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

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniela Simone, Senior lecturer, Macquarie University

Thousands of TikTok users have been creating a musical based on Disney/Pixar’s 2007 film Ratatouille under the hashtag #ratatouillemusical.

It began when US-based schoolteacher Emily Jacobsen wrote a “love ballad” in honour of Remy, the anthropomorphic rat with an acute sense of smell and taste who dreams of becoming a chef.

Jacobsen’s clip was then transformed by Daniel Mertzlufft, a composer and arranger, who revamped the song. Adding strings, trumpets, additional vocals and French horn, he turned it into a big musical number, capturing the imagination of thousands of TikTok users.

Soon others joined in: writing songs, crafting choreography and designing sets, costumes, makeup, puppets — and even the playbill. Others imagined the rehearsal process and the artistic director’s notes.

The result is a viral sensation. Even Disney has picked up the enthusiasm, with the Disney Parks TikTok account posting their own contribution — a Hamilton-esque rap about Remy’s culinary ambitions.

But what if Disney wanted to bring this collectively written musical to stage? Could they? And could Ratatouille The Musical be a ticket to riches for these gifted Gen Zers?

Who owns the copyright?

Generally speaking, anyone who makes their own song or dance on TikTok automatically owns the copyright. Copyright also allows for joint authorship, but it usually requires the authors to have been working together on a common aim — could this be said of TikTok creators who take and build on each others’ works sequentially?

Working out authorship is only the first hurdle. Because creators are located all around the world, different copyright and contract laws come into play.

And these creators are not only building on each other’s creations, they are also building off Disney’s original movie.

This means there might be potential, (as unlikely as it seems,) for Disney to sue the TikTokkers for their use of Remy. In the United States and some other jurisdictions, it is possible to assert copyright in fictional characters.

This is more complicated in places like Australia, where at least one eager TikTokker, Gabbi Bolt, is crafting songs for the musical. Here, characters themselves are not protected by copyright, but aspects could be protected under the broader copyright encompassing the movie’s story and artwork.

Infringement would turn on whether a “substantial part” has been copied — something difficult to assess as it’s a matter of degree.

Mind you, as long as the collaborations stay on TikTok, it seems unlikely Disney will sue. In a statement, the company told the New York Times “we love when our fans engage with our stories”.

But who can get paid?

Even though the TikTok users own their copyright, as a condition of participating on the platform, they agree to the terms of service. These terms are complex and hard to navigate — but it appears users grant TikTok a very broad irrevocable, perpetual, sublicensable right to copy, modify and share their content on a royalty-free basis.

This licence is non-exclusive so (in theory) TikTokkers could license their videos to others, such as Disney — but the terms imply that users can only access and use any TikTok content for “personal, non-commercial use”.

It’s not clear from the terms exactly what this personal use would cover. In addition, TikTokkers specifically renounce the right to remuneration for their creativity except as provided for in the terms of service.

(It seems even sponsored posts could be contrary to the terms of service, despite being so widespread. For stars like Charli D’Amelio, TikTok clearly tolerates — or has agreed to — some commercial uses.)

Under the terms of service, TikTokkers also waive their “moral rights”: anyone who uses their work doesn’t need to attribute them as authors, which they would normally have to do in Australia.

This means Disney could use the creative contributions of the users without having to compensate the creators, or even recognise them as authors.

So it seems the TikTokkers can’t get paid. But TikTok can. Under the terms of service, users agree TikTok can authorise others to make derivative works based on their work in any format or on any platform.

Disney would probably need to get TikTok’s permission to make any commercial use of the songs, artworks and dances uploaded on its service.

And while the TikTokkers who create the content are not allowed to receive any money for their work, nothing in the terms of service prevents TikTok from charging Disney a hefty fee for granting such permission.

A double sided coin

The story of #ratatouillemusical illustrates the two sides of social media services such as Instagram or TikTok, which can launch an artist or creator while, at the same time, making it challenging for them to monetize their content.

TikTok has recently launched a Creator Fund, allowing eligible “ambitious creators” to earn money off their videos, so far some users seem disappointed with the service which reportedly pays between 2 and 4 cents per 1,000 views.

And while there are agreements in place with some recording labels and independent distributors about the use of background music, this doesn’t really help amateur contributors.

Under COVID-19, we have seen a huge surge in collaborative creativity and a growing reliance on platforms such as TikTok for socialising and entertainment.

These are exciting opportunities — but the intellectual property implications of conducting more and more of our lives online have yet to be fully thought through.

– ref. TikTokkers are writing Ratatouille, the musical. But who owns the copyright? – https://theconversation.com/tiktokkers-are-writing-ratatouille-the-musical-but-who-owns-the-copyright-151294

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Dwyer, Associate Professor, Department of Media and Communications, University of Sydney

The long-awaited mandatory code that will force Google and Facebook to pay Australian media companies for news content was finally unveiled yesterday.

The Treasury Laws Amendment Bill 2020 (news media and digital platforms mandatory bargaining code) will be introduced to parliament today, before being referred to a Senate committee.

Many of Australia’s news businesses have been on a hiding to nothing for more than a decade, as their revenue is undercut by the targeted advertising business model used by major digital platforms.

The most visible casualty has been public interest journalism — with the prospect of a well-informed citizenry on a slower, less obvious burn.

Against a backdrop of reports suggesting intense lobbying efforts by Facebook and Google against the new legislation, it appears some key concessions have been achieved by the platforms that weren’t present in the draft code.

Read more: No more negotiating: new rules could finally force Google and Facebook to pay for news

What’s changed in the revised code?

First, the revised code will now abide by an added “two-way value exchange” principle. This allows the monetary worth of traffic sent to news providers to be taken into account when determining the financial value of a particular news business’s content to the platforms.

How this will be calculated, however, will likely be an ongoing bone of contention for both parties.

A second major concession will see Facebook’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube exempted from the application of the new law. But the Treasurer will be able to add these (and other platforms) at a later date, should he deem it justified at the time.

A third concession is the halving of the 28-day notice period for the platforms to warn news websites of major changes to their ranking algorithms. These directly impact how news articles are displayed on Facebook’s Newsfeed and Google Search.

It seems the basic idea to “level the playing field” between platforms and news providers remains baked into the revised code, but only time will tell whether it works in practice.

A related objective — to implement a process that sustains public interest journalism — remains equally tricky and may hinge on the revised code’s success.

But many will be pleased the public broadcasters ABC and SBS now fall within the code’s scope, too. Both will be financially compensated for news content along with their commercial rivals.

This may seem like a win, and it may be eventually, but for now it’s unclear how this will actually play out in terms of the government’s ongoing funding of these broadcasters.

Although conjecture at this stage, it may emerge in a forum such as Senate estimates that any compensation payments should be factored into overall funding calculations for the public broadcasters.

The arbitration model

One pivotal feature of the new legislation is it will address the entrenched power of the platforms by introducing a “final offer arbitration” model for price negotiations.

This process, overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, will be mandatory when parties are unable to independently reach an agreement. It will likely be central to the new code’s success, or lack thereof.

Curiously, the revised code’s framework encourages deals to be struck outside of it. In these situations, key elements of commercial negotiations between the parties can be “turned off” with mutual agreement.

This appears to be a pragmatic recognition by the ACCC the code will never be able to control the realities of commercial media deal-making, which continue to be struck despite the code’s new bargaining marketplace.

However, where negotiations break down, news media businesses will be able to trigger the code’s provisions for meeting minimum standards.

This will cover advance notice of algorithmic changes and the requirement to engage in good faith bargaining for up to three months, before participating in the mandatory arbitration process.

Smaller news publishers will be able to bargain collectively, or accept “standard” offers from the platforms.

When one party fails to engage

The code has reasonably strong enforcement provisions in cases where there is a failure to negotiate in good faith, comply with an arbitration decision, avoid participation or engage in “retaliatory action against news media companies”.

The maximum penalty for a breach by Google or Facebook is the greater of either 10% of the platform’s annual Australian turnover, A$10 million, or three times the benefit obtained as a result of hosting the specific news business’s content.

Facebook and Google have put their previous threats to switch off local news content on hold until they see the final version of the code. For now, they appear to be engaging with the ACCC.

Read more: Facebook vs news: Australia wants to level the playing field, Facebook politely disagrees

We still need to tackle media concentration

As we await the final version of the code, the irony is not lost on those of us also waiting eagerly for events to unfold before another Senate committee on media pluralism.

The committee was set up in response to a petition started by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Amassing more than 500,000 signatures, Rudd’s petition has called for a royal commission into the negative influence of News Corp’s power in Australia’s highly concentrated media landscape.

A rich history of Australia’s parliamentary inquiries into the media indicates we can expect delays, power plays and ongoing lobbying in both these committees. And clearly there will be winners and losers in both.

– ref. Expect delays and power plays: Google and Facebook brace as news media bargaining code is set to become law – https://theconversation.com/expect-delays-and-power-plays-google-and-facebook-brace-as-news-media-bargaining-code-is-set-to-become-law-151690

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Troy Baisden, Professor (Environmental Sciences), University of Waikato

There’s a serious mismatch between what New Zealand’s government identified as the most pressing environmental issues, including climate change and freshwater quality, and the investments in environmental research it actually makes.

A report released today by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) shows New Zealand spends about NZ$500m on environmental research each year. But the commissioner, former MP Simon Upton, says finding out “what gets funded and its links with policy priorities proved more difficult than I expected”.

The commissioner’s main recommendations include ring-fencing the money, developing a funding strategy and distributing funds through a new agency, based on the success of the Health Research Council.

New Zealanders are entitled to know that the environmental research they fund is focused on addressing the most important challenges we face. But the way public funds are currently invested in environmental research is fragmented, making it hard to respond to problems such as climate change, freshwater quality and biodiversity loss.

The report presents an almost complete map of environmental research funding, updating the incomplete picture previously available.

Among the major failings of the current funding system is the lack of systematic investment in collections and monitoring programmes to track the changing environment.

Read more: Why long-term environmental observations are crucial for New Zealand’s water security challenges

Lack of overview and strategy

The commissioner proposes the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) should lead the development of a strategy to identify environmental research priorities, even though its current investment is dwarfed by other government entities and regional councils.

Two of the four largest investors in environmental research deserve special mention. About $71m is funded by universities each year, but it is challenging to verify or break down into categories. The report also shows ratepayers contribute nearly as much as universities, through projects funded by regional councils.

The best possible environmental research might develop win-win solutions to what is often seen as a trade-off between the economy and the environment. Regenerative agriculture is one example where more research investment is needed to assess its potential to reduce environmental impacts while delivering higher-value products.

Missed opportunities

The report doesn’t explore New Zealand’s approaches to environmental research funding over the last few decades. The recommendation that a policy agency should coordinate research resembles what some consider one of the worst historic funding mechanisms.

Investments in ecological research between 2005 and 2015 supported short-term policy needs well. But this may have come at the expense of long-term monitoring projects and environmental databases.

The relatively large investment by regional councils also raises the question of whether central government should support long-term environmental monitoring that is of national interest but beyond immediate benefit to local ratepayers.

The commissioner could also have highlighted the 2010 report of the Crown Research Institute task force, which concluded that stable science institutions should manage funding strategically and use international advisory boards to review their success. A similar review conducted this year recommended the development of integrated research strategies across the country’s seven institutes, particularly on environmental issues such as climate change.

Read more: ‘Devastating’: The Morrison government cuts uni funding for environment courses by almost 30%

A return to a simplified public-good model should be considered together with the recommendation for a dedicated funding agency. Simon Upton was the cabinet minister who reformed New Zealand’s research institutions and funding systems back in 1992, and has lamented subsequent decisions that destabilised funding and institutions.

Changing post-pandemic focus

The COVID-19 pandemic represents both an opportunity and challenge, according to advisors to an assessment of how the research sector could better contribute to economic transformation.

Success depends on the research workforce. There are major concerns about too few Māori researchers, particularly in roles leading research. Early career researchers also face difficulty finding permanent positions.

Many benefits would come from reformed institutions with flexible funding to respond to public-good needs for environmental and natural hazards research. Less contestability would also reduce the effort wasted on unsuccessful proposals.

New Zealand’s main source of contestable research funding, the Endeavour Fund, invested $187M in 17 research programmes this year, but turned down 128 (87%).

New Zealand voters want progress on water quality and climate change, but ministers and councils appear unwilling to use taxes and rates to fully support a solution.

Ideally, a future research funding system will support all New Zealanders, especially farmers, to implement changes to look after our environment.

– ref. Report shows New Zealand’s ‘fragmented’ environmental research funding doesn’t match most urgent needs – https://theconversation.com/report-shows-new-zealands-fragmented-environmental-research-funding-doesnt-match-most-urgent-needs-151741

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Ireland, Senior Research Scientist at the Australian E-Health Research Centre., CSIRO

Allow us to introduce Edna — Australia’s first “genomics chatbot”.

Edna (short for “electronic-DNA”) helps patients make informed decisions about seeking “additional findings” testing.

Additional findings testing looks for variants in patients’ genes that aren’t relevant to their current health, but may be later on. For example, it can reveal if someone has an above-average chance of developing a hereditary heart condition.

But these tests can have major implications for patients and their families. Thus, individuals deciding whether they want such a test need support — which Edna can provide.

This chatbot was developed by us and our colleagues at the CSIRO and other members of the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance.

