saw an intricate interplay between palace courtiers and the biographers who were screened, vetted, and given (or not given) access to the details of royal lives. Royal biographers commissioned to write the official or approved biographies of the monarch entered into a tacit agreement to abide by the codes of deference and discretion. In this sense, they came to resemble the royal courtier, with all the trappings, grace, favour, honours and financial reward this role bestowed.

Indeed, royal biographer John Wheeler-Bennett cautioned those who would enter the fold it was something “not to be entered into inadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly and in the fear of God”.

The culture of royal biography arguably began with royal courtier Lord Esher’s recruitment of Etonian school master A.C. Benson to help him edit Queen Victoria’s vast piles of correspondence.

Read more: Sydney’s 9,189 ‘sister politicians’ who petitioned Queen Victoria

Historian Yvonne M. Ward has charted how 1st Baron Stamfordham, Private Secretary to Queen Victoria and later to King George V, issued warnings to Esher and Benson that some of the queen’s letters were not to be made public.

They were of “no importance historically and would only supply matter for gossip and possibly ill-natured criticism”.

Esher brought in high-ranking friends to help edit Benson’s choices and to make especial note of “anything [that might] slip in which can give pain or offence”. One such friend assured Esher he “had kept a keen look-out […] for references or quotations that might touch sore places”.

As the century progressed, senior palace officials designed the template supposed to be followed to this day, setting the tone for how the royals should be represented on the public record. The rewards of access to the Royal Archives at Windsor, to the sacred spaces of the royal court, and the bestowment of status in the form of honours and titles awaited those who toed the line.

For those deemed to have broken the codes, social, professional and economic consequences quickly followed.

Sacred and not to be pried into

Royal biographer Jane Ridley, for instance, has shown the challenges met by Sir Sidney Lee (real name Solomon Lazarus Lee) after he was commissioned in the 1910s to be official biographer of Edward VII (Bertie).

According to Ridley, Lee wanted to exercise autonomy in his treatment of his royal subject; he also wanted to control the publication of the biography itself. Most of all, Lee did not comply with the gentlemanly codes of the royal court: “[t]he feeling against Lee was charged with anti-Semitism” and he was denigrated as a “Jew who is out for money”.

Despite his official biographer status, Lee was obstructed at every turn. Senior courtier Sir Arthur Davidson announced it would be impossible for Lee to “run riot amongst [the] chaos of the late King’s letters”. Sir John Fortescue, Keeper of the Archives, “did his best to be unhelpful […] ‘I have always treated [the royal papers] […] as sacred and not to be pried into’”.

Another eminent courtier, writes Ridley, obstructed Lee at every turn, responding to a request to see Bertie’s diaries by saying “there are no diaries and if there were the King said no one should see them!” The palace made Lee’s task impossible achieving the aim of “making him write a hagiography”.

Lee had misunderstood the tacit agreement that the biographer is supposed to act as an extension of the royal courtier, playing his part (and the use of the masculine “he” is relevant here) in protecting the privacy and reputation of the court.

This was nowhere more apparent than in denunciations of the royal life writer who preceded Peter Morgan for special criticism and ignominy: Andrew Morton, author of 1992’s Diana: Her True Story. Morton, a tabloid journalist who went to a comprehensive school, was not deemed to be of the right character or background to be the author of royal stories.

Read more: ‘Finding Freedom’: the new Harry and Meghan book is the latest, risky move in a royal PR war

The jilted ratpack

Before Diana’s commissioning of, and collusion with, Morton became known, he bore the brunt of fury from journalists, biographers and establishment figures.

They could not believe a royal biography would air so much “dirty laundry” — and, to them, false dirty laundry — in public. Figures such as Lord McGregor, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Sir Max Hastings, editor of The Daily Telegraph, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne , columnist for The Sunday Telegraph, and Sir Arthur Nicholas Winston Soames ), British Conservative Party politician, were astonished by Morton’s unsanctioned act of lèse-majesté.

Unaware Diana had shaped the content of Diana: Her True Story herself, the royal court granted tacit approval for its supporters to go out and champion their cause. Morton notes in his postscript to the 1993 edition of the book that there were many in royal circles who “were keen to shut [me] away in the Tower of London”.

After Diana’s collusion with Morton became known, she became the one accused of breaking the codes of royal discretion and secrecy. As Tina Brown wrote, “the rat pack felt jilted. Their pin-up girl had bestowed her favours elsewhere, handed the ingrate freelance Andrew Morton access his colleagues had been denied”.

Read more: Diana revived the monarchy – and airing old tapes won’t change a thing

By 2009, the royal court wrested back control of the royal narrative with the commissioning of William Shawcross’s official biography of Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. Shawcross managed, in over 943 pages, to tell the reader practically nothing whatsoever about the private character of his subject. His biography manages not only to avoid sore places, but to sketch a royal world where such places barely exist.

Honours and prestige

For those royal storytellers who abide by the rules, reward comes in the form of financial benefit along with awards and honours.

In the early-mid 20th century, it was normal for official biographers to receive the Knight of the Grand Cross. These were later downgraded somewhat slightly to lower honours (unsurprisingly, one was awarded to Shawcross).

Similarly, the withholding or downgrading of honours has been used by the palace to express disapproval in cases where biographical indiscretions have occurred.

Kenneth Rose, a biographer of King George V , long felt he had compromised his chances of receiving honours because he addressed the sensitive topic of George V’s role in turning down the Russian Tsar’s request to seek sanctuary in Britain during the first world war.

According to an anecdote told by Hugo Vickers, Rose was informed by the Queen Mother’s private secretary that his chances of an honour had “just floated down to 20 to one!” and that he would be awarded a mere Commander of the Order of the British Empire) instead.

Royal biography evolved to become, in every sense, a “gentleman’s sport”, with all the intonations of class, gender inscription, social connection, networking, and appropriate “amateur” status this phrase implies.

One simply cannot be seen to be in it just for the money, as we saw in the criticisms levelled at Lee and Morton. Yet, economic capital is contiguous to royal access, and vice versa.

Peter Morgan, despite ticking some of the boxes that qualify him to be a suitable “gentleman” biographer (he went to a couple of seriously posh English public schools, although neither were Eton, and went only to the University of Leeds), has overstepped the rules by making too much money out of the royals.

Pleasing the palace

The chorus of disapproving voices declaiming Morgan’s approach are angling for the biographers’ holy grail and seeking to protect and promote their own lucrative market share.

Morgan’s The Crown is big business. So was Morton’s book (and so, interestingly, was Martin Bashir’s 1995 BBC Panorama scoop interview with Diana, now the subject of an inquiry as to whether Bashir tricked Diana into granting it). The voices of detractors seem to grow louder in direct relation to the size of the financial rewards royal writers reap.

It is notable that when a swathe of not very well-known, low-budget and low financial yield television biopics about Charles and Diana (and Charles and Camilla, Andrew and Sarah, and Princess Margaret), such as The Royal Romance of Charles and Diana 1982 and Whatever Love Means, were released throughout the 1980s-2009, barely a murmur was heard about their accuracy or ethical imperatives.

Simply, they hadn’t made enough money nor been seen by large enough audiences in need of protection from false histories.

Similarly, debates about the first three series of The Crown were relatively muted compared to the attention series 4 is attracting. The reason may well be that the royal biographical community has started to realise a relative interloper has landed the biggest golden goose of all time.

Meanwhile, Morgan’s royal storytelling is offering some serious royalties in return, which allows him to cheerfully ignore the unofficial rule that biographical representations of the royals need to be acts of tactful omission and discretion rather than full-scale re-imaginings of life behind palace walls. He might even point out that earlier royal biographies were made up of just as much fiction and fantasy as The Crown.

– ref. Friday essay: the hidden agenda of royal experts circling The Crown series 4 – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-hidden-agenda-of-royal-experts-circling-the-crown-series-4-151293

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

A government-dominated parliamentary committee has recommended the voting system for federal elections should become optional preferential and pre-polling should be reduced from three to two weeks.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its report on the 2019 election also urges ID, such as a driver’s licence or Medicare card, be required for voters, with special arrangements for certain disadvantaged people.

In a set of radical proposals the report says a referendum should be considered to break the constitutional nexus between the numbers in the Senate and House of Representatives.

The government should consider asking the committee to inquire into the size of the lower house, given the growing size and demands of electorates, the report says.

It should also consider having the committee examine extending the parliamentary term to a non-fixed four years, with eight years for senators.

The report suggests looking at the viability of replacing by-elections with alternative methods of selecting the new MP, and declaring a seat “vacant when the sitting MP resigns from or leaves the party under which they were elected”.

In his forward to the report, Queensland Liberal National Party senator James McGrath says replacing compulsory preferential voting with optional preferential would maximise voter choice.

Prepolling time should be reduced to a maximum of two weeks and those “who choose to vote early should be required to explain why they are unable to attend on the day rather than it being a matter of convenience,” he writes.

Labor put in a dissenting report opposing a number of recommendations.

The shadow special minister of state, Don Farrell, accused the government of launching “an outrageous authoritarian-style assault on Australian democracy”.

Through its control of the committee, “the government is proposing drastic measures designed to silence its critics, suppress the vote and stop workers and grass-roots campaigners from participating in our democracy,” Farrell said in a statement.

He said moving to optional preferential voting would undermine the compulsory voting system, while voter ID laws would disenfranchise vulnerable citizens, including homeless people and many indigenous Australians.

Abolishing by-elections and allowing the retiring member’s party to choose their replacement would erode democratic rights, Farrell said.

– ref. Parliamentary electoral committee floats bigger parliament, longer terms and no byelections – https://theconversation.com/parliamentary-electoral-committee-floats-bigger-parliament-longer-terms-and-no-byelections-151863

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

You didn’t need Nostradamus to predict the Labor and union blasts when the government released its industrial relations reforms this week.

But who – except the few in the know – would have foreseen the government-union-Labor unity ticket to land a massive “hit” on very bad boy John Setka?

The legislative rush to pass the bill allowing parts of unions – by which we mean divisions of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining And Energy Union – to leave the mother ship was remarkable. There was tripartite agreement on getting this done instantly.

Setka, Victorian boss of the union’s construction division, has over the years been a bane for the Labor Party, the ACTU and others in his own union. He’s been an industrial rogue and the union has caused endless trouble; as well, his private life was in the public domain, with a conviction for harassing his wife.

After a battle, Anthony Albanese finally forced Setka to resign from the Labor Party last year. ACTU secretary Sally McManus was not as successful when she tried to get him to step down from his union position. No way, Setka said, and his loyal union mates backed him 100 percent.

The Setka forces in the construction division were making life hell for the union’s president, Tony Maher, who heads the mining division, and national secretary Michael O’Connor, chief of the manufacturing division. Eventually, both resigned their national posts.

Then came the fightback. Maher hatched a plot with an unlikely new friend, Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter, for the demerger legislation.

The workplace implications of COVID had brought Porter and Maher together, as it did Porter and McManus.

Porter was delighted to dance – the government had been after the construction union for years, but had been thwarted.

To get the deed done this week (and without a Senate inquiry into the bill), Albanese’s support was needed, and given. When caucus discussed the legislation on Tuesday, there were a couple of questions, but no one opposed. It’s worth remembering that Michael O’Connor is the brother of Labor frontbencher Brendan O’Connor, so there’s a lot of knowledge within Labor about the CFMMEU’s “internals”.

On Wednesday, Porter introduced the bill at 9.34am; it passed the House of Representatives at 10.16am. At 4.38pm it went into the Senate; it was done by 5.15pm.

Read more: Government set for quick passage of bill to facilitate CFMMEU breakup, with Labor support

Next year Maher’s mining division will be heading out of the CFMMEU; the manufacturing division may follow. Setka will still be around and is unlikely to change his ways. The union will be weakened, but its escapees will be able to get on with more ordinary industrial lives.

The “fix” to deal with the CFMMEU had been extremely quick (at least at the end) and supremely united. In contrast, bedding down the government’s industrial relations changes will be an extended and argumentative process.

The government’s omnibus bill covers wide ground, including: treatment of casuals and the transition to permanent employment; changes to enterprise bargaining; part-time flexible working conditions; stronger penalties for wage theft and underpayment; and new arrangements for greenfield sites.

The initial big flashpoint is the plan to streamline and loosen the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT). The BOOT considers whether workers would be better off if a proposed agreement applied rather than the relevant award.

The existing legislation allows the BOOT to be put aside if there are “exceptional circumstances” (that’s been there since 2009 and seldom used, and then overwhelmingly in relation to non-wage conditions).

The change effectively makes COVID an “exceptional circumstance” for two years before the clause “sunsets”. The safeguards are that the Fair Work Commission would have to consider the extent of support for a proposed agreement from workers and employers, as well as the public interest.

The unions and Labor say COVID has affected businesses so broadly that this would be a pathway to general wage-cutting. Porter argues it would be used only on a “small handful” of occasions. He declares it is “absolutely absurd” to think a business could apply when it was doing well.

Importantly, Porter has flagged he’s open to compromise on the BOOT and other measures in the bill.

The government insists its ambitions on industrial relations are modest. Asked on 6PR what the reforms were trying to achieve, Porter said: “this isn’t about changing the fundamentals of the system; it’s about fixing problems”.

The omnibus bill won’t be voted on until February-March. Although the government is anxious to deliver some reform, it does not want an acrimonious debate to drag on deep into 2021. Scott Morrison likes to play politics on his ground and his terms, and industrial relations is very rocky terrain for the Coalition. It’s always good for a Labor scare campaign, with WorkChoices still within sharp political memory and the union movement with backup resources.

While the government is willing to compromise to minimise Labor’s scope to make IR a major election issue, Albanese is desperate to stoke the conflict. For the opposition leader, the omnibus bill is manna.

Albanese is ending the year in a bad place. His problems go beyond COVID putting a restraint on the opposition. There is substantial questioning of his leadership among his colleagues, and it has grown recently. He can’t any longer be sure he’ll lead the party to the election and this uncertainty feeds back into his performance.

The other issue Labor will be looking to early next year is the future of the superannuation guarantee.

It’s obvious the government would like to overturn the legislated rise, set for July, from 9.5% to 10% (and progressively to 12%). There is a strong lobby, including in the Liberal Party, trying to stop the increases.

But politically this would be tricky, and that’s apart from the need to get Senate support. The argument that without the rise wages would be higher is disputed by critics.

If the government devised a trade-off – for example, letting people use some of their super for a first home – that might be an attractive middle course.

In political terms, Labor will be hoping the government simply attempts to stop further increases because, like the industrial relations debate, this would be a useful campaign issue.

Both sides know many of the legacies of COVID will last a very long time. But if we remain relatively virus-free, politics in 2021 should become more normal than in 2020. And that will affect strategies on both sides.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Who would have thought John Setka could be such a unifying force? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-who-would-have-thought-john-setka-could-be-such-a-unifying-force-151852

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Klein, Senior Lecturer, Australian National University

The government’s Cashless Debit Card almost fell apart last night.

