Page 939

As Mediscare 2.0 takes centre stage, here’s what you need to know about hospital ‘cuts’ and cancer funding

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Director, Health Program, Grattan Institute

Health is proving a bone of contention in the 2019 election campaign. Labor has positioned health as a key point of difference, and the Coalition is arguing that Labor’s promises are untrue in one case and underfunded in another.

This cheat sheet will help you sort fact from fiction in two key health policy areas: public hospital funding and cancer care.

Public hospitals

In his budget reply, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten promised that Labor would restore every dollar the government had “cut” from public hospital funding.

The government counter-claimed that hospital funding has increased. So who is right?

The short answer is both.

In 2011, the then Labor government negotiated a funding agreement with the states for the Commonwealth to share 45% of the growth in the cost of public hospital care, funded at the “national efficient price”. This price is based on the average cost of the procedure, test or treatment.

The funding share was to increase to 50% of growth from July 1, 2017.


Read more: Public hospital blame game – here’s how we got into this funding mess


At the 2013 election, the then Liberal opposition agreed to match that promise and, indeed, claimed they were the only ones who could be trusted to keep the promise:

A Coalition government will support the transition to the Commonwealth providing 50% growth funding of the efficient price are hospital services as proposed. But only the Coalition has the economic record to be able to deliver.

However, in the 2014 budget the Coalition scrapped its promise. The 2014 budget papers list the savings that were made by the decision. It was a clear and documented cut that the Coalition was proud to claim at the time.

The green line represents the Gillard hospital funding agreement; the blue line is the revised projection from the 2014 budget. Budget 2014-15

Since then, the Turnbull government has backtracked on the 2014 cuts to health but only to restore sharing to 45% of the costs of growth.

Labor has estimated the impact of the gap between 45% and 50% on every public hospital in the country, and spruiks the difference at every opportunity.

Hospital costs increase faster than inflation because of growth and ageing population, the introduction of new technologies, and new approaches to treatment.

As a result, the Commonwealth’s existing 45% sharing policy drives increased spending, and so Commonwealth spending is now at record levels, albeit not at the even higher levels that Labor had promised.

Labor’s promise is, appropriately, phrased as an additional quantum of money to the states, sufficient to restore the 50% share in the cost of growth.

The public hospital funding gap comes down to how much of the growth in hospital funding each party has committed to. Shutterstock

The details of how this funding should be operationalised to the states should be left to detailed negotiations after the election as it is not good practice for all the details of your negotiating position to be aired in the heat of a campaign.

So Labor is right to say hospital funding is lower than it would have been if the 50% growth share commitment had been maintained. But the Coalition is right to say the Commonwealth is spending more on hospital care than when it came to office.

Cancer care

The second major element of the Labor campaign was a high-profile A$2.3 billion package to address high out-of-pocket costs for Australians with cancer. The package has three key components:

  • additional public hospital outpatient funding to reduce waiting times
  • a new bulk-billing item for consultations
  • more funding for MRI machines for cancer diagnosis.

Read more: Labor’s cancer package would cut the cost of care, but beware of unintended side effects


Labor did not promise to eliminate out-of-pocket costs for cancer, not even for consultations. It claimed bulk-billing would increase from 40% to 80% of consultations.

This promise has led to another showdown between Labor and the Coalition. Health Minister Greg Hunt claims to have found a A$6 billion black hole in Labor’s cancer policy.

The Coalition has produced a list of 421 Medicare items used for cancer treatment – including treatment in private hospitals – and noted Labor has not allocated funds to cover the fees specialists charge for these items.

But Labor rightly claims the 421-item list is not what it promised. Labor’s promise was about increasing the rate of bulk-billing for consultations and is based on a new item which is only available if the specialist bulk-bills.