Genomic and genetic testing

A range of medical conditions have underlying genetic causes. Historically, this has been tested with genetic testing, by looking at either a single gene or a panel of genes related to one particular condition.

In genomic testing, however, almost all the genes in a patient’s DNA are analysed using a biological sample (such as blood).

In Australia, genomic testing is done for patients with certain medical conditions, to provide more information about the condition and medical care required.

But genomic data can be analysed further in an additional findings test, to report on potential gene variants responsible for other preventable and/or treatable conditions.

Although available in the United States, additional findings tests are currently beyond immediate medical need in Australia and are only carried out in research settings. That said, conversations have started about them becoming mainstream here, too.

If additional findings tests were offered in Australia, genetic counsellors would have to spend a large proportion of their time helping patients decide whether they want one. This is where chatbots come in.

Edna the chatbot in training

For chatbots to accurately recognise human speech and provide a meaningful response, their “brain” needs to draw on a large body of data.

Many chatbot brains are developed from open source data, but this is inadequate for highly specialised fields. We developed Edna by analysing transcripts of actual counselling sessions that discussed additional findings analysis.

Edna can emulate the flow of a real patient-counsellor session, explaining various conditions, terms, concepts and the key factors patients should consider when making their decision.

For example, it prompts them to consider the personal and familial implications of undergoing an additional findings analysis. As we all share genes with our family, results from genomic testing can lead to serious conversations.

Edna has several other capabilities, such as:

• knowing when to connect a patient with a genetic counsellor, if needed

• providing general information covered in most genetic counselling sessions, allowing counsellors more time to focus on patients with complex needs

• collecting a patient’s family history

• detecting various forms of common language, such as “nan” instead of “grandmother” and “heart attack” instead of “myocardial infarct” (the medical term for heart attack)

• recognising certain temporal markers. For instance, if a patient says “my mother died around Anzac Day two years ago”, Edna will know their mother died around April 25, 2018.

Edna is currently undergoing a feasibility trial with patients who have already had additional findings analysis done in a research setting, as well as genetic counsellors and students.

Read more: Aristotle and the chatbot: how ancient rules of logic could make artificial intelligence more human

The Eliza Effect and other hurdles

Past research has suggested people prefer chatbots that interact with empathy and sympathy, rather than unemotionally giving advice. This is called the “Eliza effect” — named after the first ever chatbot. Eliza was able to elicit an emotional response from humans.

Edna is quite advanced on this front. It can detect negative sentiment and even some forms of sarcasm. Still, this isn’t the same as true empathy.

Chatbots can’t yet match genetic counsellors’ ability to detect and respond to emotional cues. And “sentiment analysis” remains a significant challenge in natural language processing.

Since Edna provides generic information, it can’t discuss the implications of a future or previous genomic test for a specific patient. It also can’t link the patient with a support group, or provide expert medical advice.

Still, Edna represents a significant move towards a digital health solution that could take some pressure off genetic counsellors.

Read more: The future of chatbots is more than just small-talk

Providing more genomic healthcare

Edna’s main advantage is accessibility. It can support people living remotely, or who are otherwise unable to attend face-to-face genetic counselling.

It can also be accessed at a patient’s home, where family members may be present. They can then share in the information provided and engage Edna themselves, potentially improving the chances of an accurate history capture.

As a digital interface, Edna is almost endlessly modifiable. It can be updated continuously with data compiled during interactions with patients — whether this be information on new topics, or a new way to respond to a question.

A larger-scale patient trial is planned for the near future.

– ref. Introducing Edna: the chatbot trained to help patients make a difficult medical decision – https://theconversation.com/introducing-edna-the-chatbot-trained-to-help-patients-make-a-difficult-medical-decision-150847

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirsten Small, Obstetrician and researcher, Griffith University

Pregnant women rightly expect that when they’re in labour, medical staff will observe them and their baby closely, and can deal with any potential problems quickly.

The majority of women who give birth in Australia are monitored with a cardiotocograph (CTG monitoring). But this isn’t the only way.

Research shows women want to be included in making decisions about how to monitor the baby, but often are not.

In this article, we set out some of the pros and cons for each option, to help women take an active role in deciding what’s best for them and their baby.

What is foetal monitoring?

Foetal monitoring during labour focuses on detecting particular changes in the baby’s heart rate, so doctors and midwives can respond if a problem is found.

This could be as simple as asking the woman to change position, or in other circumstances, medical staff might recommend a caesarean section. The goal is to prevent the baby dying, or suffering brain damage as a result of low oxygen levels during labour.

The first method of foetal monitoring is intermittent auscultation. The midwife or doctor will typically listen to the baby’s heart rate for one minute every 15-30 minutes, including during contractions, using a device called a foetal doppler. Foetal dopplers use ultrasound to detect the baby’s heartbeat.

The second approach is CTG monitoring. CTG records the baby’s heart rate and the strength of the woman’s contractions, usually by placing two recording discs on the woman’s abdomen, which are held in place with straps. The information is then plotted on a graph, helping the midwife or doctor understand how the baby responds during the pressure of a contraction.

Read more: Tokophobia is an extreme fear of childbirth. Here’s how to recognise and treat it

So, what’s the difference?

CTG monitoring is the most common approach to foetal monitoring in Australia and other high-income countries, and is usually used continuously throughout labour.

Some women find the straps used to keep the monitoring devices in place uncomfortable. Depending on the specific equipment, women may need to remain lying on a bed, and therefore find their movements are restricted.

Some, but not all CTG monitors can be used in the shower or a birthing pool. So women being monitored with CTG may not be able to access these options, which bring comfort to some women during labour.

Conversely, intermittent auscultation leaves the woman free to move in between episodes of monitoring, when she is not attached to the equipment.

While intermittent monitoring may be preferable from the perspective of the woman’s comfort, let’s look at how the two approaches compare on three important outcomes for mother and baby.

Women at low risk

Women who don’t have any risk factors that may increase the likelihood of complications for their baby are considered low risk.

A Cochrane review comparing intermittent auscultation with CTG monitoring showed no significant difference in the rare event of babies dying during labour or soon after among low-risk women (seven deaths per 10,000 births).

Cerebral palsy is a type of permanent brain injury that may sometimes occur due to low oxygen levels during labour. No research has looked at how the foetal monitoring approach used affects the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy in low-risk women.

Caesarean section was twice as common in women monitored by CTG compared with intermittent auscultation. We don’t know why, although it might have something to do with the fact women monitored with CTG often report not being able to move freely during labour.

Given caesarean section is associated with a higher rate of complications for the mother such as heavy bleeding or infection, and increased rates of miscarriage and stillbirth in subsequent pregnancies, intermittent auscultation is the safer monitoring option for low-risk women.

Read more: Why labour is such a pain – and how to reduce it

Women at higher risk

Some factors (for example, having a baby that’s smaller than expected, giving birth prematurely, or having diabetes) are associated with a greater chance of poor outcomes for the baby. Women with risk factors such as these are considered high risk.

We recently reviewed the evidence comparing the use of intermittent auscultation and CTG monitoring for high-risk women. CTG was again no better than intermittent auscultation in preventing babies dying during labour or soon after (16 deaths per 10,000 births).

However, cerebral palsy rates were almost three times higher with CTG monitoring over intermittent auscultation (going from 769 to 1,951 babies per 10,000 births). We don’t know why this is.

Once again, the caesarean section rate almost doubled with CTG monitoring.

Poor outcomes such as cerebral palsy and perinatal death occur more often in high-risk women, but remain relatively uncommon. Research shows the use of CTG rather than intermittent auscultation doesn’t reduce the likelihood of these outcomes, but does increase the risk to women by making it more likely they will give birth by caesarean section.

Making a decision

Intermittent auscultation is generally the recommended monitoring technique when there are no risk factors. But all major international foetal monitoring guidelines advise CTG monitoring should be used for women considered to be at high risk, despite the evidence.

As a consequence, clinicians don’t always explain foetal monitoring choices to women with risk factors in a way that helps them make up their own mind about how they want their baby to be monitored during labour.

Notably, much of the research we have on this topic is now dated, and not necessarily of optimal quality. It’s important that recommendations in professional guidelines align with research evidence and support midwives and doctors to help women make personalised and informed decisions about their own care.

If you’re expecting a baby, talk to your midwife who will be able to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each foetal monitoring option with you in light of your personal situation.

Read more: Having a scan? Here’s how the different types work and what they can find

– ref. Most women who give birth in Australia are monitored with CTG. But it might not be the best approach – https://theconversation.com/most-women-who-give-birth-in-australia-are-monitored-with-ctg-but-it-might-not-be-the-best-approach-147262

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Biddle, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

A large study has, for the first time, shown preschool benefits Indigenous children more than other types of care such as long daycare (childcare) or home-based care.

This is important because while past studies had shown Indigenous children who had attended preschool were more likely to be ready for school, it was unclear whether preschool contributed to better outcomes.

These children might have had better developmental outcomes regardless of their participation in preschool. For example, children who attend preschool are also more likely to live in more advantaged households. This also contributes to better outcomes.

We set out to find whether preschool itself benefited children, and to measure these benefits using real-world data.

Our study of NSW public school children, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, shows preschool attendance appears to have developmental benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, compared with home-based care in the year before school. This is after taking into account differences in children’s socioeconomic and health circumstances.

We classified any type of care that wasn’t preschool or long daycare as home-based care. This can include family daycare and care at home by parents and grandparents.

Although beneficial, Aboriginal children experienced fewer developmental benefits from preschool than non-Aboriginal children in our study. This suggests we need to improve the early childhood education experience of Aboriginal children.

We also found differences in early life circumstances explained much of the developmental gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children in all types of early childhood education and care.

This highlights the importance of meeting the health and social needs of Aboriginal children and families, alongside early childhood education, to improve early life outcomes for these children.

Why we did our study

One of the seven early Closing the Gap targets was to ensure 95% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander four-year-olds were enrolled in early childhood education by 2025.

In 2018, the Morrison government updated the Closing the Gap framework in partnership with Aboriginal peak organisations. There are now two targets related to early childhood education:

• to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children enrolled in early childhood education the year before full-time schooling to 95% by 2025

• to increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children assessed as developmentally on track in all five domains of the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) to 55% by 2031.

One assumption underlying these targets is that early childhood education will improve developmental outcomes among Indigenous children. We wanted to find out if preschool is achieving this goal, and to what extent.

Read more: Preschool benefits children and the economy. But the budget has left funding uncertain, again

We used developmental data for 7,384 Indigenous and 95,104 non-Indigenous public school children who started school in NSW in either 2009 or 2012. The data were collected as part of the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC). It takes place every three years and is based on teachers’ knowledge and observations of the children in their classes.

Children’s development is scored between zero and ten on each of five key domains of development: physical, social, emotional, language and cognitive, and communication.

Children with scores in the bottom 10%, according to the 2009 AEDC benchmark, are considered developmentally vulnerable. We looked at how many children were developmentally vulnerable on one or more of the five domains.

We combined the developmental data with other population datasets, including birth registrations, midwives and hospital and school enrolment data. This was to understand children’s health, early childhood education and family circumstances.

We looked at whether children had attended a preschool program, a long daycare centre (without a preschool program) or home-based care in the year before full-time schooling.

Our findings

Overall, across the two school starter cohorts, 71% of Indigenous children and 74% of non-Indigenous children attended preschool in the year before full-time school. The majority of Indigenous (64%) and non-Indigenous children (80%) were not developmentally vulnerable on any of the domains assessed.

Among Indigenous children, 33% who had attended preschool and 44% who had attended home-based care were vulnerable on one or more domains. The figures for non-Indigenous children were 17% and 33% of those who attended preschool and home-based care, respectively.

There were substantial developmental gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in all types of early childhood education and care. Among children in preschool, Indigenous children were almost twice as likely as non-Indigenous children to be developmentally vulnerable at the age of five.

Our modelling shows a beneficial effect of preschool in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children — which was larger in non-Indigenous children.

After taking into account the differences in children’s early life circumstances, the risk of developmental vulnerability was six percentage points lower for non-Indigenous children who attended preschool than those in home-based care. It was three percentage points lower for Indigenous children who attended preschool compared with those in home-based care.

Read more: 1 in 5 kids start school with health or emotional difficulties that challenge their learning

Children in home-based care had the highest risk of developmental vulnerability. For non-Indigenous children, there was a lower risk for long daycare compared to home-based care.

However, we found there were no benefits of long daycare without a preschool program for Indigenous children. This highlights the type of early childhood education and care matters.

What does all this mean?

Preschool is an important part of the ongoing strategy to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children start full-time schooling ready to achieve their full potential.

Our findings reinforce the importance of the new Closing the Gap partnership with Aboriginal peak organisations to ensure Aboriginal leaders and communities are integrally involved in using data to understand, and respond to, the needs of their children and families.

This includes strategies to increase participation in preschool. We have shown this has benefits for Aboriginal children. It also highlights the need to invest in quality, culturally appropriate preschool for Indigenous children, as Indigenous children did not seem to benefit as much as non-Indigenous children from preschool.

Read more: Victoria and NSW have funded preschool for 2021. It’s shaping up to be a federal election issue

Differences in their early life circumstances explained much of the gap in developmental vulnerability between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. This suggests investments in early childhood education and care need to be considered alongside health and social services to improve the early life circumstances of Indigenous children.