Senator Rex Patrick’s refusal to support the government’s plans to make the scheme permanent gave some hope that this expensive, ideological and cruel policy would end.

Yet in the final Senate vote, it was revealed that Centre Alliance had done a deal with the government to extend the current four trial sites by another two years and to give people in the Northern Territory the option to move from the green BasicsCard to the silver Cashless Debit Card (known searingly in East Kimberley as the “white” card).

The deal, which Centre Alliance’s Stirling Griff abstained from voting in order to give the government the numbers, will enable people in the Territory to replace one form of compulsory income management with another.

On one hand, the government failed to make the cashless debit card permanent.

On the other, it can continue to subject people to the card and use the Northern Territory as cover to continue to spend public money setting up the infrastructure it would need for a national roll out.

Only 10 per cent of the 132 submissions to the latest Senate inquiry backed the extension.

People opposing the Cashless Debit Card have research on their side. Peer-reviewed research shows that by limiting access to cash and restricting what people can use money for, compulsory income management can cause problems from hardship, stigma to the reduction of birth weight in babies.

Two more years of income quarantining

The trials underway in the East Kimberley and Goldfields regions of Western Australia, the Ceduna region of South Australia and the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region in Queensland direct 80% of each welfare payment to a card, leaving only 20% to be accessed as cash.

The green Territory BasicsCard was introduced in 2007 as part of the Howard government’s 2007 Northern Territory Emergency Response, made possible by the temporary suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act.

The silver cashless debit card came about as a key recommendation in mining billionaire Andrew Forrest’s 2014 National Indigenous Jobs and Training Review.

Both compulsory income management programs disproportionately target First Nations people.

The government avoids acknowledging this by saying they are targeting places rather than people, but that doesn’t change the fact that in the East Kimberley for example, 82% of the people in trial are First Nations people.

Read more: ‘I don’t want anybody to see me using it’: cashless welfare cards do more harm than good

Real community support?

Throughout the debate in the Senate last night, politicians campaigning for the card referred to “community support” as a reason for the Card needing to continue. Various Senators said that the “community was consulted” and that the “community had asked for the card”.

The truth is that rather than being a local initiative, both cards were developed by and lobbied for by the Australian political and business elite.

The Northern Territory Emergency Response was a heavy handed approach that involved the use of the military.

The Cashless Debit Card involved power of another sort, using sweeteners of much needed funding for government starved community services. One community was even told it might [miss out on funds] if it didn’t support the card (https://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/Working_Paper_121_2017.pdf).

Decisions, then consultation

The limited consultation that followed has been more like select information sessions aimed at selling the card, flying in the face of what ought to be an indigenous right to free, prior and informed consent.

Real community participation, let alone self-determination, might have led to the experiment being aborted.

The government picked people to speak on behalf of the communities affected and claimed their views were representative. The views of people who opposed the card or had been forced to endure it were given less prominence.

Read more: Why is the government trying to make the cashless debit card permanent? Research shows it does not work

It seemed disturbingly out of the settler colonial playbook – divide and conquer.

More than A$1 billion has been spent on compulsory income management to date without credible evidence to show that it works. And yet the government is persisting.

This rubbishing of the public policy process needs to stop and the political and business elite need to get out of the way to allow genuine self-determined community development to flourish.

– ref. Who’s really behaving badly? Confronting Australia’s cashless welfare card – https://theconversation.com/whos-really-behaving-badly-confronting-australias-cashless-welfare-card-151847

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

Tara June Winch’s The Yield has won the fiction category of the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards. I wrote an enthusiastic review of this novel earlier in 2020, and my admiration has not abated in the months since it won the Miles Franklin award. If anything, the heart of the story — one of reclaiming language, culture, identity, and a possible future — seems only more potent now.

There is nothing new about the knowledge that whose stories are told, and how they are told, matters enormously. Or understanding that a significant part of what becomes the shared “truth” of a time and culture is the product of the stories told and told again until they are embedded in a reader’s sense of the world.

Nor is it new to recognise that language shapes our thinking; particular languages see the world in particular ways; and understanding the many ways in which the world is seen and told can only enrich the human community. But for so long, Indigenous languages have been smothered and Indigenous stories ignored.

It is not possible to keep ignoring writers of the quality of Tara June Winch. The Yield is, I am confident, a novel that is going to be read and reread over the coming years and decades.

There are three main stories braided together in the novel. The first is that of Poppy Albert, who has built a dictionary of his language, salted with personal stories that imbue words with sensibility. The second story belongs to his granddaughter August, returned home for his funeral, and in time to join a protest against the mining company that is about to desecrate the region. The third story is presented in the form of notes, reports and letters written in the 19th century by the Reverend Ferdinand Greenleaf, who claims the position of defender of “the decent Natives whom I have lived amongst”.

Together these three stories of past, recent past, and a present becoming future, offer a powerful account of settler violence and its continuing impacts, whether the direct assault of forces of power, or the exhausting paternalism enacted by do-gooders like Greenleaf.

For me, it is impossible to read this story, particularly the sections told by Poppy Albert, without shivering in empathy, hearing and feeling the passion, the ethics, and resilience.

Books like this will be profoundly important building blocks for a more equitable and ethical Australia.

The power of language to shape understandings of the world is a theme of other winners this year: the Gay’wu Group of Women’s Songspirals: Sharing Women’s Wisdom of Country through Songlines shared the non-fiction award with Christina Thompson, author of Sea People: The Puzzle of Polynesia.

And the Darug duo of Jasmine Seymour and Leanne Mulgo Watson won the children’s category for Cooee Mittigar: A Story on Darug Songlines, described by its publisher as “introducing children and adults alike to Darug Nura (Country) and language”.

‘Old fashioned, elitist, white’

In an interview early this year, Omar Sakr, winner of the Prime Minister’s Award for poetry, said of poetry, “I always had a skewed perception of it as being old-fashioned, elitist, white, and concerning subjects that had nothing to do with me”. He’s not alone in that perception.

Academic Natalie Kon-yu has written eloquently about the lack of diversity in Australian literature and similar issues emerge across the Anglophone world. Add in the apparent elitism of poetry, and it can quickly appear to be a domain inaccessible to anyone whose identity is categorised as “diverse”.

Read more: Diversity, the Stella Count and the whiteness of Australian publishing

Fortunately, the walls of privilege are capable of being scaled, and Sakr has shown commendable facility here. His first collection, These Wild Houses, was shortlisted for the Kenneth Slessor Prize in 2018. I read it hungrily, relishing the depictions of migrant life, of family interactions, of place and politics.

What was evident in that volume is only richer and stronger in the new, prize-winning collection, The Lost Arabs. As The Guardian noted, Sakr is “the first Arab Australian Muslim poet to be shortlisted — and then to win”.

And what a worthy win. The poems in this collection shimmer with energy, the imagery confronts and captivates, and Sakr’s lovely style blends control with compassion, moving fluidly between expressions of rage and of delight.

His writing is lyrical and closely observant; his poems shape words and lines in ways that make meanings tremble across the body, much as the mother in one poem, Sailor’s knot, feels the angels “dancing on my skin”.

At the end of an exhausting year, these two prize-winning books speak volumes about how we face trying times; how we might recognise the beauty in brokenness; how we can throw fragile lines across the cultural and linguistic and all the other divides to connect as humans, in all our flawed histories. And maybe — who knows? — find ways to repair the wounds of the past.

– ref. Prime Minister’s Literary Awards: The Yield and The Lost Arabs throw fragile lines across cultural and linguistic divides – https://theconversation.com/prime-ministers-literary-awards-the-yield-and-the-lost-arabs-throw-fragile-lines-across-cultural-and-linguistic-divides-151848

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Walker, Adjunct Fellow, Macquarie University

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer the stuff of science fiction. In the form of machine learning tools and decision-making algorithms, it’s all around us. AI determines what news you get served up on the internet. It plays a key role in online matchmaking, which is now the way most romantic couples get together. It will tell you how to get to your next meeting, and what time to leave home so you’re not late.

AI often appears both omniscient and neutral, but on closer inspection we find AI learns from and adopts human biases. As a result, algorithms replicate familiar forms of discrimination but hide them in a “black box” that makes seemingly objective decisions.

Read more: Algorithms workers can’t see are increasingly pulling the management strings

For many workers, such as delivery drivers, AI has replaced human managers. Algorithms tell them what to do, evaluate their performance and decide whether to fire them.

But as the use of AI grows and its drawbacks become more clear, workers in the very companies that make the tools of algorithmic management are beginning to push back.

Trouble at Google

One of the most familiar forms of AI is the Google algorithm, and the order in which it presents search results. Google has an 88% market share of internet searches, and the Google homepage is the most visited page on the entire internet. How it determines its search results is hugely influential but completely opaque to users.

Earlier this month, one of Google’s lead researchers on AI ethics and bias, Timnit Gebru, abruptly left the company. Gebru says she was fired after an internal email sent to colleagues about racial discrimination and toxic work conditions at Google, while senior management maintains Gebru resigned over the publication of a research paper.

Gebru’s departure came after she put her name to a paper flagging the risk of bias in large language models (the kind used by Google). The paper argued such language models could hurt marginalised communities.

Gebru has previously shown that facial recognition technology was highly inaccurate for Black people.

Google’s response rapidly stirred unrest among Google’s workforce, with many of Gebru’s colleagues supporting her account of events.

Further annoying Gebru’s coworkers and academic sympathisers was the perceived attempt to muzzle unwelcome research findings, compromising the perception of any research published by in-house researchers.

When algorithms make decisions

Here are a few examples of how algorithms can recycle and reinforce existing prejudices:

• Automated resume-scanning systems have been found to discriminate against African-American names, graduates of women’s colleges, and even the word “women” in a job application.

• Credit-scoring AI that can cut people off from public benefits such as health care, unemployment and child support has been found to penalise low-income individuals.

• Misplaced trust in algorithms lay at the heart of Australia’s Robodebt debacle in which the assumption of a regular week-to-week wage packet was baked into the system.

Read more: From robodebt to racism: what can go wrong when governments let algorithms make the decisions

Human systems have checks and balances and higher authorities that can be appealed to when there is an apparent error. Algorithmic decisions often do not.

In our research forthcoming in the journal Organization my colleagues and I found that this lack of a right of appeal, or even a pathway to appeal, reinforces forms of power and control in workplaces.

Now what?

So AI, an influential tool of the world’s largest corporations, appears to systematically disadvantage minorities and economically marginalised people. What can be done?

The protest initiated and led by Google’s own employees may yet bring about change inside the company. Internal discontent at the online giant did get results two years ago, when protest over the kid-glove treatment of executives facing complaints of sexual misconduct led to a change in the company’s policy.

Read more: The Google walkout is a watershed moment in 21st century labour activism

Outsiders are also beginning to take more of an interest. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has boosted privacy standards since 2018, taught regulators around the world that the black box of algorithmic decision-making can indeed be prised open.

The G7 group of leading economies recently set up a Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence to drive discussion around regulatory solutions to these problems, but it is still in its infancy.

As an industrial relations issue, the use of AI in hiring and management needs to be brought into the scope of collective bargaining agreements. Current workplace grievance procedures may allow human decisions to be appealed to a higher authority, but will be inadequate when the decisions are not made by humans – and people in authority may not even know how the AI arrived at its conclusions.

Until internal protests or outside intervention start to impact on the way AI is designed, we will continue to rely on self-regulation. Given the events of the past week, this may not inspire a great deal of confidence.

– ref. Upheaval at Google signals pushback against biased algorithms and unaccountable AI – https://theconversation.com/upheaval-at-google-signals-pushback-against-biased-algorithms-and-unaccountable-ai-151768

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirsty Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, RMIT University

The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine this week became the first major COVID vaccine candidate to have efficacy results from phase 3 trials published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The vaccine, AZD1222, is a viral vector vaccine. Researchers took an adenovirus from chimpanzees and modified it with the aim of training the immune system to mount a strong response against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19).

The Lancet paper confirms interim analysis AstraZeneca released last month showing the vaccine is safe and has an overall efficacy of 70% in protecting against symptomatic COVID-19.

Let’s take a look at these latest results — and why they’re important.

Safety first

The published article consolidated safety data across four human trials with 23,848 volunteers from Brazil, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

Only three people experienced serious adverse events (which were possibly related to the vaccine, but we don’t know for sure) over more than three months of follow-up. Each of these cases is recovering or has recovered.

While safety monitoring will be ongoing, this analysis gives us confidence the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is safe.

Read more: Oxford COVID-19 vaccine: newly published results show it is safe – but questions remain over its efficacy

Efficacy

The authors also analysed efficacy data for two of the above trials with a total of 11,636 participants. The follow-up period of the remaining two trials hasn’t yet been long enough to get a good sense of the vaccine’s efficacy — but this data will be coming.

Among the participants, there were 131 cases of symptomatic COVID-19. This included 30/5,807 (0.5%) in the vaccine group, and 101/5,829 (1.7%) in the control group. Based on the formulae researchers use to calculate how well vaccines work in clinical trials, this equates to an efficacy of 70%.

Of ten COVID-related hospital admissions, none were among the AZD1222 vaccine recipients — they were all people who received the placebo.

Although these numbers are small and will need confirmation with further data, this indicates the vaccine has strong potential to prevent severe COVID-19 disease.

The dosing debacle

While 70% is the overall efficacy figure, we learnt in AstraZeneca’s interim analysis that there were actually two separate dosing regimens. Variation in dose measurement methods — widely reported to have been an error — meant some participants received half of the expected dose for their first of the two shots.

The latest analysis confirmed that for people who received the low dose initially, followed by the standard dose, the vaccine displayed 90% efficacy, compared to 62.1% in participants who received the full dose at both time points.

While this error appears to have had a positive outcome, it’s concerning that we don’t really understand why the regimen with the half dose worked better.

The full, higher first dose may have induced more antibodies that recognise the vaccine’s chimpanzee adenovirus components than the half first dose did, and it’s possible these “anti-vaccine vehicle” antibodies could have interfered with the efficacy of the booster dose. This is a recognised concern when using adenoviruses as vaccine components.

Alternatively, the Lancet authors speculate the low dose may have induced a different type of immune response that we are yet to know about. If this were the case, it could raise questions for other vaccine developers too about the way the immune system behaves.

Read more: How to read results from COVID vaccine trials like a pro

A unique candidate

It’s exciting the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine could potentially work comparably well to the other front-runners from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, because this vaccine is one of the most practical vaccines to produce, store and distribute.

It only needs to be stored at 2-8°C — so in a normal fridge — compared to the mRNA-based vaccines, which need to be stored around -70°C.

It’s also the cheapest so far, at about US$4 a dose (roughly A$5), making it highly attractive for global deployment. Oxford/AstraZeneca has an agreement with the COVAX facility which will enable equitable access for countries who may not be able to afford the more expensive mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

Australia has signed a deal to receive 3.8 million doses of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine should it be approved for use. Meanwhile, biotechnology company CSL has been upscaling its manufacturing capacity for this vaccine, which will enable it to produce a further 30 million doses in Australia next year.

If a lower initial dose is recommended, this would also mean the available supply could be distributed to more people.