Expect more claims and counter-claims in the weeks ahead.

ref. As Mediscare 2.0 takes centre stage, here’s what you need to know about hospital ‘cuts’ and cancer funding – http://theconversation.com/as-mediscare-2-0-takes-centre-stage-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-hospital-cuts-and-cancer-funding-115447

New minister for public spaces is welcome – now here are ten priorities for action

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kurt Iveson, Associate Professor of Urban Geography, University of Sydney

With the re-election of the Berejiklian government, New South Wales now has a minister for public spaces, Rob Stokes. This portfolio was first mooted in February, when the premier announced one of the new minister’s tasks would be to identify and protect publicly owned land for use as parks or public spaces.

As important as this task is, we need even more ambition in this portfolio. Public space is crucial to the social, economic, political and environmental life of our towns and cities. As well as increasing the quantity of public spaces, we need to improve their quality.


Read more: Surprise! Digital space isn’t replacing public space, and might even help make it better


Here are ten priorities for government action to make our public spaces more plentiful and more accessible to all.

1. Rein in privately owned public spaces

From Barangaroo to Bonnyrigg, public spaces in new urban developments are often owned and controlled by private developers. The public has little say over the rules that govern these spaces and how those rules are enforced. Restrictions are often excessive, and private security guards are known to overstep their powers.

The minister for public space should map the extent of privately owned public spaces and ensure these are governed by the same, democratically determined laws that cover publicly owned public spaces.


Read more: Making developments green doesn’t help with inequality


2. Strategic purchases of private land

As well as identifying publicly owned land that could be used for parks or public spaces, the minister should identify privately owned land that could be acquired for the same purpose. The gradual purchase of harbour foreshore property in Glebe has resulted in a wonderful and well-used foreshore walk. Similar opportunities to create public space networks should be identified and planned.

3. Unlock the gates

Too much publicly owned public space is under-utilised because it is locked up. Across the city, ovals and public school playgrounds are fenced off from the public for much of the year when they are not in use. We own these spaces – when they’re not in use for sport or school, we should have access to them.

As minister for education, Stokes recently trialled a program of opening some school playgrounds during school holidays. This should be done across the city. And councils should be required to show cause if they want to restrict access to any public spaces they own.

4. Stop the temporary enclosures

A growing number of park authorities and local governments are doing deals with private companies to temporarily fence off public spaces for commercial activities. Sometimes they do this for days, sometimes for weeks and even months. They do it because they’re short of funds and need the revenue.


Read more: Private events help fund public parks, but there’s a cost too


While programming events in public spaces can help attract crowds, we must halt the creeping logic of commercialisation, which results in us being charged money for access to our own spaces. The minister for public space should ensure park authorities do not need to depend on commercial funding for survival.

5. Maintain footpaths

The quality of footpaths makes a world of difference for many people. Think of parents with prams, little kids, people with mobility issues, and older people for whom falls are a big health risk. Our footpaths need to be wide and their surfaces even. They also need to incorporate places to rest.


Read more: Eight simple changes to our neighbourhoods can help us age well


The capacity of local governments to maintain footpaths is highly uneven. Public spaces in wealthy areas are gold-plated, while in other parts of the city footpaths are too often in poor condition or non-existent. The minister must think about the role that state government can play in evening things out, assisting local governments where required.

6. Provide public toilets

As with footpaths, the provision of public toilets can make the difference between going out or staying at home for many people. The minister should use existing data to audit the provision and accessibility of public toilets in public spaces across the city, identify gaps and fund improvements where required.


Read more: Caught short: we need to talk about public toilets


7. Less private advertising, more public expression

While advertising on the Opera House generated controversy, the creeping spread of commercial advertising in public space is also of concern. All this advertising is commercialising our public spaces and crowding out other forms of public expression – from neighbourhood notices about community events and lost cats to murals and street art.

The minister should work with local governments to limit the amount of advertising in public space, and extract more public good from any advertising revenues raised in public space.


Read more: Is there any way to stop ad creep?


8. No more sniffer dogs and strip searches

The policing of public spaces makes a huge difference to its accessibility. Exclusionary policing strategies – especially the use of drug sniffer dogs and rising use of strip searches – should be stopped.