A final point worth emphasising is that most Indigenous children are not developmentally vulnerable when they enter full-time schooling. This highlights areas of strength that future policies can draw upon.

This research would not be possible without governments facilitating access to, and links of, administrative datasets, and the ongoing contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families to data collection in Australia.

– ref. Preschool benefits Indigenous children more than other types of early care – https://theconversation.com/preschool-benefits-indigenous-children-more-than-other-types-of-early-care-149724

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shamit Saggar, Professor and Director, Public Policy institute, University of Western Australia

Getting ahead of climate change challenges is now a pressing need across our economy and society. Last month the bosses of 22 of Australia’s largest firms, including BHP, Rio Tinto, Wesfarmers and Commonwealth Bank, put their names to the Climate Leaders Coalition. It signalled their collective wish to push down emissions and push up their international obligations under the Paris Agreement.

Australia’s politicians are increasingly on the back foot — something universities and professions cannot risk. The cockpit of the knowledge economy must remain fit for purpose in the face of global challenges.

The biggest of these of late has been marshalling expertise to tackle a global pandemic. Climate change is an even bigger challenge.

Read more: Climate change is the most important mission for universities of the 21st century

Universities as knowledge communities take pride in leading discovery and understanding. The pressures to update and reform can come from beyond the academy, sometimes in response to perceived failure (think of economics and the GFC) or in meeting demand for new skills (the rapid expansion of business education in the past two decades).

The Preparedness Report, launched today by the UWA Public Policy Institute, argues disciplines, and the practitioners they educate and train, are already changing fast in response to climate change.

The report highlights the nature and extent of retooling in six fields: engineering, architecture, law, economics, healthcare and oceanography (the same is true for around 20 more disciplines).

Key questions for all professions

All professions need to find timely answers to some core questions:

• What will be the practical impacts of climate change on the feasibility, processes, sustainability and operations of their professions?

• How will future members of the professions need to be educated, trained and accredited?

• How will the underlying disciplines change?

• Which new fields of research and education will emerge?

• How will different disciplines develop new cross-overs and synergies?

Many new skills and competencies will have to be taught. Think, for example, of the need to engineer heat-tolerant public transport systems and plan water-sensitive cities.

Fresh mechanisms are also needed to ensure the value of current expertise, such as actuaries’ capacity to model commercial and household risk for insurance purposes.

Read more: Water may soon lap at the door, but still some homeowners don’t want to rock the boat

Greater use of cross-disciplinary collaboration will be needed too — for example, in building design and construction.

How 6 disciplines are responding

Engineering is synonymous with industrial society so has much to reflect on in terms of repurposing. Engineers will have to recalibrate their earlier assumptions. As UWA environmental engineer Anas Ghadouani notes:

Consider the fact that the sectors at the top of the emissions pyramid, including transport, electricity production and manufacturing, contributed over 75% of emissions. These top emitting sectors have been flush with engineers and engineering companies.

For architects to be credible in this new environment, they must grasp that “our modern experience of globalisation is predicated on three phenomena with spatial and environmental consequences: mobility, dispersion and density”, says UWA’s School of Design dean, Kate Hislop. Thus:

Lowering CO₂ emissions involves regenerative design, adaptive reuse, life-cycle costing, carbon modelling, post-occupancy evaluation, waste minimisation and adoption of low embodied carbon materials and systems.

Academic law is heavily exposed, and its challenges, reports David Hodgkinson from UWA’s School of Law, boil down to the laws and regulations that can be introduced to reduce emissions and assist people, species and ecosystems vulnerable to climate change. It is a question of intergenerational justice. He concludes:

The main issue at stake is that if we agree to reduce emissions now, people living in the future will benefit, not those living today. But we will, today, bear the costs of reducing such emissions.

For economists, whose counsel has become embedded in part thanks to the landmark Stern Report, the greatest contribution has been in evaluating policy options that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Their very strong consensus is that the key policy response is to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions. David Pannell, who leads UWA’s Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy, states:

There are differences of opinion about whether a tax or a market in permits would be superior [in reducing emissions], but there is almost no dissent among economists that one or the other of these is needed.

In the field of health care, the emphasis is on training health-care professionals. For Sajni Gudka, from UWA’s School of Population and Global Health, climate change amounts to a public health emergency:

Real capacity shortfalls are close by in responding to growing infectious diseases, heat stress, food insecurity, poor water quality and nutrition.

Finally, for oceanography the urgency lies in mitigating the effects of climate change in coastal zones. Julian Partridge and Charitha Pattiaratchi, of UWA’s Oceans Institute, say a breakthrough depends on a grand alliance of disciplinary perspectives:

Climate change challenges cannot be solved by engineers and scientists alone. They need alliances with social scientists, cultural heritage specialists and others to join this collective endeavour.

Read more: This is how universities can lead climate action

Waiting for political action

The focus of the report is on the academic sector, related professions and the knowledge economy. But the preparedness question is also being asked of the political class and specific governments. As public attitudes become accustomed to environmental stewardship, heightened by the bushfire crisis last summer, voters are beginning to choose a direction of travel that was until recently dismissed.

In Western Australia, the government has just released its new Climate Change Policy, following several other states. Doctors for the Environment Australia is one of many campaigns that question the sagacity of short-term economic priorities.

How prepared is the country’s political class to use the advances made by universities and professions to address climate change?

– ref. How universities and professions are preparing to meet the climate challenge – https://theconversation.com/how-universities-and-professions-are-preparing-to-meet-the-climate-challenge-151662

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Gould, ARC Research Fellow, Social And Political Sciences, University of Melbourne

The coming decades represent an era of uncertainty for Australia’s cemeteries. They also present an opportunity to reflect on what our public cemeteries could and should be.

Our cemeteries are running out of space, with more Australians dying than ever before. As a result of a growing and ageing population, the country’s annual death count has more than doubled since 1960. It will double again by around 2070.

Unlike other real estate, cemetery space is largely a non-renewable resource. Many European countries lease grave sites for a limited period, but most Australian states and territories stipulate that each burial must be preserved in perpetuity. New South Wales has introduced a system of opt-in 25-year leases.

Read more: Housing the dead: what happens when a city runs out of space?

Some intercity cemeteries have been closed to new burials for decades. Demands on cemeteries as green spaces for leisure and recreation, as well as commemorating the dead, are also growing.

This is what makes Victoria’s Harkness cemetery development, a 128-hectare site on the edge of Melbourne’s West Growth Corridor, so significant. It’s Victoria’s largest new cemetery development in 100 years.

Harkness will shape how Australians live and die for many generations to come. And it is an opportunity to imagine a new future for death in Australia.

We are investigating these issues as members of The Future Cemetery project team, in partnership with colleagues at the University of Melbourne, Oxford University and the Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust. Shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted two studies:

1. a co-design workshop with representatives of the Australian death care industry, which came up with five models for future cemeteries

2. a national survey of attitudes to cemeteries, which found many Australians are open to change.

Read more: Buried beneath the trees: a plan to solve our shortage of cemetery space

How cemeteries are changing

Changes in demography, religious affiliation and technology, among other factors, shape public attitudes to how the dead should be treated.

The demographic trend is reasonably clear. Australia’s population is projected to grow strongly in coming decades (despite the effects of the coronavirus). This growth is driven mainly by high net overseas migration.

Read more: Migrant communities keep our cemeteries alive as more Anglo-Australians turn to cremation

Australia’s religious diversity will likely increase, too. Christianity is projected to become a minority religion by 2050 for the first time since European colonisation, and the population of religiously unaffiliated is growing. The preference for burial or cremation within Australia’s diverse communities has a particular marked impact on future cemetery design.

Technology could also revolutionise cemetery design. New methods for treating human remains, such as recomposition (“human composting”), alkaline hydrolysis (“water cremation”) and natural burial, could alter the volume and kinds of remains that end up in cemeteries. Other technologies could change how we see the cemetery, from augmented-reality historical tours to remote grave visits through 3D drone photography.

Read more: Ashes to ashes, dust to … compost? An eco-friendly burial in just 4 weeks

Five visions of the future cemetery

The co-design workshop’s five models are:

• the traditional cemetery as it currently exists

• the nature park cemetery, which integrates burial grounds with native bushland to provide a space that is resource-neutral and open to the public for walking and picnics

• the socially activated cemetery, which makes space available for a range of public uses, from educational activities such as birdwatching and botany to leisure activities such as playgrounds and cafés

• the urban high-rise cemetery, which takes take the form of a centrally located urban building rather than a rolling open lawn, drawing inspiration from multi-storey columbaria in North-East Asia, to enable the deceased to be laid to rest close to their loved ones

• the digital cemetery, which is the idea of a “technology layer” that will increasingly co-exist with, and perhaps one day even replace, the physical cemetery, where loved ones can share photographs, videos and stories about the deceased. In an age of pandemic lockdowns, this digital layer could even allow for people to visit graves remotely for memorial services.

Read more: Small funerals, online memorials and grieving from afar: the coronavirus is changing how we care for the dead

Each of these models is a hypothetical – no cemetery in the near future is likely to follow a single model to the exclusion of all others. However, they point towards the differing options cemetery designers have to think about when planning for the next 100 years.

How do Australians see cemeteries?

Australians appear to be relatively open to considering new concepts for the cemetery.

In our national survey, two-thirds of respondents disagreed with the idea that “the cemetery should only be for the interment and memorialisation of the dead”. About a third of respondents supported the use of cemeteries as nature reserves to conserve plants and animals. Similar numbers agreed that a cemetery would be a good place to learn about historical and philosophical issues.

Leisure activities at the cemetery, such as exercise classes, picnics and concerts, attracted much less public support. And conspicuous technologies such as drones and virtual reality systems proved a bridge too far for most.

Most notable was a lack of strong feelings – positive or negative – about many of the proposals for the future cemetery. This suggests to us that, given taboos around death, Australians rarely have the chance to consider the cemetery and its potential uses. We are perhaps open to considering new technologies and ideas for the cemetery, as long as they are implemented respectfully and do not disrupt the fundamental need to mourn the dead.

– ref. Visions of future cemeteries: 5 models and how Australians feel about them – https://theconversation.com/visions-of-future-cemeteries-5-models-and-how-australians-feel-about-them-149150

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

One of the central ideas in tax policy is the principle of the second-best.

Economic theory gives us a good idea of what an ideal tax system would look like, given our objectives. But in real life, things fall short.

It might be thought that piecemeal reform, moving some taxes closer to the ideal, would be a step in the right direction.

But it needn’t be, if other taxes aren’t moved.

Here’s an example. Imagine that the goods and services tax exempted health products, both mainstream and alternative.

An ideal GST wouldn’t exempt health products (though the government might provide subsidised access to some products, as it does through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme).

Imagine is administratively possible to remove the exemption for mainstream health products, which would bring it closer to the ideal.

Now imagine that for jurisdictional reasons it isn’t as easy to remove the exemption for alternative products.

Second-best can make things worse

Removing the exemption for mainstream products, which can be done straight away, seems like a good idea because it would be one step closer to removing all exemptions.

But if it is actually done straight away, without waiting the removal of the exemption on alternative products, it would have unintended (and perhaps dangerous) consequences.

People would be encouraged to switch from mainstream to alternative health products.

Read more: Think taxing electric vehicle use is a backward step? Here’s why it’s an important policy advance

The same sort of issues arise with the plans to charge electric vehicles per kilometre driven in order to treat them more like conventionally-powered vehicles (which are taxed per kilometre driven through fuel excise).

South Australia and NSW have announced plans to do so. Victoria has announced details, and will introduce the charge from July 2021.

It will charge electric, and other zero emission vehicles 2.5 cents per kilometre travelled and plug-in hybrids at cents per kilometre travelled.

Victoria justifies the charge this way:

Australian drivers pay fuel excise when they fill up their vehicle with petrol, diesel or liquefied petroleum gas. Zero and low emission vehicle owners currently pay little or no fuel excise but still use our roads.

Conventionally-powered car typically pay about 4.2 cents per kilometre through fuel excise and fuel-efficient cars about 2.1 cents.

This means Victoria will be charging electric vehicles as much or more than fuel-efficient vehicles, even though (at least when charged through rooftop solar) they won’t contribute to global warming.

Not only that, but conventionally-powered cars generate health and other costs through air and noise pollution, for which they are not charged.

What first-best would look like

The ideal system would include charges to cover the cost of

• building and maintaining the roads

• congestion

• the injury, death and damage caused by car crashes

• the health and other damage caused by air and noise pollution

• the global price of carbon emissions

Right now we charge through fuel taxes, registration fees and tolls (mostly paid to private firms, but this is irrelevant in economic terms) along with a variety of minor fees.

However, because fuel excise was frozen by the Howard government in 2001 (and only began increasing again in 2014) the revenue from it is barely enough to cover the cost of constructing and maintaining roads and grossly insufficient to cover the broader costs of conventional vehicle use.

Conventional vehicles get things for free

Although there is much debate about how carbon can or should be priced, any serious attempt to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement is likely to require a carbon price of $100/tonne, which corresponds to 23 cents a litre.

Estimates for local air pollution costs (including the cost of deaths from cancer and asthma) start at 10 cents a litre. Noise pollution costs are extra.

Electric vehicles powered by renewable energy generate hardly of these costs.