Some questions remain

One factor we still need to consider is the efficacy in older people (70 and above), as this age group is most susceptible to severe disease.

The current published efficacy results are mostly based on 18 to 55-year-olds. Although these trials do have older participants, they were recruited later, so collection of efficacy data for this group is ongoing.

A recent paper which looked at immune responses to the vaccine showed similar levels of antibodies across age groups (18-55, 56-69, and >70), which is encouraging. So it will be interesting to see efficacy results in older people as they become available.

Read more: Why the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is now a global gamechanger

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal means the data has been evaluated by expert independent reviewers whose job is to find any holes or problems. With this, the Oxford/AstraZeneca data now becomes more credible to the scientific community.

The data will likely encourage developers to move rapidly to request regulatory approvals for this vaccine, while awaiting further analysis on efficacy — and, importantly, how dosage affects this vaccine’s efficacy.

– ref. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is the first to publish peer-reviewed efficacy results. Here’s what they tell us — and what they don’t – https://theconversation.com/the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-is-the-first-to-publish-peer-reviewed-efficacy-results-heres-what-they-tell-us-and-what-they-dont-151755

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt McDonald, Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

Today, the Morrison government released updated projections of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, which indicate Australia is on track to meet 2030 Paris targets without using “carryover” credits earned from the Kyoto Protocol period.

Australia’s plan to use Kyoto carryover credits to meet Paris targets have long been contentious. The government claims that because emissions fell by more than Australia had committed to under the Kyoto Protocol, they should be allowed to carry these “credits” forward to the Paris agreement. Yet legal experts and other governments have suggested there’s no basis for applying these to the Paris agreement, which is a separate agreement.

The new modelling is good news for the Morrison government, which has been under increasing domestic and international pressure over its climate policy. And Prime Minister Scott Morrison is likely to announce this development proudly at the virtual Pacific Islands Forum on Friday night.

So are the latest projections enough to salvage Australia’s reputation on this issue? That appears unlikely.

Dumping credits

Under the Paris Agreement, Australia committed to reducing emissions by 26-28% of 2005 levels by 2030. This target has been widely criticised for years for being too meagre, but previous modelling had suggested even meeting this target was unlikely unless carryover credits were used.

Read more: Emissions projections indicate Australia won’t need carryover credits to meet Paris targets

The latest modelling suggests if the recently-announced technology roadmap — a policy which will support new and emerging clean energy technologies — is taken into account, then Australia would beat its 2030 target by 145 million tonnes. In other words, by 2030 Australia could be 29% under 2005 levels, without using carryover credits.

Morrison had flagged he would announce that Australia will dump the Kyoto credits at a global leaders’ climate summit at the weekend. However, it’s unlikely he’ll be given a speaking slot by the hosts, a reflection of his failure to make meaningful climate commitments. This is why he’ll probably make the announcement to Pacific leaders tomorrow night instead.

But even if Morrison announces he’ll scrap the controversial carryovers tomorrow, our international counterparts will still regard Australia as a climate change laggard. There are three big reasons why.

1. Our Paris target is still unambitious

A reduction of 26-28% by 2030 from 2005 levels is well below the commitments of other countries under the Paris Agreement. And under the Paris Agreement, states were encouraged to ratchet up their commitments to emissions over time.

Yet unlike other countries, Australia has not made any indication of a plan to outline a more ambitious contribution ahead of the CoP26 meeting in Glasgow next year.

Read more: Biden says the US will rejoin the Paris climate agreement in 77 days. Then Australia will really feel the heat

It’s also worth recalling Australia’s 2005 baseline is a comparatively easy starting point. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Australia was one of only two developed countries allowed to increase its greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2008-12.

This means most other developed countries had already reduced emissions in sectors where it was easiest for them to do so — the “low hanging fruit”. This makes further commitments under Paris more challenging for those countries than Australia.

2. Improved projections are no thanks to federal policy

If we don’t have to use Kyoto carry-over credits to meet Paris targets, it may be despite — rather than because — of federal government policy.

Simply put, much of the decline in (projected) emissions can be attributed to the actions of state governments, which have more actively supported the renewable energy sector.

By contrast (and despite claims to the contrary) the government continues to commit billions of dollars to subsidising the fossil fuel industry. Yet there are clear indications of a declining future market for coal in particular.

Read more: Matt Canavan says Australia doesn’t subsidise the fossil fuel industry, an expert says it does

While the technology investment roadmap, a federal policy, may serve to further drive down emissions, this is still far from clear.

3. There’s still no commitment to a net zero emissions timetable

The European Union has had a long-standing commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. More recently it has been joined by other major emitters in Japan and South Korea, while emissions giant China has committed to net zero emissions by 2060.

US President-elect Joe Biden has also committed the US to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and to return the US to the Paris agreement.

And yet, the Morrison government continues to baulk at setting a net zero emissions timetable, preferring to describe this as a general ambition rather than endorse a specific target or date.

Read more: China just stunned the world with its step-up on climate action – and the implications for Australia may be huge

The response from the Pacific will be telling

Australia consistently ranks among the worst performers internationally on the Climate Change Performance Index, and there are indications already that other states will actively pressure Australia on climate ambition and action in the lead up to the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26).

Combined with steadily growing domestic pressure to act on climate change and weakening financial prospects for Australia’s coal exports, international pressure may contribute to a perfect storm for the Morrison government on climate policy.

The response Morrison receives at the virtual Pacific Islands Forum to this position will be telling.

Read more: Pacific Island nations will no longer stand for Australia’s inaction on climate change

The region has long been deeply critical of Australia’s climate policy, and is at the frontlines of climate change impacts such as sea level rises, natural disasters and ocean acidification.

While Morrison may avoid the same diplomatic fallout from the 2019 Pacific Islands Forum on this issue, he’s unlikely to find an audience wholly convinced Australia now recognises the scale of the threat climate change poses.

– ref. 3 reasons meeting climate targets and dumping Kyoto credits won’t salvage Australia’s international reputation – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-meeting-climate-targets-and-dumping-kyoto-credits-wont-salvage-australias-international-reputation-151836

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marilyn Campbell, Professor Faculty of Education, School of Cultural and Professional Learning, Queensland University of Technology

Last week, South Australia announced a mobile phone ban in primary schools. Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan endorsed the ban, saying:

Data shows a correlation between the uptake of mobile phones by young people and a downturn in student performance.

The federal government put “mobile phones on the agenda” in a September 2019 meeting with the Education Council. The minister then quoted research from Canadian Assistant Professor Louis-Philippe Beland, that he said:

[…] found the positive effect of banning mobile phones was equivalent to an additional hour a week in school, or increasing the school year by five days.

He went on to say the research:

[…] also found the positive effect was even greater for low-achieving students, with a mobile phone ban the equivalent of an additional two hours a week, or ten school days a year.

The study the minister is referring to was published in 2016 about schools in the United Kingdom. The authors — Beland and Murphy — actually showed only a very minor correlation between students’ exam scores and their schools’ mobile phone policies.

The claim students’ use of mobile phones at school is connected with lower academic performance has consistently featured in the popular debate around school mobile phone bans. It has been used to justify blanket bans, both in Australia — such as the one in NSW public primary schools and all Victorian state primary and secondary schools — and overseas.

Despite the claims, we actually don’t have sufficient data to back the policy.

What the science actually says

The best kind of policy is grounded in evidence. But not all evidence is created equal and, when cited out of context, can obscure rather than illuminate the path forward.

Unfortunately, the ways evidence has been mobilised in the school mobile phone ban debate in Australia has turned children’s digital practices — and potentially their digital futures — into a political football.

Read more: Should mobile phones be banned in schools? We asked five experts

Beland and Murphy’s study surveyed 91 high schools in four English cities about their mobile phone policies. It then matched those schools’ mobile phone policies with students’ standardised test scores to estimate the effect of mobile phone bans on student performance.

The study reported that, when schools instituted a ban, student test scores improved by 6.41% of a standard deviation — which is an effect size of 0.06.

Let’s unpack what this means.

A small ‘effect size’

First, the “data” did not show that students’ “uptake” of mobile phones related to a “downturn” in their performance. Rather, it showed restrictive school mobile phone policies related to an upturn in student performance. These are different things.

Second, the study did not find a strong correlation between schools’ restrictive mobile phone policies and student performance. An improvement in student performance of 6.41% of a standard deviation is actually an effect size of 0.06 — though it has been reported as a 6% improvement.

Effect sizes of 0.24 are considered small, 0.50 is moderate and 0.75 is large. So, an effect size of 0.06 is insignificant.

Students in the lowest quintile (fifth) of prior achievement gained slightly more in test scores when mobile phone bans were in place: 0.14% of a standard deviation, which is still very small. School bans neither positively nor negatively affected the test performance of students in the top quintile.

As for bans granting the equivalent of ten days of extra class time for low-achieving students quoted by the minister, this number doesn’t seem to be in the study.

In a Conversation article by Murphy and Beland about their study, they write:

We found the impact of banning phones for these [low-achieving] students equivalent to an additional hour a week in school, or to increasing the school year by five days.

But even in this case, the data was collected from 2001 to 2011 in the United Kingdom. So the specific number of days of extra class time don’t directly apply to the Australian context.

Read more: How smart is it to allow students to use mobile phones at school?

Correlation is not causation

Third, although media coverage correctly reported the study found a correlation, many people mistake correlation for causation. Cheese consumption strongly correlates to death by bedsheet entanglement, but we wouldn’t say cheese causes such deaths.

If we noted a strong correlation between increased ice-cream sales and sunglass purchasing, we might infer, not that wearing sunglasses causes one to eat ice-cream, but that a third variable influences both outcomes — namely hot, sunny weather.

In the same way, the correlation between mobile phone bans and student performance could be caused by other variables simultaneously impacting the school environment and student performance.

Beland and Murphy acknowledge this limitation when they write: “We may be concerned that student sorting by observable or unobservable characteristics may be driving this estimate”.

Read more: Banning mobile phones in schools: beneficial or risky? Here’s what the evidence says

The results haven’t been replicated

Lastly, good science means repeating studies and finding similar results. Two other studies replicated Beland and Murphy’s research design.

A Norwegian study found no significant effect of mobile phone bans on academic results. However, when they divided the sample into public and private schools, they did find private schools experienced a somewhat positive effect of a mobile phone ban on academic performance.

This points to the fact school culture could make a difference to whether or not bans improve student performance. Or, put differently, blanket bans may not serve the best interests of all schools and their students.

And a study in Sweden found school mobile phone bans had zero impact on student performance. The authors said:

In Sweden, we find no impact of mobile phone bans on student performance and can reject even small-sized gains.

The main problem, though, is not the limitations of Beland and Murphy’s specific study. The real issue is the dearth of evidence to drive decision making about students’ use of mobile phones at school.

Until this vacuum is addressed, we cannot know for certain mobile phone bans in schools are a good idea. And it remains possible current policies are compromising students’ best interests, both now and into the future.

Read more: How creative use of technology may have helped save schooling during the pandemic

– ref. No, Education Minister, we don’t have enough evidence to support banning mobile phones in schools – https://theconversation.com/no-education-minister-we-dont-have-enough-evidence-to-support-banning-mobile-phones-in-schools-151574

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Carroll, Senior research officer, Australian Institute of Family Studies

COVID-19 has brought about big changes in Australia and across the world, with much attention focused on the way governments are responding to the health and economic challenges of the pandemic.

Interactions with family and friends have been the focus of many of the public health restrictions and have been identified as a source of spreading infection. Less attention has been paid to the role families and social networks have played in supporting each other through a difficult year.

Findings from the first wave of the Families in Australia Survey have highlighted that Australians still turn to family for support in times of crisis.

The survey of 7,306 respondents, by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, ran from May 1 to June 9 2020, when most Australians were subject to multiple restrictions due to COVID. These forced them to spend more time with some family members, while separating them from others. The survey aimed to provide a better understanding of how Australian families adjusted during the pandemic.

Read more: Lonely in lockdown? You’re not alone. 1 in 2 Australians feel more lonely since coronavirus

New ways to connect

While limitations were placed on how families could meet in person, most people talked to family living elsewhere at least as often as before. A good proportion (44%) talked to them more than before. We heard stories of people connecting through new technologies, such as using video calls to share meals, or through more traditional means of sending care packages through the post.

In addition to social connections, family members living elsewhere were the primary source of help for those who needed extra assistance. This help included practical assistance with groceries, errands and other care-giving, as well as financial and emotional support.

Experiences of connection to family living elsewhere were mixed, with similar numbers reporting feeling more and less connected. For many, sharing lockdown led to an increased level of connection with those in their immediate household.

Changes to family life

This increase in connection is likely driven, at least in part, by spending more time together. When asked about time spent with children, many parents reported an increase in quality time, playing games, reading to their children and having meaningful conversations.

However, it wasn’t all quality time. Many families had to negotiate shared work spaces and juggling childcare while working from home.

Financial support from families

The financial impacts of the pandemic have hit some families hard. One in six survey respondents said their family income had reduced a little. Almost a quarter said it had been reduced a lot.

For many families, this resulted in cutting back on non-essential expenses such as take-away meals. While some dipped into savings to make up the shortfall, others reported cutting down on essential expenses like groceries or pausing rent and mortgage payments. More people asked for financial support from family and friends than from welfare or community organisations.

Among those who had not experienced a drop in income, many reported saving money, as they spent less on things like childcare and petrol. While some said they made changes to their savings and investments, financial actions taken as a result of COVID-19 were commonly aimed at helping family members who had a drop in income, and supporting their community by spending more at local businesses.

When asked about their level of concern about their family’s current financial situation, three out of five respondents said they were at least “a little concerned”. Those whose income had reduced as a result of COVID-19 expressed higher levels of concern. Over 70% of respondents said they were at least a little concerned about their family’s future financial situation.

Comments by respondents show their concern was not just for themselves and their partners. They included the financial situation of adult children living at home and family members living elsewhere. While some felt lucky not to have been affected financially by the pandemic, others worried about those who lost their jobs or income, businesses or investments.

Read more: We asked over 2,000 Australian parents how they fared in lockdown. Here’s what they said

Towards COVID normal

With Australia now negotiating “COVID normal”, we need to know more about what types of supports families need, and how to support those who may not have a family they can rely on.

The second wave of the Families in Australia Survey aims to do just that.

If you would like to share your experiences, please go to towardscovidnormal.com.au

– ref. The good, the bad and the lonely: how coronavirus changed Australian family life – https://theconversation.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-lonely-how-coronavirus-changed-australian-family-life-151688

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Principal Fellow (Hon), Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, University of Melbourne

Review: Daniel Thomas, recent past: writing Australian art, edited by Hannah Fink and Stephen Miller (Thames & Hudson Australia)

In 1958, when the young Daniel Thomas was first appointed at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, the word “curator” was not in the Public Service Board lexicon. He felt his official title of “professional assistant” was inaccurate so he signed his letters “curatorial assistant”.

In time, the bureaucracy adopted his language and the term is still used to describe the entry level curatorial position for new graduates.