These tactics are not only put to work at festivals, but also around train stations and entertainment precincts. They are ineffective in leading to prosecutions and are too often used to shame, intimidate and harass people without basis.

The minister for public space needs to challenge the minister for police about this form of policing.

9. Care not control

This is not say that safety is unimportant. We know that fear of harassment and assault stops some people using public space, not least women who often experience this.

However, we must not equate “feeling safe” with “more police” and “more surveillance cameras”. Indeed, sometimes these can have the perverse effect of making people feel less safe, by producing atmospheres of threat.

We feel safer when there are others around caring for the space. So, the minister should investigate ways to encourage these forms of care. Simple measures like later opening hours for neighbourhood shops, or staff on railway platforms and train carriages, can make a big difference.


Read more: To create safer cities for everyone, we need to avoid security that threatens


10. Plant more trees

We need more trees in our public spaces – not just in parks, but on residential and commercial streets too. This is especially important in parts of the city where summer temperatures are already extreme for weeks at a time. Not only do trees help to cool these spaces, they also encourage more biodiversity and combat carbon emissions.

The minister should establish, and fund, a meaningful target for tree planting in public spaces.

This list of suggestions is far from exhaustive. But these reforms and others ought to be on the drawing board as the minister for public space sets about his new work.

It must be hoped this new portfolio is more than a tokenistic attempt to create the appearance of action on public space, in the face of criticism of this government’s record on privatisation of public assets.

ref. New minister for public spaces is welcome – now here are ten priorities for action – http://theconversation.com/new-minister-for-public-spaces-is-welcome-now-here-are-ten-priorities-for-action-115152

Digital campaigning on sites like Facebook is unlikely to swing the election

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenn Kefford, Senior Lecturer, Department of Modern History, Politics and International Relations, Macquarie University

With the federal election now officially underway, commentators have begun to consider not only the techniques parties and candidates will use to persuade voters, but also any potential threats we are facing to the integrity of the election.

Invariably, this discussion leads straight to digital.

In the aftermath of the 2016 United States presidential election, the coverage of digital campaigning has been unparalleled. But this coverage has done very little to improve understanding of the key issues confronting our democracies as a result of the continued rise of digital modes of campaigning.

Some degree of confusion is understandable since digital campaigning is opaque – especially in Australia. We have very little information on what political parties or third-party campaigners are spending their money on, some of which comes from taxpayers. But the hysteria around digital is for the most part, unfounded.


Read more: Chinese social media platform WeChat could be a key battleground in the federal election


Why parties use digital media

In any attempt to better understand digital, it’s useful to consider why political parties and other campaigners are using it as part of their election strategies. The reasons are relatively straightforward.

The media landscape is fragmented. Voters are active on social media platforms, such as Facebook and Instagram, so that’s where the parties need to be.

Compared to the cost of advertising on television, radio or in print, digital advertising is very affordable.

Platforms like Facebook offer services that give campaigners a relatively straightforward way to segment voters. Campaigners can use these tools to micro-target them with tailored messaging.

Voting, persuasion and mobilisation

While there is certainly more research required into digital campaigning, there is no scholarly study I know of that suggests advertising online – including micro-targeted messaging – has the effect that it is often claimed to have.

What we know is that digital messaging can have a small but significant effect on mobilisation, that there are concerns about how it could be used to demobilise voters, and that it is an effective way to fundraise and organise. But its ability to independently persuade voters to change their votes is estimated to be close to zero.


Read more: Australian political journalists might be part of a ‘Canberra bubble’, but they engage the public too


The exaggeration and lack of clarity around digital is problematic because there is almost no evidence to support many of the claims made. This type of technology fetishism also implies that voters are easily manipulated, when there is little evidence of this.

While it might help some commentators to rationalise unexpected election results, a more fruitful endeavour than blaming technology would be to try to understand why voters are attracted to various parties or candidates, such as Trump in the US.

Digital campaigning is not a magic bullet, so commentators need to stop treating it as if it is. Parties hope it helps them in their persuasion efforts, but this is through layering their messages across as many mediums as possible, and using the network effect that social media provides.