Put simply, just as much (or more than) the owners of electric vehicles, the owners of conventional vehicles pay a mere fraction of what they should.

Second-best would be worse

Increasing what the owners of electric-powered vehicles pay is a second-best solution that might move us further away from first best.

It might discourage the takeup of vehicles that impose fewer costs on society.

To end on a positive note, the 1997 decisions of the High Court that effectively prohibited states from taxing petrol forced the Commonwealth to collect the tax and pass it on to the states, exacerbating the problems of an unbalanced federal tax system.

Read more: Wrong way, go back: a proposed new tax on electric vehicles is a bad idea

There appears to be no constitutional impediment to a tax on kilometres travelled (and nor a privacy impediment, Victoria will implement it by reading odometers rather than monitoring where cars travel).

It would help redress the tax imbalance.

– ref. Victoria’s electric vehicle tax and the theory of the second-best – https://theconversation.com/victorias-electric-vehicle-tax-and-the-theory-of-the-second-best-150936

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

The government’s industrial relations legislation, to be introduced on Wednesday, would allow businesses affected by COVID to be exempt from the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) in enterprise agreements.

More broadly, the planned changes would make it easier for agreements to comply with the BOOT and speed up the approval process.

Enterprise bargaining has become sclerotic and addressing this problem is a central part of the government’s industrial relations reform package.

In December 2010 there were 25,197 current federal enterprise agreements covering some 2.6 million employees (23% of the total workforce). By June this year, the number had declined to 10,701, covering just under 2.16 million employees (20.8% of the workforce).

The BOOT considers whether the workers would be better off overall if a proposed agreement applied rather than the relevant award.

Under the current law, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) can approve an agreement that doesn’t comply with the BOOT if there are “exceptional circumstances”. The government proposes the impact of COVID effectively be the exceptional circumstance. The FWC also would have to consider the extent of support for a proposed agreement from employees and employers, and there’s a public interest test. There would be a sunset clause set at two years.

Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter invoked the name of Paul Keating in arguing for the changes. He said the government aimed to restore Keating’s “vision when he launched the enterprise bargaining framework almost three decades ago”.

Porter said this was for workers and employers to sit down and “agree on ways to increase productivity in exchange for higher wages and better conditions.

“But in reality, the system has been slowly choked by increased technicality, complexity and regulation, leaving it almost unrecognisable today – so much so that many employers no longer even attempt to get agreements across the line,” Porter said.

The government says application of the BOOT has become complicated because the FWC has increasingly taken into account “hypothetical” working arrangements unlikely to arise. This has led to long delays in approvals.

Apart from the COVID exemption, the changes the legislation proposes for the BOOT would

• remove the requirement for the FWC to consider patterns or kinds of work that are not reasonably foreseeable

• replace the requirements for assessing whether an agreement is “genuinely agreed” (for example, the requirement for employers to explain every clause to their workers even when the new agreement is largely unchanged) by a test that considers the substance of the agreement

• require the FWC to determine applications within 21 days (the median approval time in 2018/19 was 122 days), or explain the exceptional circumstances preventing this

• require the FWC to take into account the views of the employer and employees on the BOOT (including non-monetary benefits)

• restrict intervention at the approval stage to employees and bargaining representatives unless the FWC is satisfied exceptional circumstances exist for why a non-bargaining representative should be heard

• allow a new franchisee employer to join an agreement (e.g. McDonald’s, KFC) by only requiring that franchisee’s employees to vote, rather than everyone already covered by the agreement.

In other changes, existing agreements made before the Fair Work Act of 2009 will end in July 2022, and the government will initiate a review of the low paid bargaining provisions.

Porter said both unions and employers knew the present enterprise bargaining system was broken and wanted it fixed.

“The government recognises the BOOT’s importance as a key safeguard for workers,” he said.

“But a situation cannot be allowed to continue where the Fair Work Commission considers completely unlikely hypothetical situations.

“Similarly, the bargaining system has become grindingly slow due to the ability of third parties who were not involved in the initial bargaining process to object to agreements being made in the commission.

“Given that many industries are still reeling from the impacts of the pandemic, it is also makes good sense for the FWC to be able to consider agreements that don’t meet the BOOT if there is genuine agreement between all parties, and where doing so would be in the public interest.”

– ref. Businesses hit by COVID could give the boot to BOOT hurdle under workplace changes – https://theconversation.com/businesses-hit-by-covid-could-give-the-boot-to-boot-hurdle-under-workplace-changes-151697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sue Thomson, Deputy CEO (Research), Australian Council for Educational Research

Results from the longest running large-scale international assessment of maths and science show Australia has significantly improved in Year 8 maths and science, and Year 4 science.

More than 580,000 students from 64 countries participated in the latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). This includes 14,950 Australian students from 571 Australian schools.

In Year 8 maths, Australia came in equal seventh place in the 2019 assessment cycle (up from equal 13th in 2015), along with a number of countries including Ireland, the United States and England. We came behind Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Ireland.

In Year 8 science, Australia also came in equal seventh (up from equal 15th in 2015) along with countries such as Lithuania, Ireland and the US. We were behind Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Korea, Russia and Finland.

In Year 4 science, Australia came equal ninth (up from equal 18th in 2015) along with countries including the US, England, Hong Kong and Ireland. Australia was behind Singapore, Korea, Russia, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Finland, Latvia and Norway.

In Year 4 maths, however, achievement has not changed since 2007. Australia was outperformed by 22 countries in 2019, similar to 2015. It came equal 23rd along with countries such as Germany, Poland and Canada; and behind Singapore, the US, England and Ireland.

Not just the rankings

This is the seventh time the TIMSS test has been administered. Along with completing tests in maths and science, Year 4 and 8 students involved in TIMSS answer questionnaires on their background and experiences in learning maths and science at school.

Participating in TIMSS allows Australia to measure its progress towards national educational goals, which in 2019 included the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (now the Mparntwe Education Declaration).

Read more: Australia hasn’t performed well at maths and science recently. We’re about to find out if we’ve improved

In Year 4 maths, Australian students achieved an average score of 516 points. Singapore’s students scored the highest with 625 points, while England achieved 556, Canada 512 and New Zealand 487 points.

Australia’s average score in Year 8 maths was 517 points. This was compared to the highest score of 616 points for Singapore. Australia’s score was not significantly different to that of the US and England, which both achieved 515 points.

Australia not only improved in Year 8 maths and science, and Year 4 science relative to other countries, but also in an absolute sense. Compared to 2015, Australia’s mean score increased by 12 points in Year 8 maths; 16 points in Year 8 science and nine points in Year 4 science.

The TIMSS intermediate international benchmark is the nationally agreed proficient standard for maths and science achievement, which is 475 score points. In 2019 between 68% and 78% of Australian students achieved the required proficiency benchmark in maths and science at both year levels. In Singapore, more than 90% of students achieved this benchmark in both subject areas at both year levels.

Since 2015, the proportion of Australian students achieving this standard improved by five percentage points in Year 8 science. It did not change significantly in Year 4 maths and science, or Year 8 maths.

Read more: Aussie students are a year behind students 10 years ago in science, maths and reading

TIMSS results also provide a measure of Australia’s progress towards the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goal for universal quality education. The TIMSS low international benchmark is an agreed global indicator of minimum proficiency in maths at the end of lower secondary schooling.

In the 2019 study, 90% of Australian Year 8 students achieved this benchmark, which was similar to 2015 and slightly higher than the 2019 international median of 87%. Meanwhile, 98% of students in Singapore and Chinese Taipei, and 99% of students in Japan achieved minimum proficiency in Year 8 maths.

Differences between groups

While of course these findings are positive, there are cautions evident when making comparisons among demographic groups.

There was no significant difference between the average performance of Australian girls and boys in Year 8 maths, Year 4 science or Year 8 science.

But boys outperformed girls in Year 4 maths in 27 of the 58 participating countries, including Australia.

The proportion of students who attained the national proficient standard was about the same for boys and girls (69% for girls, 70% for boys). But the proportion of boys who achieved the advanced benchmark (12%) was significantly higher than the proportion of girls (8%) who achieved at this level.

While the achievement of First Nations Australian students and other Australian students has converged slightly in Year 4 and Year 8 science since 1995, the gaps are glaringly wide in both subject areas, but particularly in maths.

At Year 4 level in maths, 42% of First Nations students achieved the national proficient standard, compared to 72% of other Australian students. And 25% of First Nations students did not achieve the low benchmark, compared to 8% of other Australian students.

In Year 8 maths, 39% of First Nations students compared to 70% of other Australian students achieved the National Proficient standard, while 29% of First Nations students compared to 8% of other Australian students did not achieve the Low benchmark.

Student socioeconomic background

The largest gaps in achievement at school are often those defined by a students’ socioeconomic background. In TIMSS, several measures are used to define socioeconomic background, but the common method for Year 4 and Year 8 is simple but effective. Students are asked to estimate the number of books in their home within five categories. These are then collapsed into three:

• 0-10: few books

• 11-200: average number of books

• more than 200: many books.

Analysis has shown living in a home with many books influences academic achievement (or by implication, having a home environment that values literacy, the acquisition of knowledge and general academic support) in a positive manner.

In Year 4, 17% of students identified as living in a home with many books, and 28% with few books. In Year 8, 20% of students said their home had many books and 31% few books.

The differences between students with many books and those with few books is large at both year levels and for both subject areas. For example:

• in Year 8 maths, 83% of students living in a home with many books achieved the national proficient standard, compared to 48% of those from homes with few books

• in Year 8 science, 90% of students from homes with many books achieved the standard, compared to 52% of those from homes with few books

• in Year 8 maths and science, around 3% of students from homes with many books compared to around 20% of students from homes with few books did not achieve the low benchmark.

Acknowledging the primary underlying factor behind poor achievement is socioeconomic background, and finding ways of redressing the imbalance in opportunities and resources available to these students, will help lift achievement for all Australian students.

Read more: One quarter of Australian 11-12 year olds don’t have the literacy and numeracy skills they need

– ref. Australia lifts to be among top ten countries in maths and science – https://theconversation.com/australia-lifts-to-be-among-top-ten-countries-in-maths-and-science-150275

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

The most fundamental obligation of any state is the safety of its citizens. On March 15, 2019, New Zealand completely failed in this obligation. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques was designed to tell us why and how this happened — why 51 people were murdered, and what steps need to be taken to prevent such acts recurring.

In a nutshell, the commission concluded no one was solely to blame. It was a collective failure, divided between the security agencies, the police and a population lacking social cohesion and with a fear of speaking out.

The failure of the security agencies was unremarkable in the commission’s analysis. They were alienated, under-resourced and overly focusing counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist extremism.

While the agencies were aware of right-wing extremism, their intelligence was underdeveloped — but even if it had been better, the outcome may not have been different.

The primary reason the terrorist was not detected, the commission concludes, was due more to

the operational security that the individual maintained, the legislative authorising environment in which counter terrorism operates, and the limited capability and capacity of the counter terrorism agencies.

Intelligence and police failures

So, there was “no plausible way he could have been detected except by chance”. And apparently, this failure to detect was “not in itself an intelligence failure”. In fact, no security agency failed to meet required standards or was otherwise considered to be at fault.

Views will differ on that, but the culpability of the police is clearer. The report concludes their administration of the firearms licensing system did not meet required standards, due to a lack of staff guidance and training, and flawed referee vetting processes.

This intersected with the regulation of semi-automatic firearms which was “lax, open to easy exploitation and was gamed by the individual”.

Even so, the commission concluded it was possible, perhaps likely, that the terrorist would eventually have been able to obtain a licence. Beyond that is supposition: an effective licensing regime may have delayed his preparation, but whether it would have changed his mind about the attack, the target, the weapons, or even the country he was in, will always be unknown.

Whether these failings are sufficient for ministerial and/or agency accountability is a matter of debate. The last time anything comparable happened was after the Cave Creek disaster in 1995, when the responsible minister resigned over the systemic failure at the Department of Conservation.

Read more: Remembering my friend, and why there is no right way to mourn the Christchurch attacks

Preventing another attack

Official accountability aside, the commission sets out the road map to prevent such an attack happening again. Fixing the firearms licence process will be the easiest. The six recommendations calling for enhanced standards and improved quality control dovetail with laws put in place after the attack.

The type of firearms used in the attack are largely prohibited and those who show “patterns of behaviour demonstrating a tendency to exhibit, encourage, or promote violence, hatred or extremism” can no longer be considered fit and proper to possess a firearm.

The other change will be harder. There are no fewer than 18 different recommendations aimed at the security agencies, starting with the creation of a new ministerial portfolio and establishment of a new national intelligence and security agency.

Read more: Jailing the Christchurch terrorist will cost New Zealand millions. A prisoner swap with Australia would solve more than one problem

It will need to be well-resourced and empowered to meet a range of objectives, from developing a counter-terrorism strategy to creating a public-facing policy that addresses, prevents, detects and responds to extremism.

Also among the recommendations are greater information sharing between agencies, public outreach, the reporting of “threatscapes” and developing indicators identifying a person’s potential for violent extremism and terrorism.

All commendable goals, but how they will be reconciled with existing security agency remits, and whether there is a budget to meet such ambitions, is not clear at this stage.