The years I spent working for Thomas as a curatorial assistant in the 1970s transformed my understanding of what art can do. His generous pedantry means that even now I sometimes hear his voice in my ear, questioning the precise meaning of a word I want to use.

Thomas has been such a force for change in Australian art that he has influenced almost every institution, curator and artist.

Read more: Beauty and audacity: Know My Name presents a new, female story of Australian art

He was, in turn, the first curator at the AGNSW, the inaugural Head of Australian art at the National Gallery of Australia and Director of the Art Gallery of South Australia, before retiring to Tasmania, close to where he was born 89 years ago. Here he continues to write and mentor those who wish to know both the small details and large visions of art in Australia.

In the 1960s and 70s, however, Thomas was perhaps better known as the witty and informative art critic of first the Sunday Telegraph and later the Sydney Morning Herald. His initial appointment, which today would be regarded as a conflict of interest, was seen at the time as a way of educating the public about the importance of art.

He also wrote perceptive extended essays for Art and Australia and later Art Monthly, as well as essays in scholarly catalogues. Steven Miller and Hannah Fink’s anthology, Recent Past: writing Australian art, has managed the Herculean task of condensing the essence of Thomas’s writing into one enjoyable volume, a scholarly resource that also delights the general reader.

Thomas has little time for theoretical constructs. Instead he focuses on art, artists and circumstance. “Fieldwork is more fun than library research,” he writes as he discusses both the landscape where John Glover painted and the mirrored wardrobe, which was the subject of many of Grace Cossington Smith’s late, great paintings.

Read more: How our art museums finally opened their eyes to Australian women artists

A brief to educate

Some scholars hug their knowledge to themselves, content to communicate only with their peers. Thomas sees his mission to spread the word, to let as many people as possible know the profound joy of art.

He soon became the master of the deft phrase. John Brack is described as “a clever painter, clever to the point of teasing”. Fred Williams’ paintings are “invested with magic”. An early painting by Janet Dawson is described with gusto as “an exhilarating event”. In later critiques he notes with pleasure Rosalie Gascoigne’s “well-made things” and describes Dorrit Black as one of “the reserved but passionate temperaments” in her art.

Read more: Fred Williams in the You Yangs: a turning point for Australian art

In this new book, Thomas has provided a written commentary on both his past writing and the illustrations. These intriguing, informative and often humorous notes are marked as “DT20”.

In a note on Martin Sharp’s Miss Australia, for instance, he writes that the artist “emphasised it was painted entirely by him”. Then, almost as an aside, Thomas tells the reader Sharp did not physically paint some works attributed to him, but rather delegated the hard slog to his studio assistant, Tim Lewis.

Obituaries written for artists are written with an eye to the longer judgement of history. In his considered obituary for Arthur Boyd, Thomas concludes “an uneven painter must be judged on his best works”, a subtle reminder that Boyd made many potboilers.

Pop artist Robert Rooney, he wrote, “failed a Swinburne Technical College commercial-art-diploma course in illustration and design but did not waste the experience.”

‘More exciting museums’

As the articles are arranged in chronological order it is possible to track how Thomas has long used his privileged background for good.

His “first schoolboy glimpse of the wild enchantment of art” came when he was a student at Geelong Grammar, inspired by the Bauhaus refugee artist Ludwig Hirschfeld-Mack. An Oxford degree and a deep knowledge of European art could have led to a career in the UK, but he chose to work in Australia as, “I wanted our art museums to be more exciting.”

The penultimate essay, Spirit of Place, written in 2018, can be described as a meditation on rock, trees, life and art. Thomas considers how the land he has known since childhood has changed “under unkind management by thoughtless humans”. Plastic is washed on the Bass Strait seashore when once it was kelp.

He has named his house, Loeyunnila, the word Aboriginal people from Port Sorrell use for “high wind”. But he remembers, too, how Aboriginal people from this place were taken by boat in “an exile equivalent to a death sentence”.

There is a tension between his appreciation of enduring Aboriginal cultures and knowledge that it was his direct ancestors who dispossessed them of their land. He resolves this by suggesting that “Aboriginal people are re-conquering the minds of their invaders, just as the Greeks re-conquered the ancient Romans.”

As with much of Thomas’s writing, it is an idea worth debating.

– ref. ‘Wild enchantment’: how Daniel Thomas’s writings conveyed the joy of art to Australians – https://theconversation.com/wild-enchantment-how-daniel-thomass-writings-conveyed-the-joy-of-art-to-australians-150737

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Baka, Senior Lecturer, College of Sport & Exercise Science, Victoria University

Surfing, skateboarding, karate and sport climbing will be the new sports included in the Tokyo 2021 Olympic Games, with BMX freestyle (think halfpipe snowboarding but on bikes) and 3×3 basketball (teams of three playing on a half court with on basket) added as disciplines in existing sports.

The Beijing 2022 Winter Games will feature seven new events — freestyle skiing big air (men’s and women’s), women’s monobob (solo bobsledding) and mixed team events in short-track speed skating, ski jumping, freestyle skiing aerials and snowboard cross.

The latest Olympic sport added to the 2024 Paris Games is “breaking”, which started as a form of dancing associated with hip hop culture and has morphed into a well-organised competitive sport governed by the World DanceSport Federation.

Not everyone is thrilled by the inclusion of breakdancing in the games, but this is all part of the ongoing transformation of the Olympics as it seeks to remain relevant to younger audiences more familiar with halfpipes than equestrian dressage.

A push for younger, more extreme sports

In fact, new sports are continually being added to the Olympics, while others are dropped.

Wrestling (a sport dating back to the ancient Olympics) was axed from the Tokyo Olympics only to be reinstated several months later. Baseball and softball were both in the games, then out, then in again (Tokyo 2021), then out again (Paris 2024).

Other sports, such as golf and rugby, were part of the Olympics in the early 1900s, then dropped for decades before being added back in.

The impetus for some of these changes can be traced to the International Olympic Committee’s Agenda 2020 policy document released in 2014. The objective was to usher the Olympic movement into a new modern era with a focus on sports that are more youth-oriented, do not require expensive venues, can ensure more gender balance and are television-friendly.

With the IOC often criticised as being male-centric and old-fashioned, the current IOC president, Thomas Bach, has been a major driver of this new way of thinking and modernising of the Olympics.

Read more: Everyone’s a winner with new events at the Winter Games

The IOC has also been pushed in some ways by the strong influence of the Extreme Games, launched in 1995 and later rebranded the X Games.

This event, with both a summer and winter version, was developed by the ESPN sports network. And it’s certainly made for TV: the focus is on action sports that have a high degree of “spectacle”.

Due to their success, the Olympic movement was reasonably quick to embrace several sports that originated in the X Games.

Summer Games are maxed out in terms of size

In 1994, the Olympics shifted to a new two-year, alternating cycle for the summer and winter games. This brought increased visibility for the Winter Olympics, which began adding new sports and grew rapidly in size.

Curling, women’s hockey and snowboarding were added to the 1998 Nagano Games program. Fourteen years later, an unprecedented 12 new events had their debut at the Sochi 2014 Winter Games.

As a result, the Winter Games have blossomed from 16 events and 49 medals in 1924 to a record 109 events and 327 medals at the 2022 Beijing Winter Games.

Although the summer games have also grown gradually, they have been unable to add as many new sports due to size limitations and logistical factors. The summer games are over twice as large as the winter games in terms of budget and the number of athletes that take part. They also require far more purpose-built venues.

Read more: Snowboarding and freeskiing got to the Olympics by carving their own path

The Tokyo games are expected to feature 11,092 athletes in 339 events, but this will actually shrink to 10,500 athletes and 329 events for the 2024 Paris Olympics.

Logically, if new contemporary sports like breakdancing are added, others (like baseball and softball) will have to go. Athlete numbers will also need to be reduced in existing sports, as will happen at the Paris games.

The IOC also has a gender-balance goal for athletes and it is expecting to reach 50-50 parity for the first time in Paris.

A history of obscure events, from pesapallo to kite flying

Until 1992, numerous sports were included in the Olympics as “demonstration” events. Medals were awarded, but they were not included in the official tally. The idea was to showcase a local sport of the host country or to trial a sport that could possibly be added as a full medal sport in the future.

There have been a number of unusual and obscure demonstration events in the Games, such as bandy (a mix of ice hockey and field hockey), dogsled racing, tug of war, military patrol (a skiing and shooting sport similar to biathlon), bicycle polo, roller hockey, rope climbing, pesapallo (a Finnish version of baseball) and Australian Rules football.

The 1900 Paris Olympics included a catalogue of strange events, such as cannon firing, fishing, pigeon racing, fire fighting, hot air ballooning and kite flying, though some were part of the adjacent World’s Fair and not considered “official” Olympic events.

The Olympics also have a long tradition of including various forms of arts competitions, as well. From 1912–48, an “Art Olympics” ran alongside the summer games, with medals across five categories: architecture, music, literature, sculpture and painting.

Not everyone is embracing the addition of breakdancing to the Olympic program. Some sports like netball and squash have lobbied unsuccessfully to be included in the Olympics for years — and were disappointed yet again for being passed over for the 2024 games.

Read more: Going for gold: why tenpin bowling should become an Olympic sport

Some purists are not fans of the Olympics’ embrace of youth-oriented sports, either. Bob Costas, the veteran US sports commentator, once compared slopestyle skiing to the types of pranks shown on the MTV television program Jackass.

Breaking may be the lucky winner for 2024, but many other new sports are knocking on the door to get into the summer games.

As the IOC attempts to keep pace with a changing world, it is likely we will see even more changes to the Olympic landscape for the Los Angeles 2028 summer games.

And if Brisbane does follow through on a bid to host the 2032 games, could we expect to see Aussie rules football back on the program?

– ref. Breakdancing in the Olympics? The Games have a long history of taking chances, from pesapallo (yes, it’s a sport) to kite flying – https://theconversation.com/breakdancing-in-the-olympics-the-games-have-a-long-history-of-taking-chances-from-pesapallo-yes-its-a-sport-to-kite-flying-151750

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Zic, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Macquarie University, CSIRO

If you look up in the southern sky you can see the “pointer” stars, pointing towards the Southern Cross. One of these pointers is Alpha Centauri, which is actually a pair of Sun-like stars that are too close together to tell apart by eye.

There is a third member of the Alpha Centauri system as well: Proxima Centauri (Proxima Cen for short), which circles the central two stars in a wide orbit. This is the Sun’s nearest neighbour, at a distance of just 4.2 light years.

It is possible one of Proxima Cen’s planets is suitable for life. However, we recently detected the signature of fierce space weather from Proxima Cen, which implies an orbiting planet could be blasted with hazardous particles and magnetic fields.

Our neighbour is not like the Sun

Our Sun is a relatively unremarkable yellow dwarf star, hosting the only known life-bearing planet in the Universe: our Earth.

Proxima Cen is very different. It is a red dwarf star, with a diameter only 15% of the Sun’s, and a surface temperature of 3,000K (degrees Kelvin), much cooler than the Sun’s 6,000K.

Because Proxima Cen is relatively cool, the “Goldilocks zone” of orbits around it – where the temperature is just right for liquid water – is around one-twentieth the Earth’s distance from the Sun. We are interested in planets in a star’s Goldilocks zone because liquid water is necessary for life as we know it.

Read more: Say hello to the Earth’s nearest exoplanet neighbour: Proxima Centauri b

We know Proxima Cen has at least two planets: Proxima Cen b, a rocky “super-Earth” located in the middle of Proxima Cen’s Goldilocks zone, and Proxima Cen c, a “sub-Neptune” located further out.

For years, astronomers have suspected planets like Proxima Cen b may be a dangerous home for life because they are so close to their host stars. Many red dwarf stars produce frequent, powerful flares – intense bursts of radiation travelling out into space. If planets like Proxima Cen b don’t have protective features such as a thick atmosphere or a strong magnetic field, they would be exposed to perilous levels of radiation.

But what’s the weather like around these stars?

The “space weather” of red dwarfs is another important factor in determining how hospitable they are to life. While flares involve intense bursts of light, space weather events mean the magnetic field and charged particles from the star can interact with planets directly.

The most energetic space weather events are known as coronal mass ejections (or CMEs). These massive eruptions escape the atmosphere of a star and travel through space at millions of kilometres per hour.

If the space weather conditions are extreme enough, the planetary atmosphere can be blown away and its magnetic field can be pushed backwards, leaving the surface exposed to deadly flare radiation.

CMEs have been detected around the Sun since the 1970s, but detecting space weather events around distant stars is much harder.

For updates on the weather, tune into the radio

CMEs on the Sun produce characteristic bursts of radio noise, such as “type II” and “type IV” bursts. By detecting similar signatures on other stars, we can indirectly identify stellar CMEs.

In early 2019, we pointed our telescopes at Proxima Cen for 11 nights. We used CSIRO’s new radio telescope, the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP), as well as the Zadko Telescope, the ANU 2.3m Telescope, and NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS).

Our goal was to detect the signature of a CME.

On the night of May 2, 2019, we observed a massive optical flare with an estimated total energy output of 16 septillion joules. (That’s nearly 17 million years’ worth of Australia’s current electricity output.) On the Sun, flares this big happen only once every decade or two. But on Proxima Cen, they happen every few weeks.

Using ASKAP, we observed a spectacular sequence of intense radio bursts.

With the amazing detail revealed with ASKAP, we could see we had detected the best example of a solar-like type IV radio burst from another star to date.

This blast of radio waves implies the space weather environment around Proxima Cen is quite violent.

‘One swallow does not make a summer’

In 1859, British astronomers Richard Carrington and Richard Hodgson made the first observations of a solar flare, which was followed by a massive space weather storm named the “Carrington event”. We now know the storm was caused by a massive coronal mass ejection hitting Earth.

Carrington noted the coincidence between these extraordinary events, but was cautious to draw any connection between them, famously stating “one swallow does not make a summer”. We now find ourselves in a similar situation to Carrington.

We have observed a radio burst signature implying a CME erupting from Proxima Cen. But to confirm the relationship of these stellar radio bursts with CMEs, we need to harness information from other wavelengths. Once we can do this, we should soon know exactly how hazardous it is to live next to a star like Proxima Centauri.

Read more: Is Alpha Centauri the right place to search for life elsewhere?

– ref. Bad space weather may make life impossible near Proxima Centauri – https://theconversation.com/bad-space-weather-may-make-life-impossible-near-proxima-centauri-150979

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

Chinese authorities have already approved multiple COVID vaccines for emergency use in the country, and nearly a million Chinese have already been vaccinated with one candidate.

Several local governments are already placing orders for domestically developed vaccines, though the Chinese government hasn’t confirmed how many people it’s aiming to vaccinate as part of emergency approval.

The first international shipments of the vaccine, by private Chinese company Sinovac, have also already arrived in Indonesia this week in preparation for a mass vaccination campaign ahead of expected local approval.

China is developing at least five COVID vaccines from four producers. These vaccines, which have progressed through development very rapidly, are largely based on traditional vaccine manufacturing techniques such as inactivating the virus.