Data privacy and foreign interference

The two clear and obvious dangers related to digital are about data privacy and foreign meddling. We should not accept that our data is shared widely as a result of some box we ticked online. And we should have greater control over how our data are used, and who they are sold to.

An obvious starting point in Australia is questioning whether parties should continue to be exempt from privacy legislation. Research suggests that a majority of voters see a distinction between commercial entities advertising to us online compared to parties and other campaigners.

We also need to take some personal responsibility, since many of us do not always take our digital footprint as seriously as we should. It matters, and we need to educate ourselves on this.

The more vexing issue is that of foreign interference. One of the first things we need to recognise is that it is unlikely this type of meddling online would independently turn an election.

This does not mean we should accept this behaviour, but changing election results is just one of the goals these actors have. Increasing polarisation and contributing to long-term social divisions is part of the broader strategy.


Read more: Australia should strengthen its privacy laws and remove exemptions for politicians


The digital battleground

As the 2019 campaign unfolds, we should remember that, while digital matters, there is no evidence it has an independent election-changing effect.

Australians should be most concerned with how our data are being used and sold, and about any attempts to meddle in our elections by state and non-state actors.

The current regulatory environment fails to meet community standards. More can and should be done to protect us and our democracy.


This article has been co-published with The Lighthouse, Macquarie University’s multimedia news platform.

ref. Digital campaigning on sites like Facebook is unlikely to swing the election – http://theconversation.com/digital-campaigning-on-sites-like-facebook-is-unlikely-to-swing-the-election-115368

A simpler tax system should spark joy. Sadly, the one in this budget doesn’t

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Hamilton, Assistant professor, George Washington University

There weren’t any new tax ideas in the 2019 Budget, which perhaps is to be expected from a six year old government preparing for an election the betting markets suggest it will lose.

Instead what we got were extensions of a few actually-pretty-big tax ideas introduced in last year’s budget: the planned elimination of the 37% tax bracket, the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset, and the immediate expensing of investments for businesses.

Given the looming election it’s worth examining each of these three ideas, which I will do over the next few days.

First, eliminating one of the tax rates. At the moment the income tax schedule has five rates:


Australian Tax Office


By 2024 they are to be “flattened and simplified” to just four.

An entire rate would vanish, and on that part of their income between A$45,000 and $200,000, most people would face a flat rate of 30%, down from the 32.5% proposed in last year’s budget:


Commonwealth budget papers


It’s an idea with a long lineage.

In 2010 the Henry Tax Review told the Rudd Labor government that personal income tax had become “inordinately complex”.

It proposed a simpler, three-rate, system, but, importantly, said most of the complexity wasn’t due to the number of rates but was due instead to the “large suite of complex deduction rules, numerous tax offsets and a variety of exempt forms of income”.


Henry Tax Review


It’s worthwhile considering why simplicity matters.

Setting aside political considerations, simplicity only matters to the extent that it lowers the cost to the economy of the government raising revenue. For every dollar it raises, the tax system imposes compliance costs on taxpayers and others like employers and banks who are required to keep records and report information to the Tax Office, which also bears costs.

The only simplicity we should care about is one that makes the tax system easier to comply with and easier to administer.

The kind of simplicity that matters

The problem with removing a tax bracket is that by itself it does nothing to achieve that objective. It makes the tax system look tidier – the graph is easier to draw, but that’s it. It doesn’t simplify lives and doesn’t bring joy, except to clean freaks who can satisfy their inner Kondo.

The thing to understand is that the tax system is sometimes complicated for a good reason. That might be a desire to tightly target a tax measure so that only those of a certain income or those with children receive it, for example. Not targeting the tax measure would make the system simpler, but it might also make it less fair and more expensive.

If we accept that some income redistribution is desirable, then in an ideal world we would have a smoothly increasing marginal tax rate from middle to high incomes. There would be an infinite number of tax brackets, as in Germany, where income tax rates rise continuously with income.

It would be easy enough to navigate. An online tool would do the trick.