The need for social cohesion

Perhaps most surprising in the report is the suggestion that the likeliest thing to have prevented the attack would have been a “see something, say something” culture — one in which those with suspicions about another person could safely raise their concerns with authorities.

“Such reporting,” the commission says, “would have provided the best chance of disrupting the terrorist attack.” This is a remarkable sentence, both brilliant and unnerving. It suggests the best defence against extremism was (and is) to be found within ourselves, and in the robust and multicultural communities we must create.

Read more: No rehab and little chance of appeal for the Christchurch terrorist jailed for life without parole

However, successive governments have failed in this area through their reluctance to make counter-terrorism strategies more public, perhaps worried about alienating or provoking sections of the population.

It’s a paradox, to say the least, but the commission recommends several measures to enhance social cohesion, beginning with the need to support the ongoing recovery needs of affected family, survivors and witnesses.

These evolve into a variety of soft goals, ranging from the possibility of a new agency focused on ethnic communities and multiculturalism, to investing in young New Zealanders’ cultural awareness.

Again, these recommendation are commendable, but the proof will be in their resourcing and synchronising with existing work in this area.

Free speech and public safety

Greater immediate progress may be made in the prevention of hate speech and an extension of the censorship laws to prohibit material advancing racial hatred, discrimination and/or views of racial superiority.

Although New Zealand already has law in this area (covering discrimination and sentencing in crimes related to race, ethnicity or religion), there remains a large gap when it comes to what is and isn’t permissible speech.

It then becomes a vexed question of the limits of free expression, and would be difficult to craft into law. But if the government could do this, a significant advance will have been made.

So, after all of these words, will the vision of this royal commission make New Zealand safer in the future? The answer is yes, risks can be reduced — but it is a long road ahead.

– ref. The Christchurch commission’s call to improve social cohesion is its hardest — and most important — recommendation – https://theconversation.com/the-christchurch-commissions-call-to-improve-social-cohesion-is-its-hardest-and-most-important-recommendation-149969

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabriel Conroy, Environmental Management Program Coordinator, University of the Sunshine Coast

K’gari (Fraser Island) has been burning for more than seven weeks and, so far, the fires have razed half of the World Heritage-listed island off the coast of Queensland. The devastation will become more pronounced in coming weeks, despite overnight rain.

Much of the commentary on these fires has focused on how these landscapes are “meant to burn”, and that (luckily) there have been no major fires in the fire-sensitive, rainforest-style ecosystems in the island’s centre.

However, the fact remains that a fire of this magnitude will alter the ecological balance on the island. Let’s explore why.

An uphill battle

K’gari is an incredibly biodiverse place, with more than 30 mammal species, 354 types of birds, 60 reptiles and 17 types of frogs.

For thousands of years, the Butchulla traditional owners maintained the island’s ecosystems with patch mosaic burning. The general principle behind patch mosaic burning is that by burning regularly and strategically, you create habitat niches that cater for a wide variety of generalist and specialist species, which favours biodiversity.

Read more: Australia, you have unfinished business. It’s time to let our ‘fire people’ care for this land

With an absence of this mode of burning during 130 years of logging on the island (ending in 1991), today’s environmental managers have faced an uphill battle to claw back the balance.

This — alongside tinder-dry conditions and large swathes of relatively inaccessible wilderness in the north — is why we unfortunately find ourselves in the situation where an incredibly widespread, intense fire has occurred.

These types of fires can irrevocably alter the nature of even fire-adapted ecosystems (like in the northern half of K’gari) and are likely to become more commonplace in our changing climate.

Let’s take two of K’gari’s rare plant species — the tiny wattle (Acacia baueri) and the much-loved Christmas bells (Blandfordia grandiflora) — as examples of why the Australian landscape’s need for fire isn’t straightforward, and requires patch burning.

These species rely on low intensity fire occurring every three to five years to regenerate and avoid local extinction.

However, other fire-adapted species that grow alongside them, such as Banksia robur, would struggle to withstand burning this frequently. Some may not even be able to reach reproductive maturity during that kind of time span.

Invertebrates: the island’s unheralded heroes

K’gari is famous for its wild population of dingoes, which undoubtedly will have suffered in these fires. We won’t know the full impact for these and many other species until the dust has settled.

Read more: Dingoes and humans were once friends. Separating them could be why they attack

But one of my greatest concerns is for the largely forgotten species propping up ecosystems: invertebrates. In normal circumstances, the island is teeming with highly abundant and diverse invertebrate life if you bother to look for it — and will undoubtedly bite you or keep you awake at night even if you don’t.

Herbivorous species, including insects, are the unheralded heroes that transfer a lot of the the energy generated by plants up through the food chain, for example, by providing food for predators like dingoes.

With 50% (and counting) of the island’s ecosystems already burnt in this fire, the amount of food available for herbivores has reduced. This means significantly less energy can be fed back up the food chain, affecting the entire ecosystem.

When there’s nowhere to escape

On mainland Australia, birds, bugs and fast-moving animals like dingoes and wallabies often flee to safe habitats when fires occur, and then later recolonise fire-affected regions.

Although relatively close to the mainland, K’gari is a very long and narrow island, and because the entire northern end of the island has burnt, most terrestrial species have only a narrow interface through the central part of the island to try to escape. These lack of escape routes will likely exacerbate death rates of native fauna.

Read more: Click through the tragic stories of 119 species still struggling after Black Summer in this interactive (and how to help)

To make matters worse, the ecosystems to the north are markedly different to those in the centre of the island. So while we wait to see how the northern regions regenerate, the species that depend on them may have moved further south to find equivalent ecosystems.

Effectively, only 50% of the island now provides habitat and food sources for the entire island’s wildlife, and the remaining habitat is not always a like-for-like replacement.

How will it look when it ‘bounces back’?

When the fires have extinguished and plants begin to regenerate, a sea of green may convince people the ecosystems have bounced back marvellously from the fires. But in actual fact, they may have been irrevocably changed.

Certain species will flourish in the post-fire environment, but because of the fire’s widespread nature, it’s possible the composition of the vegetation will change.

Read more: Yes, native plants can flourish after bushfire. But there’s only so much hardship they can take

Weeds, for example, love bare ground, and even native species can become “weedy” in nature and can dominate in disturbed areas. In ongoing research, our team has observed this in areas of the island impacted by sand mining in the 1970s, where there’s an overabundance of immature Acacia and Casuarina species.

My greatest hope is that the future of K’gari includes patch mosaic burning (and cultural burns) at a landscape scale.

If we want to ensure K’gari bounces back as much as possible, then we need to use these devastating bushfires as an opportunity to work collaboratively towards a common conservation goal.

The intent from key stakeholders is evident, with productive conversations already occurring between our team at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and the Butchulla Aboriginal Corporation. For this to come to fruition, on-ground efforts will need to be well-resourced and supported by ongoing monitoring and research.

– ref. The K’gari-Fraser Island bushfire is causing catastrophic damage. What can we expect when it’s all over? – https://theconversation.com/the-kgari-fraser-island-bushfire-is-causing-catastrophic-damage-what-can-we-expect-when-its-all-over-151664

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Conigrave, Senior Staff Specialist and Professor of Addiction Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has today released new guidelines to reduce health risks from drinking alcohol. Under the new recommendations, healthy adults should drink no more than ten standard drinks a week, and no more than four on any one day.

I’m chair of the Alcohol Working Committee that for the past four years has worked on revising the Australian drinking guidelines.

These replace the previous version published in 2009, and come at the end of a year upended by a pandemic, and just before the festive season. That might sound like a curious time to release the alcohol guidelines, but it actually makes sense.

During the pandemic, some people have been drinking less because they are going less often to pubs. Others are drinking more at home. Of these, some have turned to drinking for stress relief and run into major strife with it.

Read more: Women are drinking more during the pandemic, and it’s probably got a lot to do with their mental health

But these guidelines are not just for the pandemic year. They are to help all Australians make informed decisions about how much they drink, at any time.

Alcohol contributes to a major health burden in Australia. Harms related to drinking result in more than 4,000 deaths and 70,000 hospital admissions every year.

Alcohol is a key cause of injuries, including road trauma, falls, burns, violence and self-harm. It contributes to drownings and other short-term harms. But much of the damage alcohol causes is less visible, and less immediate.

In the past decade, international research has shown even low levels of consumption are linked with an increase in several common cancers, including those of the breast and bowel. And we’ve known for a long time that alcohol consumption can contribute to high blood pressure, liver disease and many other conditions. The risk increases as more alcohol is consumed.

So, in line with its mission to provide robust evidence-based health advice, NHMRC has now released a set of three guidelines so Australians can make informed decisions about their health.

What do the new guidelines say?

The first guideline recommends healthy adult men and women consume no more than 10 standard drinks a week, and no more than four on any given day.

The less you drink, the lower your risk. If this advice is followed, there is a less than one in 100 chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition across your lifetime.

Guidelines two and three concern people under the age of 18, and women who are pregnant, trying to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. In all these cases, the recommendation is to drink no alcohol at all.

The guidelines were developed by a group of 14 health experts, including clinicians, public health professionals, researchers, and consumer representatives.

But doesn’t light drinking have a protective effect? The jury is out

After a thorough review of research evidence, NHMRC’s Alcohol Working Committee released draft guidelines for public consultation in December 2019. We received many responses, some asserting the guidelines didn’t go far enough, and others claiming they went too far.

Some studies mentioned suggested a possible protective effect of low-level consumption of alcohol, in particular against coronary heart disease.

These issues were scrutinised by our committee. The evidence for a protective effect has been challenged by research in recent years. Some researchers dispute its existence.

But at the least, any protective effect is not as strong as previously thought. Nonetheless, the guidelines do allow for a potential protective effect – if they hadn’t, the recommended maximum would have been far lower! Potential protective effects were balanced against the increased risk of certain cancers.

These guidelines are not trying to tell you what you can and can’t do. Rather, we’re providing advice on how you can reduce your health risks from drinking alcohol. That way, we can all make informed decisions in our daily lives.

– ref. No more than 10 standard drinks a week, or 4 on any day: new guidelines urge Aussies to go easy on the booze – https://theconversation.com/no-more-than-10-standard-drinks-a-week-or-4-on-any-day-new-guidelines-urge-aussies-to-go-easy-on-the-booze-151595

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Conigrave, Senior Staff Specialist and Professor of Addiction Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has today released new guidelines to reduce health risks from drinking alcohol. Under the new recommendations, healthy adults should drink no more than ten standard drinks a week, and no more than four on any one day.

I’m chair of the Alcohol Working Committee that for the past four years has worked on revising the Australian drinking guidelines.

These replace the previous version published in 2009, and come at the end of a year upended by a pandemic, and just before the festive season. That might sound like a curious time to release the alcohol guidelines, but it actually makes sense.

During the pandemic, some people have been drinking less because they are going less often to pubs. Others are drinking more at home. Of these, some have turned to drinking for stress relief and run into major strife with it.

Read more: Women are drinking more during the pandemic, and it’s probably got a lot to do with their mental health

But these guidelines are not just for the pandemic year. They are to help all Australians make informed decisions about how much they drink, at any time.

Alcohol contributes to a major health burden in Australia. Harms related to drinking result in more than 4,000 deaths and 70,000 hospital admissions every year.

Alcohol is a key cause of injuries, including road trauma, falls, burns, violence and self-harm. It contributes to drownings and other short-term harms. But much of the damage alcohol causes is less visible, and less immediate.

In the past decade, international research has shown even low levels of consumption are linked with an increase in several common cancers, including those of the breast and bowel. And we’ve known for a long time that alcohol consumption can contribute to high blood pressure, liver disease and many other conditions. The risk increases as more alcohol is consumed.

So, in line with its mission to provide robust evidence-based health advice, NHMRC has now released a set of three guidelines so Australians can make informed decisions about their health.

What do the new guidelines say?

The first guideline recommends healthy adult men and women consume no more than 10 standard drinks a week, and no more than four on any given day.

The less you drink, the lower your risk. If this advice is followed, there is a less than one in 100 chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition across your lifetime.

Guidelines two and three concern people under the age of 18, and women who are pregnant, trying to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. In all these cases, the recommendation is to drink no alcohol at all.

The guidelines were developed by a group of 14 health experts, including clinicians, public health professionals, researchers, and consumer representatives.

But doesn’t light drinking have a protective effect? The jury is out

After a thorough review of research evidence, NHMRC’s Alcohol Working Committee released draft guidelines for public consultation in December 2019. We received many responses, some asserting the guidelines didn’t go far enough, and others claiming they went too far.

Some studies mentioned suggested a possible protective effect of low-level consumption of alcohol, in particular against coronary heart disease.

These issues were scrutinised by our committee. The evidence for a protective effect has been challenged by research in recent years. Some researchers dispute its existence.

But at the least, any protective effect is not as strong as previously thought. Nonetheless, the guidelines do allow for a potential protective effect – if they hadn’t, the recommended maximum would have been far lower! Potential protective effects were balanced against the increased risk of certain cancers.

These guidelines are not trying to tell you what you can and can’t do. Rather, we’re providing advice on how you can reduce your health risks from drinking alcohol. That way, we can all make informed decisions in our daily lives.