These methods provide some benefits to the vaccines over others. For example, some of the Chinese-developed vaccines can be stored in regular fridges, making distribution much easier. This is in contrast to Pfizer’s jab, which must be kept at around -70℃.

Too early to tell if they’re safe and effective in the long term

The results of clinical trials of vaccines developed by Chinese-based companies have for the most part been published in leading international journals. These journals are independently reviewed by members of the global scientific community who provide open and critical analysis before acceptance of the work. They’re also some of the most trusted medical research journals in the world, a testament to the quality of the science being carried out in China.

The emergency approval for use of a number of the vaccines developed in China has come exceptionally early in the clinical trial process. This is likely to have raised concerns that the correct due diligence for safety isn’t being followed. These are, however, exceptional times. It should also be noted the vaccine developed by Pfizer, and granted emergency approval in the United Kingdom, hasn’t yet received full regulatory approval with phase 3 clinical trials set to conclude soon.

Read more: ‘Very convincing evidence’: Pfizer now has the data it needs to apply for COVID vaccine approval

The early rollout of these vaccines into the general population should really be viewed as an unofficial extension of phase 3 clinical trials, rather than an ultimate seal of approval. People who have been vaccinated should continue to be monitored for adverse events and lasting immune responses. Any subsequent reports of serious adverse events due to vaccination will halt use of that vaccine, but could also erode confidence in vaccination and vaccine uptake internationally.

So who are the companies developing these vaccines in China, and what do we know about them?

Sinovac

Sinovac Life Sciences is a private Chinese company that focuses on research, development and manufacturing of human and animal vaccines. It has developed and commercialised six vaccines for human use, and one for animals.

The company’s COVID vaccine, called CoronaVac, is an inactivated vaccine. It has recently been shipped to Indonesia.

It’s manufactured by growing the COVID virus in laboratories and treating it with a chemical that inactivates it. The chemical locks the virus in a state where it’s unable to replicate, but its structure is maintained, allowing the body to recognise it as foreign and mount an immune response.

It’s also delivered with an adjuvant, an immune stimulant that’s given to improve the protective response.

Having shown a substantial immune response and minimal safety concerns (mostly mild pain at the injection site) in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, CoronaVac is now in phase 3 clinical trials.

The phase 3 trials have recruited tens of thousands of participants to test vaccine efficacy and safety, and are taking place in Brazil, Indonesia and Turkey.

Brazilian officials claimed in October that the vaccine is safe, amid phase 3 trials.

However, the death of a phase 3 trial participant in October led Brazilian authorities to temporarily halt the Sinovac trial. Although details of the death were unclear, the trial was quickly resumed with the Brazilian institute involved in the trial confirming the participant’s death was unrelated to the vaccine. The outcome of phase 3 trials may be released in a matter of days.

Despite not knowing the results of phase 3 trials, a condition typically required to receive regulatory approval, CoronaVac has been approved for emergency use in China to vaccinate high-risk groups since July 2020.

This emergency approval is likely to have followed positive data from the vaccine’s phase 1 and 2 trials.

Sinopharm

Sinopharm is a state-owned Chinese company that researches, develops and distributes vaccines and other pharmaceuticals. It has produced a number of drugs that’ve been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and by EU authorities.

The two COVID-19 vaccines being developed by Sinopharm are both inactivated vaccines. Both follow a similar inactivation process as the Sinovac vaccine, and also use adjuvants to stimulate an immune response.

Both have undergone phase 1 and 2 clinical trials with encouraging results. They produced an effective immune response in participants and reported adverse reactions, including pain at the injection site and fever, were mild and quickly resolved. Certain doses generated SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in all phase 1 and 2 trial participants.

Both vaccines are currently in phase 3 trials. Again, despite incomplete clinical trials, both are reported to have been distributed for use by Chinese government officials and health-care workers.

What’s more, the United Arab Emirates, a site of ongoing phase 3 trials, granted emergency use for one of Sinopharm’s vaccines in September, following testing in 31,000 participants.

Despite this unusual early use of the vaccines, phase 3 testing is still required to determine if it’s safe and effective in the long run.

CanSino Biologics

This Chinese company has developed a COVID vaccine based on an adenovirus in partnership with the Chinese Academy of Military Medical Sciences. The adenovirus is unable to cause disease itself, but is used to deliver a coronavirus protein.

Phase 2 clinical trials reported the vaccine to be safe and induce significant immune responses in most participants.

This vaccine was also approved for limited use by the Chinese military in June, around the time of the conclusion of phase 2 trials.

Phase 3 clinical trials, which began in August, are ongoing in countries including Saudi Arabia.

Anhui Zhifei Longcom Biopharmaceutical

Chinese-based company, Anhui Zhifei Longcom, has developed a protein subunit COVID-19 vaccine. Subunit vaccines use a purified piece of the virus, a protein, to trigger an immune response. It has recently started phase 3 clinical trials. There hasn’t yet been any announcement or published report of the results of phase 1 and 2 trials.

– ref. China’s COVID vaccines are already being distributed. But how do they work, and where are they up to in trials? – https://theconversation.com/chinas-covid-vaccines-are-already-being-distributed-but-how-do-they-work-and-where-are-they-up-to-in-trials-151589

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Wright, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Science, Western Sydney University

Twenty years ago, UNESCO inscribed the greater Blue Mountains area on the World Heritage List for having “outstanding universal value”.

If you’ve travelled to the Blue Mountains, with its rugged sandstone cliff faces, hidden waterfalls and rich diversity of life, this value is undeniable. The Dharug and Gundungurra traditional owners long understood this value as they lived within and cared for Country (Ngurra) and, in turn, were nourished by it.

But after fires ripped through 71% of the greater Blue Mountains area, the condition of the World Heritage site has officially been downgraded.

Read more: ‘Severely threatened and deteriorating’: global authority on nature lists the Great Barrier Reef as critical

Last week, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) — the official advisor to UNESCO — rated the site as being of “significant concern”, a drop from “good with some concerns”. It’s now in the second-lowest category.

The news may be grim, but there are signs of hope. Despite threats of climate change, bushfires and decades of pollution, efforts are being made to minimise lingering impacts, and results are encouraging.

Ancient trees and unique animals

The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area covers just over one million hectares, divided into eight protected areas.

The largest protected area is Wollemi National Park (499,879 ha) in the north. This park is, famously, home to the last wild population of Wollemi Pine. These trees have a deeply ancient lineage tracing back to when the Earth’s land masses were all part of the supercontinent Gondwana over 100 million years ago.

Read more: Wollemi pines are dinosaur trees

The World Heritage area harbours 1,500 plant species, and 127 of them are rare or threatened. And in an outstanding example of the area’s uniqueness, it also contains more than 90 Eucalypt species — 13% of the global total.

The World Heritage area is also an important habitat for many rare and threatened animal species.

One celebrated seasonal visitor is the critically endangered regent honeyeater. Also under threat, and unique to the Blue Mountains, is the leura skink, which survives only in a handful of sensitive and vulnerable wetland communities.

Current threats

In its new report, the IUCN lists eight current threats undermining the greater Blue Mountains area. The most worrying – those considered “very high threats” in the report — are climate change and bushfires.

The severe fires of last summer inflicted long-lasting damage to many Blue Mountains species that contribute to the unique biodiversity of the area. And climate change is an emerging environmental pressure threatening the delicate ecology of the region through rising temperatures and changes to rainfall.

The IUCN also rated invasive plant and animal species, such as foxes, feral cats, horses, cattle and deer, as a high threat. Mining and quarrying, habitat alteration and several specific aspects of climate change (storms, drought, temperature extremes) were also listed.

The IUCN also named potential threats from planned operations, including future noise pollution from the new international airport in Western Sydney. Another is the impact of periodic flooding from a proposal to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam for flood mitigation purposes.

Cleaning up their act

Climate change and bushfires require massive, coordinated national and international responses, but some major issues in the Blue Mountains can start to be resolved on relatively smaller scales.

For decades, the Blue Mountains have been flogged by a number of human pressures, such as an outdated sewage system from the City of the Blue Mountains and pollution from coal mining. While the environment hasn’t fully recovered, we’re pleased to see successes in the recovery efforts.

For decades, inadequate sewerage systems polluted multiple streams and rivers in the Blue Mountains.

In 1987, the Sydney Water Corporation started a 25-year, $250 million scheme to reduce water pollution from this inadequately treated sewage. And by 2010, a massive upgrade to the region’s sewage system closed 11 antiquated treatment plants.

All Blue Mountains wastewater is now treated to a higher standard at Winmalee in the lower Blue Mountains and is released away from waterways in the World Heritage area.

Another important pressure in the Greater Blue Mountains Area is from coal mining, with UNESCO expressing concerns in 2001 about water pollution from mines, such as the one operated by Clarence Colliery.

This mine is in state forest adjacent to the World Heritage area boundary. Research from 2017 found wastewater discharging from the mine was severely contaminating water quality of the Wollangambe River and damaging the ecology for more than 20 kilometres.

Read more: How our research is helping clean up coal-mining pollution in a World Heritage-listed river

Two years earlier, Clarence Colliery, owned by Centennial Coal, was prosecuted after more than 2,000 tonnes of coal material (a slurry of water and coal particles) spilled into the Wollangambe River.

Centennial Coal agreed to comply with a new EPA licence in 2017 requiring the disposal of less polluting wastes.

The latest results from October of this year are very encouraging. They show an enormous reduction (more than 95%) in the zinc concentration in mine waste, compared to 2012 levels.

Read more: Cutting ‘green tape’ may be good politicking, but it’s bad policy. Here are 5 examples of regulation failure

Embracing ‘planetary health’

For an internationally important site like this, which is home to more than 80,000 residents, all levels of government must adopt the concept of “planetary health”. This recognises that human health entirely depends on the health of natural systems and embraces Indigenous knowledge.

We’re pleased to see the Blue Mountains City Council is already on board. It recently announced plans to establish a planetary health leadership centre in Katoomba in partnership with universities and other educational institutions.

So while there is much to grieve, we can celebrate small successes in the Blue Mountains’ journey, which show it is indeed possible for a diverse array of parties and the broader community to work cooperatively, and start to better protect it.

– ref. The Blue Mountains World Heritage site has been downgraded, but it’s not too late to save it – https://theconversation.com/the-blue-mountains-world-heritage-site-has-been-downgraded-but-its-not-too-late-to-save-it-150954

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Siew Fang Law, Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Graduate School Of Education, University of Melbourne

Australian universities are diverse places. They are a mix of students, staff and communities from different demographic backgrounds.

This is not true of the people who run universities. Higher education leaders tend to have backgrounds that are “WEIRD”: Western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic.

In 2018, of the 699 governing council roles across Australia’s 41 universities, 94% of the incumbents had Caucasian and British backgrounds. The top tiers of senior executives were 94% Caucasian and British in background, as were 96% of vice-chancellors.

Read more: Australia needs to confront its history of white privilege to provide a level playing field for all

What are the risks of homogenous leadership?

When top leadership are strikingly WEIRD, the culture of their institutions is too. This reproduces curriculum, library systems, research and thought paradigms that are also WEIRD. This kind of sameness across universities has consequences.

A large body of research shows homogeneous governance presents risks. These risks include groupthink, oversights and unchecked blind spots.

A range of risks and long-term implications are associated with under-representation in many sectors, including parliament, the legal sector, arts, journalism and media, military, films, creative writing and culinary industries.

Read more: Universities and government need to rethink their relationship with each other before it’s too late

Australian higher education has not been immune to tunnel vision. We see it in the discourse of “internationalisation” policy in Australia universities. There has been a lack of global vision in the construction of many university strategies.

The structural issues in Australia and Australian universities are entrenched, yet have been denied for decades, if not centuries. If we want Australian higher education to meet our aspirations and to prepare future generations, we need to confront this elephant in the room.

A deterioration of public trust in universities and expertise has forced many universities in the Western world to the brink of existential crises. WEIRD leaders are struggling to redefine what the purpose of the university should be.

Read more: We are losing sight of higher education’s true purpose

Diverse leadership has many benefits

Diversity delivers a wide range of social, economic and policy benefits. Higher education needs diversity to continue to thrive, to open mindsets, to gain new viewpoints, to broaden paradigms and to widen ranges of solutions.

Research shows diverse groups outperform homogeneous groups in productivity and innovation over the long term. Universities need to play a long game too.

The pandemic is forcing Australian universities to transform. But if this transformation is to be successful, the voices of young people, women, Indigenous people, diasporas and people of diverse abilities need to be heard across all levels. The sector needs to enable talents with all perspectives to co-create new insights and ideas to move forward.

Practical steps to diversify leadership

Beyond setting goals and informed targets, we can achieve a more diverse leadership with a few practical measures.

We can establish mentoring strategies and policies. These help ensure a more diverse range of people are in the leadership pipeline and have exposure to executive meetings.

We can create open and safe forums that promote dialogue about leadership issues. Universities need to have honest conversations about the complexities, challenges and barriers to achieving greater diversity in leadership. This includes being able to examine contested ideas such as decolonisation, quotas and meritocracy within the university system.

Read more: After coronavirus, universities must collaborate with communities to support social transition

We can engage young people and diverse groups using non-English media platforms to communicate key ideas to a wider and more diverse audience. This could shift attitudes toward the Anglophone-dominated status quo and create space for greater inclusion, both physically and intellectually.

The key to success will be empowering the “other” to advise leaders, become leaders and participate in problem-solving and decision-making.

We need to democratise workplaces through participation, to shift workplace relations and power dynamics. A mobilised and diverse university community could come up with more holistic, innovative and transformative solutions.

Diversity is integral to sustainability

More than ever, Australia’s higher education sector needs an intersectional lens, where leaders see the world through multiple perspectives and through the experiences of students and staff from different backgrounds.

Diversity in senior leadership is essential to give meaning to the assertion “we are all in it together” and to sustainable development. Acknowledging the interconnected nature of our society, universities need to reflect the ecology of knowledge that is integral to driving sustainable socio-cultural, environmental, economic and technological development.

Diverse leadership should be the norm as we imagine the “new normal”.

– ref. Most of Australia’s uni leaders are white, male and grey. This lack of diversity could be a handicap – https://theconversation.com/most-of-australias-uni-leaders-are-white-male-and-grey-this-lack-of-diversity-could-be-a-handicap-150952

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Gallagher, PhD Candidate, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland

Urban consolidation policies to contain development within existing urban areas are creating poor development outcomes in Australian cities. In Brisbane, our newly published research shows this means the low-density housing character of the city is being retained at the expense of backyards.

Current land development regimes place urban planning outcomes in the hands of property owners and developers whose motives are tied to their financial interests rather than good planning. In doing so, the system works counter to its intended aims, in that it favours “bad density” over meaningful place-making characterised by well-designed medium-density townhouses or low-rise apartments.

Read more: No need to give up on crowded cities – we can make density so much better

The ad hoc nature of redevelopment means consolidation is done in a piecemeal and patchy way. There is little uniformity to streetscapes and a poor mix of housing options.

What are the urban consolidation policies?