– ref. No more than 10 standard drinks a week, or 4 a day: new guidelines urge Aussies to go easy on the booze – https://theconversation.com/no-more-than-10-standard-drinks-a-week-or-4-a-day-new-guidelines-urge-aussies-to-go-easy-on-the-booze-151595

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Viney, PhD Candidate, School of Philosophical, Historical & International Studies, Monash University

Under editor Esmé Fenston, by the end of the 1950s, the Australian Women’s Weekly was selling over 805,000 copies a week. More than half of all Australian women read the magazine.

It focused on promoting a vision of the “everyday” Australian woman. Of course she did not represent all women — she was white, middle class, not working in paid employment and devoted to her home and family. Articles on fashion, cooking, homemaking, motherhood and romance supported this image.

But the Weekly also saw itself as a “women’s paper” with a responsibility to educate its readership by including current affairs and news stories in each issue.

While we might not think of the 1950s housewife as taking an active interest in Cold War politics, a close reading of the Weekly – the “popular face of femininity” – shows Australian women were not only interested in global politics, but encouraged to join in the discussion.

The 1950s political landscape

The second world war had changed Australian society, particularly for women. As men were sent overseas, women filled the jobs men left behind. US servicemen charmed local women — who explored the new sexual and romantic opportunities available to them.

Though encouraged by the government to return to their homemaking duties, after the war, many women continued to work in paid employment and were more vocally interested in romance and sex.

By the early 1950s, meanwhile, the Cold War dominated international politics as the world split into two political blocs, aligned with the communist Soviet Union or the capitalist United States. Australia allied with the US, and fear of communism spread, with suspicion of anyone not following social norms.

Many Australians, particularly the middle classes, feared women would abandon their traditional family-focused roles. The family home thus became a symbol of peace and security and a bulwark against communist overthrow.

Female readers as thinkers

The Weekly was clear in the belief women should be engaged with Cold War politics. In 1955, after the first Taiwan Strait Crisis, Fenston rued “not one woman is directly concerned with the deliberations that may or may not lead to war”.

She encouraged her readers to take on a bigger role in these discussions, paraphrasing Alfred Tennyson’s poem Locksley Hall to profess her hope that in the future “women’s commonsense shall hold a fretful realm in awe” as they took an active part in diplomacy and politics.

On the topic of nuclear weapons, an article by the Canadian physician Dr Marion Hilliard in 1958 urged women to:

rise up and say: It’s time to stop. Let there be no more use of weapons which will let loose radioactive power in this world. My child, all the children of the world should have a chance to start life as sound in body and mind as possible.

Over the decade, Cold War topics were regularly combined with more socially acceptable feminine issues. In 1953, an article by Sylvia Connick appeared on the surface to be a simple romantic story of an Australian girl and a her Czechoslovakian fiancé.

But within this, Connick referenced the oppression of Soviet rule in Czechoslovakia and the horrors of communist labour camps.

The magazine positioned women as a distinct category of political thinker who had “instinctive” knowledge of how to conduct herself in political discussions with her contemporaries.

As Fenston wrote in an editorial on the 1954 Big Four Conference between France, America, Britain and the Soviet Union, while “the finer points of high-level diplomacy may be lost to many women”, women knew “tongues before guns” was a more effective political tool.

Using domestic analogies of “a quiet talk over the back fence” to describe international relations, Fenston suggested that women instinctively understood how diplomacy was more effective than the nuclear war tactics of “hurling rocks on your neighbour’s roof.”

Feminised politics

Reading the magazine’s Cold War articles, it would be easy to conclude the Weekly believed women were uninterested in international politics unless a feature also included comments on the latest fashion.

This would be a disservice to the magazine and its readership.

Instead, this approach is an example of what I have termed “feminised politics”. Overt political discussions were combined with conventionally acceptable feminine themes to avoid provoking widespread anxieties about social changes.

This feminised politics echoed the maternal feminism of the early 20th century, used by suffragists to argue women would bring a maternal morality to the political sphere, updated to fit with the changed social context.

Women’s political interests in the 1950s are often forgotten, sandwiched as the period is between the very public first and second wave feminist movements. But while the 1950s housewife did indeed spend a lot of time on homemaking duties, that did not mean she sat out the important political discussions shaping her world.

– ref. How the Australian Women’s Weekly spoke to ’50s housewives about the Cold War – https://theconversation.com/how-the-australian-womens-weekly-spoke-to-50s-housewives-about-the-cold-war-145699

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Flood, Associate Professor, Queensland University of Technology

Most Australians recognise that traditional gender stereotypes are limiting and harmful for boys and men, a new national survey has found. And perhaps contrary to popular belief, many Australians are receptive to messages about alternative, healthy versions of masculinity.

The survey of 1,619 respondents, commissioned by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, sought to gauge people’s attitudes towards men and masculinity. The sample was representative of the Australian population by age, state and gender.

Most people agreed on a few basic principles:

• traditional gender stereotypes are limiting and harmful for boys and men

• there is pressure on men to live up to traditional masculine stereotypes

• masculine expectations or outdated ideas of masculinity prevent men from living full lives

• boys need both women and men as role models, rather than only men.

Masculinity is enforced more by men than women

The survey revealed a consistent gender gap in attitudes toward men’s roles in society and perceptions of masculinity.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the survey showed that compared to women, men are less supportive of gender equality, less likely to see sexism as extensive and systematic, and more likely to endorse men’s dominance in relationships and families.

Ironically, the male respondents in the survey were also less aware than the female respondents of the pressure society places on men to conform to a certain ideal of masculinity.

Read more: Inside the ‘man box’: how rigid ideas of ‘manning up’ harm young men and those around them

One of the most interesting findings was the attitudes of younger men. Young men (aged 16-17) generally had more progressive attitudes than older men on traditional gender roles and how they are limiting, outdated and contribute to poor health. Yet, they also had the highest levels of endorsement of men’s use of violence, homophobia, breadwinner roles and men’s patriarchal power and control in relationships.

Such regressive attitudes may reflect the intensified pressure they feel among male peers to prove themselves as men, sexist online culture or other factors.

Conversely, young women’s attitudes were the most progressive of all respondents, creating a large gap between them and their male peers.

Who is a real man?

There was little support overall in the survey for traditional definitions of masculinity based on homophobia. About one-quarter of young men and one-fifth of adult men agreed with the statement, “a gay guy isn’t a real man”. (Even fewer women agreed with this statement.)

There was also little support for the idea men should dominate and control women in relationships, although large minorities of men and particularly young men do support this.

Asked whether “a man should always have the final say about decisions in his relationship or marriage,” 30% of young men and 19% of adult men agreed, compared to just 13% of young women and 9% of adult women.

Read more: Women aren’t better multitaskers than men – they’re just doing more work

Among our respondents, there was broad recognition that gender is socially constructed – in other words, that boys’ and men’s lives and relations are shaped by social forces as much as they are by biology.

At the same time, many respondents also believed there were “natural” differences between men and women, especially when phrased in these terms.

We also saw widespread recognition of the need to open up gender roles for men, especially because they constrain men’s own health and wellbeing.

There was strong agreement, for instance, that men and boys should be free to explore who they are without the pressures of gender stereotypes. Most people also agreed progress towards gender equality and breaking free of gender stereotypes would be good for men.

And though domestic and sexual violence continues to be a major concern, especially during the pandemic, it was encouraging to see almost universal agreement among people in Australia that men can play a role in preventing violence against women.

Gender norms are improving

The VicHealth survey complements a growing body of Australian research on people’s attitudes toward men, masculinity and gender.

This includes a national survey of young Australian men’s conformity to the “Man Box” (stereotypical masculine attitudes), a national survey of Australians’ attitudes to gender equality issues and a rolling national survey of awareness and attitudes regarding violence against women.

Other data tell us gender norms in Australia are changing, largely for the better.

Attitudes improved in the 1980s and 1990s, and although progress stalled after this, there have been steady improvements in the past decade.

Messages for healthier views on masculinity

One of the key findings of our survey is that framing matters. How messages about gender are phrased affects whether people agree with them — that is, what messages they will support.

For example, when people are presented with messages that men are currently “under attack”, substantial proportions of the population will endorse them — particularly those with pre-existing conservative views.

On the other hand, when statements on gender are framed in progressive or feminist terms — for example, men and boys are restricted by masculine stereotypes and should be freed from them — those with conservative views have similar levels of agreement to middle-of-the-road people.

Read more: Gillette has it right: advertisers can’t just celebrate masculinity and ignore the #metoo movement

VicHealth’s research also tested various messages for promoting healthy masculinity to identify those most likely to inspire positive change.

Among the key recommendations for community and health providers to better engage with men:

• focus on progressive ideas that will appeal to the vast majority of people, rather than pandering to men with traditionally masculine language or focusing on myth-busting

• emphasise the need to free men from outdated masculine stereotypes

• focus less on the problem, and more on the solution.

There is a wealth of evidence that conformity to traditional masculine stereotypes is limiting for men and boys and harmful to those around them.

Most Australians agree. It is time to foster positive alternatives, to improve health and wellbeing for everyone.

– ref. Who is a real man? Most Australians believe outdated ideals of masculinity are holding men back – https://theconversation.com/who-is-a-real-man-most-australians-believe-outdated-ideals-of-masculinity-are-holding-men-back-147847

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Feeney, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Evolutionary Ecology, Griffith University

Humans are experts at domesticating other species and our world would be unrecognisable without it. There would be no cities, no supermarkets, and no pets. Domestication is a special kind of cooperative relationship, where one species provides prolonged support in exchange for a predictable resource.

While humans have domesticated various plants and animals, these relationships are surprisingly rare in other species. It’s true some insects (ants, beetles, and termites among them) domesticate fungi, but few other examples exist outside the insect world.

In our new study, we describe what appears to be first example of a non-human vertebrate domesticating another animal.

Read more: Listen up: many farmed fish are hard of hearing – here’s why it matters

Farming fish domesticate shrimps

On the coral reefs off the coast of Belize, in Central America, longfin damselfish create, manage and feed from algae farms. We noticed they regularly have “swarms” of tiny crustaceans called mysid shrimps floating above their farms.

We found this unusual, as most farming damselfishes chase away anything that ventures near their farm. We were unsure why these species associated with one another, so we decided to try to find out what was going on.

First, to see whether mysid shrimps and farming damselfish are regularly found together, we ran a series of what’s known as “transects”. In other words, we conducted a series of 30 metre swims along the reef, and during each one we recorded each time we saw mysid shrimps, as well as whether they were near farming damselfish or other fish species.

We found these mysids were far more likely to be found near farming species, like the longfin damselfish, than other species.

Next, we wanted to know if the mysids specifically seek out their damselfish partners.

So, we collected mysid shrimps from the field, brought them into the lab and exposed the mysids to water soaked with different things. For example, do they avoid the smell of a predator? Are they attracted to the smell of a farming damselfish?

We found the mysids shrimps were attracted to the longfin damselfish, repulsed by a predator and indifferent towards a non-farming fish — and to the farm itself.

I help you, you help me

Many fish eat mysid shrimps, so we ran an experiment to see if longfin damselfish provided protection to the mysids when they are in the fish’s farm.

To do this, we placed mysid shrimps in a clear plastic bag and placed the bag either inside or outside a farm.

We found that when placed outside a farm, other fish tried to eat the mysid shrimps. When inside the farms, any fish that tried to come close to the bag was chased off by the longfin damselfish. This suggested the mysids seek out longfin damselfish, as they provide mysids with protection from predators.

One question remained: do the mysid shrimps provide a benefit to the longfin damselfish?

Given the damselfish eat the algae they farm, we thought maybe by hovering above the farm, the mysid shrimps waste might act as fertiliser.

To test this, we examined the quality of the algae within farms that did, or did not have mysid shrimps. We also examined the body condition of fish that did, or did not, have mysid shrimps within their farms.

We found farms with shrimps had higher quality algae, and fish from farms with mysid shrimps were in better condition.

Insight into how domestication happens

These different analyses together suggest longfin damselfish have domesticated mysid shrimps. The longfin damselfish provide a safe refuge, and in exchange the mysid shrimps provide the damselfish with fertiliser for its farm.

This relationship is important, because while fantastic research has provided insight into the history of domestication in our ancestors, these things happened in the distant past.

In the longfin damselfish, we can watch the early stages of domestication occur as it’s happening.

This is fascinating because it’s very similar to the proposed series of events that led to our domestication of species such as chickens, cats, dogs and pigs.

Read more: It might be the world’s biggest ocean, but the mighty Pacific is in peril

– ref. We found algae-farming fish that domesticate tiny shrimp to help run their farms – https://theconversation.com/we-found-algae-farming-fish-that-domesticate-tiny-shrimp-to-help-run-their-farms-151615

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

Federal Labor marginal seat members face a very nervy Christmas.

The most recent Newspoll showed the Coalition government ahead of the Labor opposition by 51-49% on a two-party-preferred basis. It’s a relatively small margin, but Labor MPs have indelibly etched on their minds that the final Newspoll before the 2019 election had Labor ahead on 51.5%, yet it won only 48.5% of the vote and suffered a shock loss on election day itself. This was within Newspoll’s margin of error, but that was little comfort for those banking on a win because of the headline number.

Newspoll’s design was tweaked in the wake of the 2019 election but two-party-preferred estimates remain vulnerable to discretionary polling design decisions and pollster “groupthink” – that is, the herd behaviour that leads to models generating results clustered around pollsters’ intuitive assessment of how the major parties are travelling.

If the 51.5% forecast for Labor at the 2019 election turned out to be 48.5% on election day, how much worse than Newspoll’s 49% last week might Labor’s vote be if an election was held this weekend?

In How To Win an Election, I argue one of the big lessons from the 2019 election was to focus on that part of polls least subject to discretionary design decisions and pollster groupthink: the primary vote.

Since Federation, Labor has only once formed a majority government with less than 40% of the primary vote. That was in 1990, when the Hawke government won with 39.4%. In 2010, Julia Gillard patched together a minority government with just 38%. The latest Newspoll has Labor’s primary vote on 36%.

Read more: Morrison remains very popular in Newspoll as the Coalition easily retains Groom in byelection

Hence the very nervy Christmas Labor’s marginal seat holders face this year. Right now, they’re giving speeches about JobSeeker. Privately, they’re wondering whether next year they’ll be on it.

Labor seems stuck. Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese is well liked and enjoys widespread loyalty. The pandemic has made Albanese’s job extra difficult this year.

However, the government has presented a rich target on a range of issues from robodebt to the repatriation of stranded Australians overseas, without the opposition landing a convincing blow. The feeling has taken hold in Canberra, and generally, that Labor is drifting inexorably to another loss.

Albanese’s stolid leadership is the central concern. Prime Minister Scott Morrison is easily besting him with the flimsiest of performances, and despite a pressing array of problems besetting the government.

Morrison’s behaviour suggests the LNP considers Albanese a political asset worth preserving. The government relentlessly attacked Bill Shorten when he was opposition leader, yet treats Albanese as Labor did Malcolm Turnbull in the previous parliament, and for the same reason: because they see him as eminently beatable compared to the alternatives.

The conversation being had around many end-of-year work functions goes like this. “Do you think Albo can win?” “No.” “Who do you think would win?” The names that come up are Tanya Plibersek, Jim Chalmers and, occasionally, Chris Bowen and Richard Marles.

When you ask who would be the best deputy to their first choice, it’s Plibersek or Chalmers. Overwhelmingly, Plibersek-Chalmers or Chalmers-Plibersek is seen as the election-winning team.

Wistful musings then follow along the lines of “what happened to Albo?” One puzzled person commented to me that “he went from a ‘people eating out of the palm of his hand’ kind of guy you’d want at your barbecue to boring dude you avoid at office parties quick smart”. When your own supporters say things like this, it’s hard to see how you could win swinging voters over no matter how sharp your political cunning, the thing Albanese considers his competitive advantage.

These are the kinds of conversations Labor’s marginal seat holders are going to have at barbecues all summer as they contemplate a very uncertain 2021. Do they continue loyally marching into the valley of political death behind a leader no-one thinks can win, or do they save their political hides, and the interests of Labor voters, by installing someone who can?

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon waves the lightsaber

The “how” is easier than many realise. By a simple majority vote, caucus can amend in any way it likes the rule change Kevin Rudd instigated to shore up his position as party leader in 2013. That amendment can instigate a fresh leadership contest, either through a straight caucus vote as occurred for a century before the Rudd rule change, or with rank-and-file party member involvement in the way that has occurred since 2013. Albanese could emerge victorious and re-energised, or Labor could have a new leader who can do better than the uninspiring effort it is weighed down by now.

After all, the Liberal Party does it all the time – and keeps winning elections. In its previous term in office, Liberal MPs replaced Turnbull with Morrison and won the 2019 election. The term before that they replaced Tony Abbott with Turnbull and won the 2016 election. The Liberals’ all-time record was replacing John Hewson with Alexander Downer, and then Downer with John Howard, in one term of opposition, setting up Howard’s 1996 election win.

Having the fittest leader is one of the keys to how to win an election. Labor still has time, if it gets a move on, to ensure it does.

– ref. Labor is set to have itself a nervy little Christmas. It’s not too late to make 2021 sing – https://theconversation.com/labor-is-set-to-have-itself-a-nervy-little-christmas-its-not-too-late-to-make-2021-sing-150186

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Associate Professor/ Principal Research Fellow, Griffith University

As we head towards our first COVID-era Christmas, many Australians will be excited that it is once again possible to travel domestically to be with family and friends.

While international travel isn’t yet routine, some people continue to fly overseas with valid exemptions.

Of course, air travel moving forward is going to look a bit different. Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce recently declared international passengers will need to have had a COVID vaccine, and this statement has attracted some backlash.

But until a vaccine is widely available — and even beyond — testing is going to be a requirement for some travellers.

Do I need to produce a negative test to fly?

For domestic travel in Australia, airlines do not require proof of a negative COVID test. But you will still need to follow the border requirements of each state. For example, Western Australia continues to restrict visitors and require a 14-day isolation period for those who cross into the state from South Australia.

Your airline should have up-to-date information on any quarantine or other requirements, which you should check before flying. You can also check with the state government of your destination.

Read more: A vaccine will be a game-changer for international travel. But it’s not everything

For people wanting to travel out of Australia who have a valid exemption from the Department of Home Affairs, some airlines and countries do require a COVID flight clearance. This is paperwork showing you have recently tested negative for the COVID-19 virus.

The clearance requirements differ depending on the airline you’re flying with and the countries through which you’re travelling. This is also something you should be able to check with your airline, as well as the government of your destination country.

For example, Emirates states that Australian tourists flying into Dubai “must present a negative COVID‑19 PCR test certificate that is valid for 96 hours from the date of the test before departure”.

Where can I get a COVID flight clearance test?

In Australia, anyone can access a free COVID test through a public health facility, mobile testing centre, or GP medical centre that offers bulk billing. You might have to pay for the consultation with your GP if they don’t offer bulk billing, but the test itself is free.

However, the tests are funded through Medicare, our national health insurance program, paid through our taxes. Medicare funds are intended to support the health and safety of Australians, rather than to be used for travel purposes.

For a flight clearance certificate, you can speak to your GP for a referral to a testing clinic, but be prepared that you may be asked to pay for the test.

Certain airlines also list recommended clinics. If you know you need a COVID test to travel, it’s a good idea to check whether your airline has nominated any particular clinics.

Read more: Worried about COVID risk on a flight? Here’s what you can do to protect yourself — and how airlines can step up

If you need a COVID flight clearance test, you will need verified evidence, which the provider will send to you once they have the result. You will have to present a printed certificate when you travel — a text message won’t cut it.

And make sure you check the time frame with your airline (for example, if you need the clearance no more than 72 hours before travelling, you can plan accordingly).

The cost of the test and subsequent clearance certificate may vary depending on where you go. One report suggested it would be around A$140.

Testing is an important measure, but it’s not foolproof

A negative test result does not guarantee a person is not infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), particularly if they’ve been exposed very recently. This is why people quarantining after travel or exposure are not immediately released following a negative test result.

It’s also possible for somebody who is truly negative to pick up the virus in transit.

Even with a COVID vaccine, clearance certificates may still be required to protect other passengers on a flight. The intent of a vaccine is to protect a person from becoming very sick with COVID-19. But we don’t know yet whether a vaccine will render people completely immune to SARS-CoV-2, and importantly, whether it will stop the virus spreading.

Read more: Employers, schools, take note. Coronavirus ‘clearance certificates’ are a waste of everybody’s time

Wherever you’re travelling — domestically or internationally — stay informed in the lead-up to your trip by checking the requirements of the state or country you’re travelling to, as well as the airline you’re flying with.

And if you have any questions about your own ability to travel, it’s best to consult your GP.

– ref. Do I need a COVID flight clearance test to fly in Australia or overseas? And do I have to pay? – https://theconversation.com/do-i-need-a-covid-flight-clearance-test-to-fly-in-australia-or-overseas-and-do-i-have-to-pay-151470

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillip Wadds, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, UNSW

Our time of social isolation under COVID-19 restrictions has reinforced the importance of taking care of each other, particularly the most vulnerable in our community. As we consider what our post-COVID social world will look like, we have an opportunity to deliver services that make our cities safer and more inclusive. An example of how we might achieve this can be found in a Sydney harm-reduction service that has assisted tens of thousands of nightlife revellers who are vulnerable, in distress or at risk of harm since 2014.

A newly released evaluation conservatively estimates the benefits of the Take Kare Safe Space (TKSS) program from December 2014 to April 2019 at A$7.46 million. That benefit includes the value of serious harm averted and the value attached to lives saved through program interventions.

While it may have been less prominent in our public and political consciousness this year, nightlife, and the way we socialise after dark, is a major part of our social and cultural life. It will return.

In Sydney, where trading restrictions – the so-called lockout laws – were lifted in January following five years of controversy, we need to do nightlife better. We need to find the balance between safety and vibrancy. The city is a great place to go out, but also a place where we need to provide the right services for when things inevitably go wrong.

Read more: Where are they now? What public transport data reveal about lockout laws and nightlife patronage

One part of the solution

The TKSS program has been doing this throughout the lockout period in Sydney. Now operated by Stay Kind, the TKSS program was launched in 2014 following the unprovoked attack and subsequent death of Thomas Kelly in Kings Cross in 2012.

Operating year-round from 10pm to 4am on Friday and Saturday nights, it’s a non-judgmental, non-government, harm-reduction service. The program looks after nightlife revellers who are vulnerable, in distress or at risk of harm.

Teams of Take Kare ambassadors work in co-operation with the City of Sydney’s CCTV control room and other nightlife services to patrol key precincts, acting as critical intermediaries between emergency services.

During the evaluation, TKSS operated three static safe spaces at Town Hall, Kings Cross and Darling Harbour. Here, nightlife revellers can go to chill out, get help, charge their phones, or receive basic first aid.

Between December 2014 and April 2019, TKSS supported 66,455 people. Two-thirds of them were aged 18-25. Many (46%) were perceived as heavily intoxicated and at risk of harm.

What is the evidence? Does it work?

Researchers from UNSW Sydney and Central Queensland University recently completed a comprehensive independent evaluation of the TKSS program. Funded by the NSW Department of Communities and Justice, the evaluation team analysed crime, emergency department and ambulance data to establish the benefit-cost ratio of the program. We also interviewed key stakeholders and “clients” about their perceptions of the program.

From December 2014 to April 2019 (inclusive), the benefits were estimated at $7.46 million. With operating costs of $2.79 million, the benefit-cost ratio was 2.67:1. In other words, a $1 investment in the program resulted in $2.67 of benefits. When the TKSS program was fully operational in all three safe space sites (in 2016-17), the benefit-cost ratio increased to 3.83:1.

These results are conservative. The return on investment is likely to be much higher given the analysis does not quantify the full spectrum of benefits associated with the program. These include: improved public safety and amenity; more efficient resource allocation for service providers; improved partnership, communication and resourcing to manage Sydney nightlife; and flow-on effects for tourism and investment.

Read more: ‘Sanitised’ nightlife precincts become places where some are not welcome

What are the strengths of TKSS?

These non-quantifiable benefits featured strongly in interviews with stakeholders. They included staff from NSW Police and Ambulance, St Vincent’s Emergency Department, City of Sydney, licensed venues and those who used the service. They highlighted a number of key program strengths, including:

1. the program fills a critical gap in nightlife safety – TKSS staff act as intermediaries between licensed premises and emergency services by providing services in public city spaces where people are most vulnerable – and it’s also easy to deploy in different locations as needed

2. the non-judgmental, non-authoritative nature of the program meant intoxicated, vulnerable and distressed nightlife patrons were more comfortable speaking with TKSS ambassadors than other services – such as police, ambulance, venue security or city rangers – and this rapport helped encourage at-risk patrons to willingly get medical help when needed

Read more: Fewer alcohol-related visits to inner Sydney emergency room since ‘lockout laws’ introduced

3. police, ambulance and accident and emergency staff said the TKSS program allowed them to focus on more urgent and pressing jobs

4. the ambassadors are able to de-escalate conflict and provide welfare services through their early, proactive and non-judgmental interventions.

The evaluation shows the TKSS program provides a critical harm-reduction service in Sydney after dark. Its net economic benefit to the city is greatest when the full complement of Safe Spaces are operating and supported by sustained and stable funding. There is a clear case that the program should be part of the long-term future planning of a safe, inclusive and vibrant night-time economy.

Note: The TKSS program was suspended in March 2020 due to COVID-19 and is due to re-open in January 2021.

– ref. Caring for 66,455 revellers at risk delivers $7.5m harm-reduction benefit for Sydney – https://theconversation.com/caring-for-66-455-revellers-at-risk-delivers-7-5m-harm-reduction-benefit-for-sydney-151472

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christiaan De Beukelaer, Senior Lecturer, University of Melbourne

It has been rightly described as a humanitarian crisis and a modern form of forced labour.

In the early months of 2020, stranded cruise ships became a stark symbol of the COVID-19 global pandemic. Now it is seafarers stranded on cargo ships.

There are more than 50,000 such vessels, with about 1.6 million crew.

Before the coronavirus crisis, about 100,000 of these crew changed over each month, typically after serving contracts capped at 11 months under the United Nations Maritime Labour Convention. But since March, border closures have prevented for many seafarers, forcing some crew into indefinite service, unable to even take shore leave.

And their work has never been more important to the rest of us. Before the pandemic cargo ships carried about 80% of all global trade. With the curtailment of international air travel reducing air cargo capacity by about 20%, shipping has become even more crucial to the global economy.

But the personal costs are enormous. Working on a cargo ship is taxing as the best of times. Now the work is even harder, with no respite.