Our research, published in Australian Planner, focuses on the impacts of urban consolidation policy in central Brisbane. The Queensland government has set a target for Brisbane City of infill development – building within existing developed areas – to account for 94% of all new dwellings by 2041.

The state government defines an urban boundary to contain most new development. The state also sets dwelling targets by local government area, of which Brisbane is the country’s most populous.

At the local level, Brisbane City Council has a smaller-scale strategy. It aims for densification to be achieved through up-zoning (changing the zoning to permit higher density), increasing building heights and reducing minimum lot sizes.

At the same time, the council uses various mechanisms to protect the “cultural identity” of the city. These include the so-called “townhouse ban” and Character Residential (Infill) zoning, which applies to many inner-city suburbs.

The Character Residential (Infill) zone allows for higher density, but houses built prior to 1946 must be retained. Any new dwellings must be of a similar scale.

We analysed the rate of subdivision for house construction over a ten-year period. Focusing on the suburbs immediately south of the city centre, we compared subdivision for more houses to land assembly (merging two or more lots) for apartment construction.

We wanted to see how the physical layout of the city had changed so Brisbane could densify. How is this being achieved in a city that has banned townhouses, rowhouses and apartments of any size in more than 60% of the city’s residential area, but at the same time has had a policy of consolidating growth for decades? Specifically, we wanted to see how existing residential land was densifying, rather than former industrial or undeveloped land.

Read more: Unlocking the greyfields to inhibit urban sprawl

What does the research show?

Our results indicate that current consolidation policies run counter to their intended aims of protecting green space. The practical outcome is that the low-density housing character of the city is being retained at the expense of backyards.

We found 52% of redevelopments resulted from subdivision, compared with 30% from land assembly and 18% for all other reconfigurations. In the past decade, the seven inner-city suburbs we studied lost over 21,000 square metres of open space, usually backyards, to be replaced with more houses.

This is explained by a combination of developers’ lack of interest in residential infill, the difficulty of boundary change, and the political unpalatability of “density”. Together, these factors work to create outcomes in conflict with consolidation policy.

Read more: Vested interests behind ‘city shapers’ often subvert higher-density policies

Existing lot shapes and sizes largely determine redevelopment, as developers favour land that is easily transformed. In previous research, we found large-scale developers constructing high-rise apartments are often only really interested in brownfield land – previously developed but disused sites. These are usually large sites owned by one landholder.

It’s inherently difficult to co-ordinate redevelopment across multiple properties for high-quality, precinct-level infill. On the other hand, individual owners can reap financial benefit from lot-scale redevelopment, without the costs associated with larger developments.

As a result, backyard subdivision is pursued as a simple form of infill. Despite the city council’s policy to “protect the Brisbane backyard” and the state government’s goal of more diverse and affordable homes, more single-family homes are being crammed into less and less space.

How can we improve outcomes?

While low-density infill may balance consumer preference for detached houses with meeting infill targets, it in effect creates a “compressed suburbia”. The results fail to deliver on the core promises of consolidation policy, including greater housing diversity and affordability, and a halt to urban sprawl.

Read more: To cut urban sprawl, we need quality infill housing displays to win over the public

It also leads to a dichotomy of new dwellings: high-rise apartments or detached houses. We found very little development of medium-density dwellings.

The market-based approach to urban consolidation leaves individuals seeking financial gain to determine the most important decision about our cities – their urban form.

If this continues, the lack of focus on high-quality infill will be a significant missed opportunity for our cities.

Read more: Vanishing Australian backyards leave us vulnerable to the stresses of city life

– ref. Why city policy to ‘protect the Brisbane backyard’ is failing – https://theconversation.com/why-city-policy-to-protect-the-brisbane-backyard-is-failing-150173

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

It has been more than 20 years in the making, but there is now a new order in Australia’s grandest (and most problematic) example of cooperative federalism: the National Electricity Market.

Not completely national (it excludes Western Australia and the Northern Territory), it links most towns south of Port Douglas and west of Port Lincoln so that, in theory, electricity produced near any of them can be used anywhere else.

This year first Victoria, and now NSW, have brought the development of their transmission and generation systems back under their own control.

Victoria set the ball rolling earlier this year with legislation to take back the power to plan and deliver new transmission.

In November in its first major use of the new laws it announced the procurement of a 300 megawatt battery near Geelong. Just three years ago a battery this size would have been three times bigger than the biggest in the world.

Read more: Australia’s states have been forced to go it alone on renewable energy, but it’s a risky strategy

NSW followed with legislation in November to create new authorities to plan and contract for the development of what it expects to be A$32 billion worth of new transmission, generation and storage facilities over the next 10 years.

In both states the legislation obtained widespread support in parliament.

Why they’re bringing electricity home

The reasons are political and economic.

Politically, reductions in the costs of wind and solar generation has meant decarbonisation is increasingly seen as a way to cut electricity prices.

But in both states a small number of privately-owned coal generators dominate production. Their owners have little interest in cutting the value of their plants by bringing on (renewable) replacements.

Read more: The national electricity market has served its purpose, time to move on

In addition, notwithstanding the privatisation of generation and the creation of the National Electricity Market, voters have continued to look to state ministers to decarbonise the grid, keep the lights on and get prices down.

The arrangements that governed the market left state governments with responsibility but no control.

Economically, while the creators of the market 20 years ago recognised that separating generation from transmission could undermine the coordinated development of both, they were persuaded that the gains from competition in generation would deliver more value.

These days, in the context of the rapid switch from a small number of ageing coal-fired generators to a larger number of new renewable-powered generators that need access to transmission, coordination between generation and transmission has become more important.

And the ability of suppliers to locate generators in multiple locations (including on the roofs of factories and homes) rather than near coal mines which might be in other states, has made it easier for state governments to plan for self-sufficiency.

What state power will look like

Much remains to be worked out, but the direction is clear.

State governments will increasingly plan and contract for the delivery of generators and storage services themselves.

They will also be facilitating, and perhaps to some degree funding, the development of the transmission system.

Most of the assets will continue to be privately owned, but producers and storage providers will increasingly be contracting with states for access to their markets rather than competing against other producers in the national market.

The companies that own coal generators and supply to their own retail businesses will be the big losers.

Their generation will be rendered uncompetitive by wind and solar farms, and they will be forced to buy from them (and perhaps even from generators owned by state governments) in order to keep customers.

This is a much tougher business model than the one they have become used to.

But it isn’t right to say the clock has come full circle; that we are going back to the bad old days of (often self-serving) state electricity commissions.

There are certainly similarities, and a risk of governments planning and procuring badly and forcing customers to pay for their failures.

Read more: Pumped hydro isn’t our energy future, it’s our past

But much is different. Customers are able to choose who they buy electricity from and are able to make some of it themselves if they want to.

This ability to choose exerts a powerful discipline. It is assisted by developments in production and storage and access to data that presents opportunities that could not have been imagined five years, much less 20 years ago.

There are plenty of new opportunities waiting to be explored.

– ref. After two decades, the national electricity market is on its way out, and that’s alright – https://theconversation.com/after-two-decades-the-national-electricity-market-is-on-its-way-out-and-thats-alright-151018

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ann Vickery, Associate Professor in Writing and Literature, Deakin University

Growing up in Australia in the 1970s, I much preferred the hijinks of Han Solo and Chewie to Princess Leia’s sexualised damsel in distress. My sister and I spent an entire summer pigging out on Choc Wedges and Barney Bananas so we could collect the men’s cricket team on specially marked sticks. Feminism seemed a world “far, far away”. Yet what Australian girls could and couldn’t do was being explored through a glut of screen adaptations of classic novels.

These included Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975), The Getting of Wisdom (1977), Seven Little Australians (1973) and My Brilliant Career (1979). Many revealed a depressing picture of what happened if you were different, clever or outspoken. You could be: left behind while other girls are led through a mysterious rock portal, the subject of school bullying, or crushed more literally by a falling tree in an act of sacrificial redemption.

My Brilliant Career offered an alternative. Sybylla Melvyn, its “little bush commoner,” remains untamed and unapologetic. She would be modelled on author Miles Franklin herself, who mailed the manuscript to her literary idol, Henry Lawson. He subsequently provided a rousing endorsement and saw through its publication.

My Brilliant Career emerged in 1901, the same year as Federation, and aligned women’s independence with national independence through a symbolic coming-of-age narrative.

While Australian women received the right to vote the following year, My Brilliant Career voiced an irrepressible desire to be heard. Addressed to “My dear fellow Australians,” Melvyn (or Franklin) argues the story seeks to improve on other autobiographies by telling a collective truth: “This is not a romance … neither is it a novel, but simply a yarn — a real yarn”.

As such, My Brilliant Career blends the intimacy of life writing with the broader scope of a story being retold. My Brilliant Career is everywoman’s career as much as it is the career of Australia.

Read more: Guide to the classics: Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier — gender, gothic haunting and gaslighting

A hoydenish tomboy

Sybylla is a highly likeable but flawed heroine, kicking around a crowded home and lamenting the “agonizing monotony, narrowness, and absolute uncongeniality” of teenage life.

The family has fallen on hard times, shifting from three stations and 200,000 acres to the small and “stagnant” Possum Gully. Dick Melvyn, once his daughter’s “hero, confidant, encyclopedia, mate, and even religion”, reneges all paternal responsibility by turning to drink after a series of failed speculations.

Franklin captures the resulting strain between Sybylla’s hardworking mother and her eldest daughter. As Sybylla knocks about as a hoydenish tomboy and dreams of joining the ranks of poets like Gordon, Lawson and Paterson, her mother sees only domestic uselessness and self-centredness.

Sent with her siblings to the local school, mingling with the Italian migrants at nearby diggings, and absorbing pub slang when retrieving her father, Sybylla has a democratic outlook:

To me the Prince of Wales will be no more than a shearer, unless when I meet him he displays some personality apart from his princeship — otherwise he can go hang.

Such colourful vernacular underscores how Franklin mobilises a living language, as much as a bush landscape, to generate national distinctiveness.

Packed off to her grandmother’s to be transformed into more marriageable material, Sybylla soon navigates a class-bound squattocracy with limited options. Besides her mother’s descent into drudgery, her Aunt Helen has been forced to return to the family home after her husband’s desertion. Sybylla realises with

a great blow that it was only men who could take the world by its ears and conquer their fate, while women, metaphorically speaking, were forced to sit with tied hands and patiently suffer as the waves of fate tossed them hither and thither.

She is critical of women’s value being reduced to an index of their beauty but also internalises it to think herself plain and unappealing. In this, she is proved wrong, for her unpretentious liveliness attracts a number of possible suitors, including neighbouring hunk, Harry Beecham.

For the 1979 film, Gillian Armstrong perfectly cast then little-known Judy Davis as the pimply, unkempt Sybylla, a far cry from the Chiko Roll or Big M girls then gracing Australian billboards and TV.

My mother, now in her 80s, still raves about Sam Neill’s blue eyes as the dashing Beecham. Both Franklin and Armstrong build the chemistry in Sybylla and Harry’s courtship, emphasising an equality of energy and wit.

A higher love

Distinguishing between sexual passion and friendship love, Aunt Helen advises Sybylla she might receive and find real love in the latter. Yet Sybylla seeks a higher love.

Having “learnt them by heart”, the “men I loved” are the poets and she continues her “hope that one day I would clasp hands with them, and feel and know the unspeakable comfort and heart rest of congenial companionship”.

Sybylla holds to a Romantic view of the poet as both bard of the people and transcendent. The poet must be “Alone because his soul is as far above common mortals as common mortals are above monkeys.” This drives her sense there is something more than her appointed lot in life.

While Harry is prepared to “give” Sybylla “a study” and “truckload of writing gear” so she can pursue her career, Sybylla refuses his marriage proposal. She reflects, “He offered me everything — but control.”

Realising she needs an unfettered life, she knows she would ultimately destroy Harry’s “honest heart”. At the same time, there is little possibility of finding an ideal mate, who would be someone who has similarly “suffered” for their dreams.

My Brilliant Career not only captured the frustration of women at the turn of the century; it refused to end happily. Whereas the novel ends with Sybylla stuck and wearisome at Possum Gully, the film has her hopeful at the fence-line sending off her finished manuscript. Even in the 1970s, a choice between career and love seemed harsh.

Read more: Reclaim Her Name: why we should free Australia’s female novelists from their male pseudonyms

Whereas Franklin suggests that women’s path to success requires lonely self-determination, second-wave feminism emphasised collective consciousness-raising, even if that forum of voices remained faultily selective in its whiteness.

A social divide

While representing the “rope of class distinction” drawing “tighter” around Australian working men and women, My Brilliant Career revealed a social divide marked as much by race as class and gender. The Irish M’Swats, for whom Sybylla is forced to become a governess to repay her father’s debt, are depicted as uncivilised in their dirtiness.

The Aborigines exist as unnamed servants, their culture similarly dismissed. Servant girl Jane Haizelip tells Sybylla of her disdain for the men at Possum Gully: “They let the women work too hard. It puts me in mind er the time wen the black fellows made the gins do all the work.”

While Franklin occasionally employs a slave rhetoric to emphasise female oppression, one is struck by the novel’s racial inequities.

Many of the problems in My Brilliant Career remain prescient: drought, bushfire, economic depression and social precarity. Whereas second-wave feminists advocated having it all, too often the message today is that women can’t expect to have love, family and career simultaneously.

Franklin achieved fame and showed women as central to Australian literature. I hope my daughter’s generation keep her spirit but that the yarn becomes one of shared, all-round fulfilment.

An adaptation of My Brilliant Career is at Sydney’s Belvoir St Theatre until January 31.

– ref. Guide to the classics: My Brilliant Career and its uncompromising message for girls today – https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-my-brilliant-career-and-its-uncompromising-message-for-girls-today-145452

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Office of the Chief Scientist

Like so much of what I have done as Australia’s Chief Scientist, the electricity market review of 2017 was unexpected.

I was driving home after delivering a speech late one night in October 2016 when then federal energy minister Josh Frydenberg called and asked if I would chair a review of the National Electricity Market.

The urgent need had arisen as a consequence of the South Australian power blackout and ongoing concerns about the evolution of the electricity market. The call was brief; the task was huge.

This was new territory for me. While I have a PhD in electrical engineering, I had no specific interest in power systems. I had previously taken a business interest in green technologies. I had started a green lifestyle magazine, I had invested early in green technology stocks (and lost a small fortune), been involved in an electric car charging company, and I drove an electric car. I was an engineer but my work was in micro-electronics, at the scale of brain synapses. Large-scale power engineering had been my least favourite subject.

Now, it is close to my favourite. Work on low-emissions technologies has occupied a significant portion of my five-year term as Chief Scientist, which finishes at the end of this month.

Energy is a complex, vitally important topic, on which everyone has an opinion. The physics of human-induced global warming is irrefutable and a fast reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is urgent. Last summer’s bushfires were a grim reminder.

Read more: The Finkel Review at a glance

People often ask me whether climate policy is destined to destroy political leaders in Australia. Call me an optimist, but what I have seen is progress. When my proposed Clean Energy Target met its maker in October 2017, I was disappointed, but I was honestly excited the Australian, state and territory governments agreed to 49 out of 50 recommendations of our review.

Many of these recommendations ensured the electricity system would retain its operating strength as ever more solar and wind generation was added, and others ensured better planning processes for long-distance interconnectors and renewable energy zones. The public narrative that climate progress is moribund overlooks this ongoing work.

In early 2018, as I began to better understand the full potential of hydrogen in a low-emission future, I informally briefed Frydenberg, who responded by asking me to prepare a formal briefing paper for him and his state and territory counterparts. With support from government, industry, research and public interest colleagues, it developed last year into the National Hydrogen Strategy, which explored fully the state of hydrogen technology internationally and its potential for Australia.

Read more: 145 years after Jules Verne dreamed up a hydrogen future, it has arrived

The next step came this year with the Low Emissions Technology Statement, which articulates a solid pathway to tackle some of the pressing and difficult challenges en route to a clean economy. This was developed by Frydenberg’s successor, Angus Taylor, supported by advice from a panel I chaired.

Read more: ‘The good, the bad and the ugly’: here’s the lowdown on Australia’s low-emissions roadmap

When I was appointed Australia’s Chief Scientist in 2015, my predecessor Ian Chubb took me for a drink at Canberra’s Monster Bar. He had a prepared brief for me and we flicked through it. But Ian didn’t offer prescriptive advice, given the reality that the specifics of the role are defined by each chief scientist in line with requests from the government of the day.

I came to the role with a plan no more detailed than to work hard, do things well, be opportunistic, and always say yes – despite the device that sits on my desk and barks “no” whenever you hit the red button, a gift from my staff keen to see a more measured response to the many calls on my time.

I am most proud of my initiatives in STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) education. These include the Australian Informed Choices project that ensures school students are given wise advice about core subjects that will set them in good stead for their careers; the STARPortal one-stop shop for information on extracurricular science activities for children; a report to the national education ministers on how businesses and schools can work together to provide context to science education; and the Storytime Pledge that acknowledges the fundamental importance of literacy by asking scientists to take a pledge to read to children.

But many of the high-profile tasks have arrived unexpectedly – the energy and low-emissions technology work, helping CSIRO with its report on climate and disaster resilience, and my work this year to help secure ICU ventilators and most recently, to review testing, contact tracing and outbreak management in the coronavirus pandemic.

Read more: Exponential growth in COVID cases would overwhelm any state’s contact tracing. Australia needs an automated system

The incoming Chief Scientist, Cathy Foley, will no doubt find, as I did, the job brings big surprises and unexpected turns. I expect she will also find government more receptive than ever to taking advice from experts in health, the physical sciences and the social sciences.

That doesn’t mean gratuitous advice. The advice we offer as scientists must be relevant and considered. Much of my advice has been in the form of deep-dive reviews, such as the report on national research facilities that was funded in the 2018 budget. But this year, amid the pandemic, we began something quite different: the Rapid Research Information Forum, which gives fast, succinct advice to government on very specific questions. This has been a highly effective way to synthesise the most recent research results with a very quick turnaround.

Nor does advice mean criticism. The Chief Scientist’s job is not to be the chief scientific critic of government policy. It is to advise ministers with the best that science has to offer. In turn, their job is to weigh that advice alongside inputs from other sectors and interests.

For me, working with the government has delivered results. Ministers have been receptive, have never told me what to say, and have agreed to the vast majority of my work being made public. In the energy sphere, we’ve made incredible progress. I am delighted to be staying on in an advisory role on low-emissions technologies.

When Frydenberg called late that evening in 2016, I had no idea where to begin to assess the state of the electricity market. And I had no idea that three years later we would be taking the first steps towards a clean hydrogen economy.

Now I am confident we will achieve the dramatic reduction in emissions that is necessary. Because of the immensity of the energy, industrial, agricultural and building systems, it will be slow and enormously difficult in a technical sense, politics aside.

Anyone who believes otherwise has not looked in detail at the production process for steel and aluminium. Converting these industries to green production is a mammoth task. But the political will is there. Industry is on the job, as is the scientific community, and the work has started.

The beginning of my term coincided with one of the most momentous scientific breakthroughs in a century: the detection of gravitational waves, literally ripples in the fabric of spacetime. This confirmed a prediction made by Einstein 100 years ago and was the final piece in the puzzle of his Theory of General Relativity.

As I finish my term, the contribution of Australian scientists to that discovery has just been recognised in the Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science. As chair of the Prizes selection committee, this was a nice bookend for me. More importantly, it’s a reminder we are playing the long game.

– ref. Alan Finkel: how a late-night phonecall in 2016 triggered ‘incredible progress’ on clean energy – https://theconversation.com/alan-finkel-how-a-late-night-phonecall-in-2016-triggered-incredible-progress-on-clean-energy-151588

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

Australia is on track to meet its 2030 Paris climate targets without resorting to carryover credits and could exceed them with the aid of the recently-announced technology roadmap, according to projections to be released on Thursday.

Australia has pledged to reduce emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030.

The annual update of emissions projections shows that to meet the 26% cut, without using carryover credits, a further reduction of 56 million tonnes would be needed over the decade to 2030.

To reach the higher target of a 28% cut without the credits, a reduction of 123 million tonnes would be required over the decade.

Neither of these scenarios includes the technology investment roadmap – which is the government’s policy to support new and emerging energy technologies to a price that is comparable with higher emitting alternatives.

The Minister for Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, said if the roadmap was taken into account, “Australia is projected to beat its 2030 target by 145 million tonnes”.

This would be without relying on the credits which have been gained from exceeding earlier targets.

“Under this scenario, Australia’s emissions are projected to be 29% below 2005 levels by 2030,” Taylor said.

Scott Morrison has flagged the government won’t use the carryovers if they are not necessary to meet Australia’s commitments.

He is set to confirm this when he addresses a Pacific Islands Forum virtual climate summit on Friday. This precedes the Climate Ambition Summit hosted by Britain, France and the United Nations at the weekend to mark the fifth anniversary of the Paris accord.

The Pacific summit is aimed at putting pressure on the weekend meeting, which is being called “the sprint to Glasgow”, the delayed climate conference to be held in a year’s time.

There has been argy bargy over whether Morrison could get a speaking role at the weekend meeting, where leaders are being asked to make new commitments. As of Wednesday, he was not expected to be a speaker.

The update in the Australia’s emissions projections 2020 report shows Australia’s position against the 2030 target has improved by more than 300 million tonnes since the 2019 projections, and by 639 million tonnes since 2018.

The improvement since 2018 is equivalent to taking all of the country’s passenger vehicles off the road for 15 years.

Emissions are projected to decline to 478 million tonnes in 2030 which is 22% below 2005 levels. Incorporating the technology investment roadmap, emissions are forecast to be 436 million tonnes in 2030 – 29% below 2005 levels.

The update says the downward revision in the 2020 projections reflects:

• the inclusion of new measures to speed up the development and deployment of low emissions technologies in the recent budget

• a further reduction in projected emissions from the electricity sector due to continued strong uptake of renewables – especially small and mid-scale solar – by households and businesses; and

• the temporary effect of COVID-related restrictions on the economy.

– ref. Emissions projections indicate Australia won’t need carryover credits to meet Paris targets – https://theconversation.com/emissions-projections-indicate-australia-wont-need-carryover-credits-to-meet-paris-targets-151782

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deanna Kemp, Professor and Director, Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland

On the eve of Reconciliation Week this year, news broke that Rio Tinto had destroyed ancient rock shelters at Juukan Gorge in Western Australia to expand one of its 16 iron ore mines in the Pilbara.

The public was appalled to learn that a mining company could legally destroy such sacred Aboriginal heritage. Rio Tinto mishandled its response, and a national and international outcry prompted a parliamentary inquiry.

Today, the joint standing committee released its interim report into the incident, entitled “Never Again”.

The inquiry lifts the lid on a deeply flawed regulatory system. While the report is scathing of Rio Tinto, it concludes that the issues “are not unique” to the company.

Flaws in WA law and the native title system

The interim report recommends major legislative reform to prevent this happening again.

The report details significant deficiencies in WA’s outdated Aboriginal Heritage Act, passed in 1972. By excluding Aboriginal peoples from decisions about land development, the law undermines their right to manage their cultural heritage.

Read more: How Rio Tinto can ensure its Aboriginal heritage review is transparent and independent

The report recognises progress made on public consultation of a draft bill that would remove Section 18 of the act, which allows developers to apply for consent to legally damage or destroy Aboriginal sites.

The committee recommends any new legislation ensure Aboriginal people have meaningful involvement in and control over heritage decision-making, in line with the internationally recognised principles of free, prior and informed consent.

The interim report recommends placing a moratorium on any new Section 18 applications until new legislation is passed. It also encourages companies with existing permissions not to proceed with the destruction of heritage sites, but to have them assessed under the new legislation.

The findings highlight shortcomings in federal law and recommends major improvements in the statutory protection for Indigenous groups seeking to protect their significant sites.

The report calls for the removal of the so-called “gag clauses” in land use agreements, which prevent Aboriginal peoples from speaking out against developers.

In a public hearing, the traditional owners of Juukan Gorge, the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples, explained how their agreement with Rio Tinto prevented them from objecting to the company’s Section 18 application, or seeking an emergency injunction under federal heritage legislation.

The report recommends all companies operating in WA undertake an independent review of their land use agreements, in line with calls from investors in mining companies.

The deep flaws in Australian’s native title system are described in the report as “another means to destroy Indigenous heritage”. These flaws are so alarming that Labor Senator Patrick Dodson, a committee member and senior Aboriginal leader, had earlier called for a royal commission.

Australia’s current regulatory system approves mining developments on a project-by-project basis. The approvals process does not consider the cumulative impacts to cultural landscapes, such as Juukan Gorge, from multiple and expanding mines. The committee will likely hear more about these issues next year.

Corporate responsibility beyond legal compliance

After the Juukan Gorge tragedy, Rio Tinto conducted an internal, board-led review of its heritage policies, but did not deliver meaningful recommendations on accountability and fell well short of stakeholder expectations.

The inquiry report concluded that Rio Tinto’s review did not fully grapple with the root causes of the Juukan Gorge debacle and its effects.

Rather than letting this slide, inquiry chair Warren Entsch and the rest of the committee doubled down on their interrogation of the company’s senior management.

Through persistent questions in public hearings, the committee probed Rio Tinto’s generic explanations of “missed opportunities”.

Seeing that other mining companies had “taken advantage” of the weak regulatory system, the committee also pressed BHP and Fortescue Metals Group on their cultural heritage policies and practices. This unearthed information that was not included in the companies’ public submissions. Some of this information aligns with our research.

For example, many mining companies have not kept pace with their social policy commitments. Across the industry, community relations departments have seen sizeable reductions. Our research has flagged the risks associated with these issues, but most companies have failed to adequately respond.

In many mining companies, the work of community relations and Indigenous affairs units remains peripheral to mine planning and production processes.

Read more: Destruction of Juukan Gorge: we need to know the history of artefacts, but it is more important to keep them in place

Mining engineers, lawyers and media managers routinely overrule the advice of social specialists — including local experts and Indigenous advisers who work directly with communities on the ground.

It is entirely normal for company personnel with a limited understanding of customary land tenure to dominate decisions about land access and cultural heritage. This knowledge gap is a known point of failure in mine-community relations.

The inquiry process has revealed a deep reluctance within mining companies to thoroughly investigate major social incidents and the impacts of their operations.

We have learned that companies don’t share these findings with the public – unless forced to do so. The report rejects the idea that companies can “feign ignorance” in order to avoid accountability.

What are the prospects for change?

The inquiry has laid bare the overwhelming challenges faced by First Nations peoples when mining occurs on their land. It highlights the urgent need for a rebalancing of power to avoid mining production priorities dominating at the expense of all else.

The report confirms that legislative reform is crucial. But this can be painfully slow and notoriously piecemeal. For example, the industry has already pushed back on aspects of WA’s heritage law review. For Aboriginal groups, these and other proposed reforms do not go far enough.

Pressure may have to come from other places. The report strengthens investor demands for better corporate management of the impacts of mining on communities and cultural heritage. Shareholder and investor advocacy at annual general meetings is only likely to intensify.

Read more: Can a mining state be pro-heritage? Vital steps to avoid another Juukan Gorge

Aboriginal leaders and new Aboriginal alliances are also primed to take collective action and push for national best practice standards.

The inquiry’s findings will likely be leveraged internationally, as well. The Apache people in the US have already linked Juukan to their campaign to protect the sacred Oak Flat site in Arizona. This is where Resolution Copper, jointly owned by Rio Tinto and BHP, is proposing a new mine.

Having been put on notice, global mining companies are bolstering their communities and cultural heritage teams. But it is not enough to just increase head count. Social specialists and Indigenous people must hold positions of authority and have influence internally to contain corporate self-interest.

Mining companies like Rio Tinto must do better. To avoid future catastrophes, industry leaders must internalise the lessons from Juukan and radically overhaul the way they do business.

– ref. Juukan Gorge inquiry puts Rio Tinto on notice, but without drastic reforms, it could happen again – https://theconversation.com/juukan-gorge-inquiry-puts-rio-tinto-on-notice-but-without-drastic-reforms-it-could-happen-again-151377

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

This month Alan Finkel ends his term as Australia’s Chief Scientist.

An entrepreneur, engineer, neuroscientist, and educator in his former life, Finkel describes the role he’s held since 2016 as consisting of two activities.

There’s “reviewing” – briefing government on all matters scientific, including energy and climate change. And then there’s “making things up” – developing programs to support the communication of science, technology, innovation, and research across the community.

Writing for The Conversation, Finkel expresses confidence Australia will achieve the “dramatic reduction in emissions” that is “necessary”.

However the road has not been easy, with many political setbacks.

“I was certainly somewhat personally disappointed, and disappointed for the country, that the Clean Energy Target wasn’t adopted,” Finkel tells the podcast.

“On the other hand, I took a lot of comfort from the fact that the other 49 out of 50 recommendations [in his report] were accepted and adopted and most of them have been implemented.”

“Those recommendations – a lot of them have been part of the reason that we’ve been able to introduce solar and wind electricity at extraordinary rates in the last three years.”

The debate currently is whether Australia will sign up for zero net emissions by 2050. While Finkel says “that’s a question for politicians, not for me”, he adds that “we’re taking the right measures already consistent with a drive towards zero or low emissions”.

These measures, he says, involve cheaper batteries, solar, wind, pumped hydro, and gas as a “backstop”, as we transition out of coal fire electricity.

Asked if a new coal-fired power station project could ever be started, Finkel said that to comply with carbon capture and storage, the cost of electricity from the plant would be “five or six times higher” than electricity produced by solar and wind.

“I would never predict anything…but I can say with some degree of confidence that that economics would be challenging”. His message was clear.