Read more: The reality of life for seafarers like those crewing the ‘hijacked’ tanker Nave Andromeda

In June the number of stranded seafarers was estimated to be 150,000. By September it was 400,000 (there are no more recent estimates). Some crew have now been at sea for 18 months.

The damage to mental health is great, increasing the risk of occupational accidents and environmental disasters.

Stuck at sea

Their plight is one to which I can personally relate.

In early March I boarded a two-masted schooner, the Avontuur, one of the few cargo ships operating under sail, as part of my research into decarbonising the shipping industry. I planned to be on board for a three-week voyage from Tenerife in the Canary Islands to Guadeloupe in the Caribbean.

I ended up being on board for five months.

By the time we reached port at Point-à-Pitre in Guadeloupe, Caribbean nations were restricting air travel and closing borders due to COVID-19. On March 24, after extended negotiations, we were allowed to briefly dock to take provisions. But no one was allowed ashore.

On April 10, we reached Puerto Cortés in Honduras, to load a cargo of green coffee. Stevedores came aboard to load the bags, but we were prohibited from going ashore. A week later we loaded cacao in Belize City, but again were refused permission to step on land.

So my trip extended port after port.

We spent ten days off the Mexican port of Veracruz, waiting for cargo, repairs and favourable winds. Again authorities did not allow us to step ashore. It wasn’t until late June, after more than 120 days on board, in Horta, that we were able to go ashore for a few days on the Azorean island of Faial. But given travel restrictions, we continued on for another three weeks to Hamburg.

The routine of work on a sailing ship occupied our time. Everyone worked eight hours a day in three different watches (four hours on, eight hours off).

But my ordeal was limited. I had confidence that in Hamburg I would be able to disembark and return to Australia. This is something many seafarers do not have. For many, there is still no light at the end of the tunnel.

Crew change possible, but difficult

Cargo ship crews need to keep watch and maintain the vessel at all times. They work 12 hours a day. Without weekends. Without seeing family or friends. Shore leave is increasingly rare, due to tight turnaround times in port, and often confined to docks.

Labour unions and seafarers initially accepted crew change limitations due to COVID-19 border closures as “force majeure” – an issue beyond anyone’s control. As a result, flag states, unions, and port state authorities allowed ship owners to extend contracts beyond Maritime Labour Convention rules.

Since May, many organisations have been appealing to governments to recognise seafarers as “key workers” and permit them to cross borders. Ship owners have also been under fire for not doing enough.

Read more: Thousands of seafarers are stranded aboard ships, with no end to their shift in sight

In early September the head of the International Maritime Organisation, Kitack Lim, said progress was being made by many countries in allowing for crew changes, but not at a rate to keep pace with the backlog.

Most nations now permit seafarers to cross borders, but the process is hampered by bureaucracy, screening and quarantine requirements, limited and hugely expensive air travel, and changing rules due to new waves of COVID-19. So while travelling home is technically possible, many seafarers remain stuck at sea.

The consequences, Kitack Lim warned, are dire:

Seafarers cannot remain at sea indefinitely. In addition to the humanitarian crisis that has been caused by keeping seafarers effectively trapped on their vessels, the safety issues that arise from requiring overly fatigued and mentally exhausted seafarers to continue operating vessels are a matter of great concern.

These concerns have been echoed by the Consumer Goods Forum, comprising the top executives of about 400 multinational retailers and manufacturers, which wrote to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres calling for action to end a situation that had “inadvertently created a modern form of forced labor.”

The International Transport Workers’ Federation called the shipping industry “a ticking timebomb”, with its survey of seafarers showing 60% believed they or crew mates were more likely than not to be “involved in an accident that could harm human life, property or the marine environment due to tiredness or fatigue”.

United Nations call for action

Where I live, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority announced last month it would end interim arrangements permitting seafarers to serve longer than 11 months on ships from 28 February 2021.

But as the International Transport Workers’ Federation noted – welcoming the decision while also expressing disappointment at the unnecessary delay – this is only the start of action needed from port states to help resolve the crew change crisis.

On December 1, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling on all governments to promptly take steps to facilitate crew changes, including by expediting travel and repatriation efforts and ensuring access to medical care.

A key step is designating seafarers as essential workers, with permission to cross borders, priority access to international flights, and to vaccinations when they become available.

The urgency is clear: the global economy depends on the work of seafarers.

When we celebrate Christmas with family and friends, feasting on imported delicacies and exchanging gifts shipped in from overseas, let’s not forget the ordeal of the hundreds of thousands stranded far from home who made that possible.

– ref. Stranded at sea: the humanitarian crisis that’s left 400,000 seafarers stuck on cargo ships – https://theconversation.com/stranded-at-sea-the-humanitarian-crisis-thats-left-400-000-seafarers-stuck-on-cargo-ships-150446

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Hail, Lecturer in Economics, University of Adelaide

Australia guards its AAA credit rating with care. Successive governments from both sides of politics have framed federal budgets with one eye on the economy and the other on what ratings agencies such as Standard and Poor’s will do.

Just the announcement of a “negative outlook” as happened in April, makes news.

Politicians, commentators and even some economists, treat even the possibility of a downgrade as a big deal.

What is unclear is why.

Credit ratings are supposed to measure the risk of default by corporations and governments on the bonds they issue to investors.

If it’s a ten-year bond, it’s the risk of not making the remaining annual payments and not paying back the sum that was lent after ten years.

A ratings downgrade is meant to indicate the payments have become less likely.

Read more: The government has just sold $15 billion of 31-year bonds. But what actually is a bond?

This should make bond holders less keen to own the bonds, which should push up the rates the corporation or government will have to offer to sell them.

A very good reason to pay attention to Standard and Poor’s you might imagine.

And it is for the governments of states such as Victoria and NSW whose ratings were downgraded on Monday.

Ratings agencies can’t hurt the Commonwealth

Those states will probably have to pay more for their borrowings, even though the Reserve Bank of Australia is in the market snapping up state as well as Commonwealth bonds.

But the Commonwealth of Australia is different.

Research to be published next year by University of Adelaide graduate student Matthew Crocker suggests that the Commonwealth and other governments with a high degree of monetary sovereignty including those of the United States, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Korea, Switzerland, Norway and the United Kingdom are well placed to ignore Standard and Poor’s and all the other ratings agencies.

Governments have a high degree of monetary sovereignty if, like Australia’s, they issue and collect taxes and borrow in their own currency and if that currency is on neither a gold standard or a fixed exchange rate.

In a careful study of members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development between 2000 and 2020, Crocker finds that ratings downgrades do indeed push up the cost of borrowing for countries without monetary sovereignty (such as most members of the Euro-zone), but have no significant impact on the cost of borrowing for monetary sovereigns such as Australia.

Lenders know this well

One lesson from this is that the Australian government should ignore credit ratings when framing its budgets, as modern monetary theorists have been saying for years.

Since 2004 Australia has only issued bonds in Australian dollars, which is another way of saying it has only borrowed in a currency it is able to create.

Although there are many constraints on what governments such as Australia’s can do (including the risk of inflation) such governments can’t become insolvent in their own currencies, because they are always able to supply them.

Strictly speaking, they don’t need to borrow at all. They choose to do so. Where they do borrow, their lenders face a zero risk of default.

Read more: Explainer: what is modern monetary theory?

The other lesson is that buyers of bonds understand this. They behave as if there is a zero risk of default, whatever the agencies say.

Those that didn’t, including fund managers who bet against Japanese and US government bonds in anticipation of downgrades, lost an awful lot of money.

The implications are important

It would be great if others understood this. It has implications for the balance between fiscal and monetary policy, for federal-state financial relations and for privatisations and public investments.

Governments at both levels have borrowed more than A$100 billion to fund measures to fight the recession. It won’t limit what the federal government is able to do down the track, but it might limit what the states can do.

In order to fund the extra debt payments those states will be under pressure to outsource and privatise things that aren’t yet privatised, even though on one estimate none of Australia’s privatisations over the past 30 years has ended up benefiting the public.

The pressure will increase if the states are downgraded and the cost of their payments increase.

The Reserve Bank is buying state and territory bonds, but that doesn’t write the debt off, it only kicks it down the road.

The best thing would be for the federal government to take-over states’ COVID-related debts. It can’t run out of dollars, and the states are doing much of its work for it, supporting the economy. The move would make the ratings agencies even less relevant.

Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe was half right when he said in August

I think preserving the credit ratings is not particularly important; what’s important is that we use the public balance sheet in a time of crisis to create jobs for people

Credit ratings aren’t important for the federal government. Right now they matter for the states. The Feds are able to help them out.

– ref. Australia’s credit rating is irrelevant. Ignore it – https://theconversation.com/australias-credit-rating-is-irrelevant-ignore-it-151579

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marguerite Johnson, Professor of Classics, University of Newcastle

Can Christmas be about gender? Apparently so, if the paucity of female Santas is anything to go by. There have, in fact, been cases of Australian women donning the secular red and white Santa attire as far back as 1930 — and there is no reason why we couldn’t have more female Santas today.

In 1935, Queensland’s Daily Mercury reported on aviator Nancy Bird Walton, “The Angel of the Outback”, piloting a female Santa Claus into the north-western corner of New South Wales.

Bird was a volunteer with the Far West Children’s Health Scheme, flying nurses to remote parts of Australia, and transporting patients. “A girl was the first Father Christmas for the isolated area,” the article noted.

Before Bird, in 1930, the Daily Pictorial had published a photo titled: “Sydney’s Woman Santa”. The caption described, “Mrs Thelma Lewis, of Randwick, believed to be Australia’s only woman Santa Claus”, filling a role she adored.

These cases from 1930s Australia provide a glimpse of women breaking the rules of socially accepted female behaviour. (Bird was temporarily suspended from flying in 1935 when a state politician pronounced ladies were not “biologically suited” to the activity).

Read more: We asked five experts: should I lie to my children about Santa?

A ‘slimmer, smaller’ wartime Santa

During the second world war, as with the first, women assumed male roles out of necessity. This included donning a Santa suit. In 1942, Perth’s Daily News reported: “Female Santa Claus this Year”. The article read:

There will be a subtle change in the person of Santa Claus this year. He will probably be slimmer and smaller, and he probably won’t talk, because his voice won’t be quite as deep as it should be. Mother will have the difficult job of deputising for Santa Claus this year, as most fathers in camp and on ships will not get leave.

Women stepped in during wartime in the United States too, although the response was not as pretty. A 1941 article in the St. Louis Star-Times, insisted

There is one male domain, however, that should be defended at all costs … A woman Santa Claus? Heaven forbid! That would be stretching the credulity of guileless little children too far.

Despite the grumbling, American women continued to play Santa during the war years, often with little protest.

‘Mother Christmas’

In Australia, the practice also continued after the war. On December 10 1949, Brisbane’s Courier-Mail reported on a “Mother Christmas” who visited children at a childcare centre.

The story was titled, “Santa Was A Lady”. The caption for the photograph read, “Woman invaded man’s realm yesterday when a Mother Christmas (Mrs. E. J. Lewis) operated at Kurilpa Child Care Centre. She got the same glad welcome that Father Christmas gets.”

In 1950, meanwhile, a “Glamorous Girl ‘Santa’” cycled into the Christmas party at Freidelle’s, a Wollongong-based manufacturer of children’s clothes. The reporter described her arrival thus:

Furiously riding a bicycle, and with scant consideration to traffic regulations, the ‘Girl Santa’ arrived on the scene at Freidelle’s Xmas Breaking-up party on Thursday and challengingly announced ‘Well, here I am!’

Freidelle’s employed women and was one of the main industries in the region to provide jobs for migrants. In such a context, its female Santa seems to have made sense.

Read more: Teleporting and psychedelic mushrooms: a history of St Nicholas, Santa and his helpers

Resistance

In the final decades of the 20th century, there was more resistance to female Santas. In Australia, Santa became a bloke again. In the US, the few women Santas working in department stores were either sacked or encouraged to seek alternative employment.

In 1999, a female Santa sued a Walmart in Louisville for unfair dismissal after a customer complained it was a man’s job. She lost.

But the tide may be turning as we settle into the new millennium. In 2018, in Gisborne, New Zealand, Santa was a “female, regional, Maori, queer”. Also in 2018, in Park City Mall in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, “Tranta Claus” (a transgender Santa) came to town.

The future of our beloved Santa — the guy in the red suit originating from the story of St Nicholas in fifth century Turkey — may be increasingly contested. And with older, overweight men said to be at a higher risk of catching coronavirus, now is the time to rethink the notion of who can play Santa.

Gender switches at Christmas are really nothing new. In Italy, the Christmas tradition of a magical being bearing gifts has been part of culture for hundreds of years in the form of a folkloric witch called The Befana.

First recorded in a poem in 1549, the Befana is old, rides a broomstick, carries a sack full of treats (and coal), and wears a black shawl and either a headscarf or tall hat. Like Santa, she enters homes via chimneys, filling the socks or stockings of children with gifts

Male cross-dressing is part of an age old tradition of pantomime throughout Europe, prevalent around Christmas. So in Italy, the Befana is often performed by men donning female attire.

– ref. Santa was a lady once — is it time to bring her back? – https://theconversation.com/santa-was-a-lady-once-is-it-time-to-bring-her-back-149744