Additional audio

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Chief Scientist Alan Finkel on climate, energy and emissions – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-chief-scientist-alan-finkel-on-climate-energy-and-emissions-151770

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Stanford, Economist and Director, Centre for Future Work, Australia Institute; Honorary Professor of Political Economy, University of Sydney

“We are all in this together,” Prime Minister Scott Morrison solemnly intoned in April – and for a brief few months, in the face of the economic crisis wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia’s industrial relations protagonists agreed.

Business groups, unions and governments put aside their usual differences and worked together to minimise job losses.

They quickly negotiated alterations to dozens of awards and enterprise agreements, adjusting rules and rosters to help keep Australians on the job.

Then, in late May, seeing opportunity in that spirit of cooperation, Morrison heralded a new consensus-based approach to industrial relations.

The federal government set aside its effort to impose more legal restrictions on unions and established new “industrial relations reform roundtables” for employer groups, unions and government officials to work together on reforming workplace laws Morrison said were “not fit for purpose”.

“We’ve got to put down our weapons,” he declared. The change in approach was even compared to the historic Accords of the 1980s, in which the Hawke-Keating Labor government convinced unions to accept wage freezes in return for enhanced social benefits (like Medicare and superannuation).

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

Well, the Kumbaya moment didn’t last long.

Within weeks the parties retreated to their corners and their standard speaking points. No meaningful consensus emerged on any issue from any table.

Even tentative proposals – like an idea supported by unions and the Business Council of Australia to combine fast-track approval of union-negotiated enterprise agreements with greater flexibility in determining their suitability – were shot down in partisan gunfire by more strident business lobbyists.

Read more: Morrison government invites unions to dance, but employer groups call the tune

Now, in the absence of consensus, the government has picked up its traditional hymn book and is once again singing the praises of “flexibility”.

Today federal industrial relations minister Christian Porter revealed the rotten fruit of the roundtable process, the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020.

If passed, it will further skew the already lopsided balance of power towards employers.

The bill doesn’t just take the employers’ side in the five issues debated at those roundtables (award simplification, enterprise agreements, casual work, compliance and enforcement, and “greenfields agreements” for new enterprises).

One of its biggest changes is to suspend rules that prevent enterprise agreements from undercutting minimum award standards. This proposal wasn’t even discussed at the roundtables.

This confirms the gloves are off once again in Australia’s interminable IR wars.

Here are the most significant ways the bill will weight the scales further to the disadvantage of workers.

Suspending the BOOT

As the law now stands, enterprise agreements cannot not undercut minimum standards in industry awards. This is known as the “better off overall test” – or BOOT. The new bill instructs the Fair Work Commission to approve agreements even if they fail this test, so long as the deal is nominally supported by affected workers (more on this below) and deemed to be in the “public interest”.

Australia is unique among wealthy nations in allowing employers to unilaterally implement enterprise agreements, without involvement by a union. The BOOT is thus necessary to prevent enterprise agreements from undermining award rights.

The bill proposes suspending BOOT for two years. But even if it were restored after that (which is uncertain), agreements approved during that window would remain in effect (enterprise agreements typically last four years). Even after they expire, under Australian law they remain in effect until replaced by a new agreement, or terminated by the FWC – neither of which is likely in a non-unionised workplace.

Apparently in anticipation that unions will actively oppose non-BOOT-compliant agreements, the bill also includes measures to speed their approval by the Fair Work Commission. The process must be completed within 21 days (with some exceptions). This will limit the ability of affected workers to learn about and resist their loss of benefits and conditions. Unions will be restricted from intervening around agreements they were not directly involved in negotiating (including intervening against agreements that had no union involvement at all).

Broadening the definition of casual work

The growing use of “casual” employment provisions was a hot topic at the IR reform tables. The new bill clarifies the definition of casual work in the most expansive way possible: a casual job is any position deemed casual by the employer, and accepted by the worker, for which there is no promise of regular continuing employment.

In other words, any job can be casual, so long as workers are desperate enough to accept it. This will foster the further spread of insecure employment without paid leave entitlements. Most importantly, it removes a big potential liability faced by employers as a result of recent court decisions, under which they might have owed back pay for holidays and sick leave to employees improperly treated as casual workers.

Read more: What defines casual work? Federal Court ruling highlights a fundamental flaw in Australian labour law

Casualising part-time workers

Further casualisation will be attained through new rules regarding rosters and hours for permanent part-time workers. The bill extends flexibility provisions originally implemented earlier this year – during that brief moment of pandemic-induced cooperation. The rules allow employers to alter hours for regular part-timers without incurring overtime penalties or other costs (currently required under some awards). This will allow employers to effectively use part-time workers as yet another form of casual, just-in-time labour.

Doubling new project agreement times

Finally, the bill grants one more big wish from the business list.

It allows super-long enterprise agreements at major new projects. Agreements can last for up to eight years – double the time now allowed – and be signed, sealed and delivered before any workers start on the job (thus denying them any input into the process).

Under revised BOOT provisions, they could also undercut the minimum standards of any industry awards.

Back to business as usual

These changes are being advertised as a spur for post-pandemic job creation. But this claim is hollow.

In reality, the changes in part-time and casual rules will actually discourage new hiring. Since existing workers can be costlessly “flexed” in line with employer needs, there is no need to hire anyone else.

Weaker BOOT protections will spur a wave of new enterprise agreements, most union-free, and aimed at reducing (not raising) compensation and standards. This makes a mockery of the goals of collective bargaining, and grants employers further opportunity to suppress labour costs (already tracking at their slowest pace in postwar history).

So what to make of that short-lived spirit of togetherness that purportedly sparked this whole process? In retrospect, it seems to have been just an opportunity for the Coalition government to pose as visionary statesmen during a time of crisis.

Now, mere months later, the government is back to its old ways – and the pandemic is just another excuse to scapegoat unions, drive down wages and fatten business profits.

– ref. So much for consensus: Morrison government’s industrial relations bill is a business wish list – https://theconversation.com/so-much-for-consensus-morrison-governments-industrial-relations-bill-is-a-business-wish-list-151668

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Rogers, Lecturer in Psychology, Edith Cowan University

If you leave your car sitting the garage for too long, the battery can go flat. Similarly, if we don’t maintain our friendships, they can go a bit flat too.

So just as it’s good practice to drive your car every so often and have it serviced regularly, friendships are easier to maintain with some semblance of regular contact.

What has this meant for our friendships during 2020, a year of social distancing and lockdowns? My research suggests physical separation wasn’t necessarily associated with psychological separation or the breakdown of friendships.

And that appears to be thanks mostly to communication technologies.

Mental health, friendships and COVID

Consistent with research from other parts of the world, lockdown experiences in Australia have been associated with diminished emotional well-being for many people.

My colleague Travis Cruickshank and I surveyed 1,599 Australians from various age groups during the national lockdown in April. Our study is still at the preprint stage, which means it hasn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

A substantial proportion of participants reported a deterioration in their mental health due to COVID-19 (10% deteriorated a lot, 44% deteriorated somewhat, 40% reported no change, and 6% improved somewhat).

We also asked how their friendships had been affected, and surprisingly, most respondents reported no change (66%). This was despite 72% noting they were interacting face-to-face with friends a lot less (and a further 14% somewhat less) during the pandemic.

Read more: It’s hard to admit we’re lonely, even to ourselves. Here are the signs and how to manage them

Communication technologies to the rescue

At first glance our results seem strange, as even the best communication technologies are arguably not an adequate substitute for face-to-face interaction. It’s difficult to make eye contact — an important social cue — through a screen. And if you’ve ever tried to catch up with a group of friends over Zoom or a similar platform, you’ll know it can become a little chaotic.

However, 56% of participants in our study reported spending more time interacting with friends using technology during the pandemic (for example, phone, email, or online chat). So it seems most people used communication technologies to stay connected with their friends during lockdown — even if it wasn’t quite the same as catching up in person.

Social media sometimes gets a bad rap. For example, excessive social media use has been associated with negative outcomes such as lower self-esteem and narcissistic tendencies. It can also be a vehicle for spreading misinformation.

However, having a raft of options for communicating digitally, of which social media platforms are a big part, has arguably been a good thing overall.

People have been able to share jokes with a wide audience to keep spirits up. For example, a Facebook group encouraging people to dress up in costumes to take their bins out, and then post pictures, went viral around the world.

Read more: Say what? How to improve virtual catch-ups, book groups and wine nights

More importantly, people could stay connected with friends and family during a stressful time. We know social support is important for managing anxiety, especially during fraught times.

Our results are consistent with other Australian research and US research which found people didn’t perceive their social support to be negatively affected during the pandemic.

But not everybody made use of technology

In our study, while most people reported no impact on their friendships, 27% of people reported a deterioration in their relationships with friends. These people were more likely to also report not increasing their level of communication via technological means.

These people were also more likely to report their mental health had deteriorated.

It’s important to note we collected our data fairly early in the pandemic. So it’s possible more people, particularly those in Victoria who endured a prolonged second lockdown, may have experienced deterioration in their friendships since we collected our data.

But our results highlight the important role communication technologies can play during a pandemic, and the value of using such technologies to maintain relationships and social support, for the benefit of our mental health.

Interestingly, 7% of people reported an improvement in friendship quality. Perhaps connecting over difficult times brought some people closer. Alternatively, with various communication technologies and apps gaining traction, some people may have started interacting with friends during lockdown who they wouldn’t normally see or speak to.

New communication technologies on the horizon

Video chat platforms (such as Zoom) saw a dramatic increase in use during the pandemic. While serviceable, video chat is still lacking compared with face-to-face interaction.

The pandemic has heightened interest in the development of new digital communication technologies. One prospect is communication in virtual reality (VR).

During the pandemic, a host of start-up companies have appeared selling VR meeting platforms. There was also an increase in usage of social VR programs, although these remain on the fringe.

A current issue with social interaction in VR is that the avatars generally have minimal expression and therefore only represent a shell of a character that transmits your voice. As summed up in this article on The Conversation, “VR technologies perhaps only offer a pale imitation of the multi-sensory experiences of life”.

However, new developments in motion tracking technology and touch-stimulating devices are set to significantly improve the social interaction experience in VR within the next few years.

New VR headsets are in development that include inbuilt facial motion tracking, such as those by Facebook, and also the DecaGear 1. In the coming years, we may be interacting in VR at work and at the weekend with our friends.

Read more: Why FaceTime can’t replace face-to-face time during social distancing

– ref. Has COVID cost friendships? Technology may have helped people stay connected during the pandemic – https://theconversation.com/has-covid-cost-friendships-technology-may-have-helped-people-stay-connected-during-the-pandemic-149276

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniella J. Forster, Senior Lecturer, Educational ethics and philosophies, University of Newcastle

This year, many of us have come to appreciate, perhaps more than before, the incredible work teachers do. We may wish to show our appreciation with a gift.

But what kind of gift will show our gratitude while ensuring we’re being ethical, too?

Read more: ‘Exhausted beyond measure’: what teachers are saying about COVID-19 and the disruption to education

What are the rules about gifts?

The key ethical concepts to consider when giving a gift to a teacher is undue influence and a conflict of interest, whether they be perceived, potential or real.

Public perception of the acceptance of a gift is important. In ethics policies and codes of conduct it can be affected by factors such as whether the gift was given in secret, the relationship between the giver and the receiver, and the magnitude and frequency of giving.

Teaching is an exposed profession when it comes to public perception — everyone has gone through the education system and has an opinion. The paradox is that public perception of teaching as a profession can differ from the warm and appreciative perceptions individuals often have of their own child’s teacher.

This means any gift, benefit or hospitality given to a teacher must not be easily considered a kind of bribe for special treatment, such as giving a specific grade to your child.

Each gift comes with some risk to the reputation of a teacher. Cash and items that can be easily exchanged for cash, such as shares, are generally forbidden. Parents should assume it is inappropriate to gift a teacher money for a nice dinner out, or an expensive piece of jewellery.

Read more: Is learning more important than well-being? Teachers told us how COVID highlighted ethical dilemmas at school

Each state and territory has its own gifts and benefits policies when it comes to ethical codes of conduct.

In Tasmania a gift must be worth less than A$100 and teachers must report offers of cash to their head of department and Tasmania Police. Whereas in the New South Wales Code of Conduct teachers must politely refuse gifts worth more than $50 (see Section 10.4) but can request approval for them.

In Queensland, teachers need to declare most gifts in a form. The gifts must be approved by the school and recorded on the public gift register. Gifts worth more than $150 will also be evaluated for appropriateness but those over $350 are unlikely to be approved.

In Western Australia a teacher can accept any minor gift valued less than $100 — such as chocolates, flowers, wine or jewellery — without declaring them. Other types of gifts such as consumables (event tickets) or property (mobile phones, computers) must be declared, registered and approved by the principal or director. Any gift over $1,000 cannot be kept for personal use.

In Victoria, a “gift of appreciation” valued at $100 or less from parents or guardians to a teacher can be accepted and does not need to be declared.

So, what can I give?

The questions you need to ask yourself before giving a gift are:

• can I be certain the gift is simply a demonstration of my gratitude for exemplary but complete teaching (such as end of year or semester), and not loaded with further expectations, such as a public acknowledgement or favours?

• is my gift excessive or could it be considered inappropriate?

• can my gift be exchanged for cash?

• am I a serial gift-giver? If so, calculate the total value of the gifts you have given to ensure they can’t be perceived as excessive or pressure for special treatment.

Some ethical gift ideas include:

• your favourite book, or a book voucher that can’t be exchanged for cash.

• a silk tie or colourful scarf, but not more intimate clothing

• scented candles, an engraved pen, a bound notebook or a small item from the antique store, as long as they are reasonably priced

• regifting a quality item, making a thank you card with your child, or planting some succulents in a nice pot

• getting together with other students’ families for a bigger gift. In Victoria a gift valued at over $500 may be approved if offered by multiple students or carers. In Western Australia, a teacher could be given a holiday trip as a farewell gift from a group of graduating students. So long as the teacher completes the required declaration and the gift is internally approved, the teacher can take the opportunity as a personal, private trip without requesting official travel approval

• making donations on your teacher’s behalf. In NSW, it is acceptable to donate a large sum of money, such as $1,000 to the school library for resources, or for playground equipment. But consult with your school about the process of such donations

• if you know your teacher has a special interest in, for instance, environmental protection, equal educational access for girls, or the provision of medical assistance to children in war-torn areas, you could give a tax-deductable donation to a reputable charity, on their behalf.

South Australia’s education department also invites students and parents to say a public thanks to their teacher on an online form.

The last ethical consideration is to ask yourself where the intended gift came from. Was it made ethically, on a living wage? Can it be recycled or made sustainably? Does it support a local industry or artist? Would your teacher like to know you have made a donation to a worthy cause on their behalf?

Read more: Five ways to reduce your eco-footprint this Christmas

If you are thinking about showing your appreciation to your teacher, it might be best to ask them what they would like, or what the school might need, to be sure they will be able to enjoy it.

– ref. Looking to buy a gift for your child’s teacher? Here’s how to be ethical about it – https://theconversation.com/looking-to-buy-a-gift-for-your-childs-teacher-heres-how-to-be-ethical-about-it-151572