If we must have discrete tax brackets, then the goal ought to be to approximate this ideal system as closely as possible. It would mean having more rather than fewer rates. Having fewer rates forces some people to pay more than they should and others less.

Some have suggested that eliminating tax brackets would reduce the opportunity for taxpayers to manipulate their income so that it bunches around thresholds.

A graph prepared for the Abbott government’s tax white paper shows that bunching does indeed happen, but it is confined to only a narrow sliver of the income distribution and thus very few taxpayers. It’s probably not worth worrying about.


Re:think. 2015 Treasury tax discussion paper


The kind of simplicity that would help

An idea recently endorsed by the Inspector-General of Taxation and originally proposed by the Henry Review is a standard deduction.

It would entitle every taxpayer to claim a standard amount of deductions without needing receipts. Those with deductions in excess of the standard deduction would still be free to claim those. It’s a system that already exists in the United States and other countries.

Deductions aren’t necessarily a bad thing. There are good reasons why some should be allowed (for example, deductions on the debt interest used to fund investment).

But in practice they take up a lot of our time to document and can be difficult for the Tax Office to interpret (is that car really for work purposes or for personal driving?), something the Tax Commissioner has complained about.

My own research suggests deductions are one of the main means of tax avoidance, responsible for 12 times as much avoidance as understatement of income.

The former Labor government was on board with Henry’s proposal. Unveiling the findings of Ken Henry’s review in 2010, treasurer Wayne Swan promised to “remove the hassle of shoeboxes full of receipts”.

From 2012 onwards everyone would get a standard deduction of $500 in lieu of claiming work-related expenses. It would climb to $1000 from 2013.


Read more: What will the Coalition be remembered for on tax? Tinkering, blunders and lost opportunities


Budgetary constraints meant he never got around to introducing the legislation.

In 2017 Treasurer Scott Morrison asked a parliamentary inquiry to look into the possibility of doing it. It found it would be expensive. A standard deduction of $500 would cost an extra $2.3 billion, a standard deduction of $1000, $4.6 billion.

These costs, while considerable, are nothing like the cost of the flatter tax system the Coalition is proposing.

And they would enable most taxpayers to avoid submitting a tax return at all. Deductions are the primary reason for tax adjustments. Without them, taxpayers could set and forget. Most taxpayers, and the Tax Office, could concern themselves with other things, such as going after multinational corporations.

Now wouldn’t that spark joy?

ref. A simpler tax system should spark joy. Sadly, the one in this budget doesn’t – http://theconversation.com/a-simpler-tax-system-should-spark-joy-sadly-the-one-in-this-budget-doesnt-115370

‘Fairness’ versus ‘strength’ – the battle to frame the federal election

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Triffitt, Lecturer, Public Policy and Political Communications, University of Melbourne

Politicians have long faced the challenge of how to effectively communicate with citizens who largely see them as dissemblers and promise-breakers.

On the face of it, the task for the major parties to construct messages that resonate with voters appears even more daunting in the 2019 federal campaign. After all, the campaign is occurring against the backdrop of historic low levels of voter trust and engagement.

At the same time, the policy battle lines between the major parties heading into the election are among the starkest in recent memory. As such Labor and the Coalition appear to have seeded a rich harvest of cut-through messages organised around very different themes.


Read more: As election 2019 kicks off, the only certainty is a cranky and mistrustful electorate


‘Fairness’ versus ‘strength’

Federal Labor’s campaign communications are organised around a single word: “fair”. At a party, leader or candidate level, “fair” or “fair-go” is threaded through nearly every piece of communication to voters.

Bill Shorten’s budget reply – the unofficial start of Labor’s election campaign – was replete with the word, or variations such as “fair go action plan” and “intergenerational fairness”.

In truth, fairness has always been part of the ALP’s messaging DNA. But its core campaign message in 2019 is aggressively leveraging what the party sees as an emerging zeitgiest in the Australian electorate against undue economic power and privilege.

The Coalition, on the other hand, has its own singular message: “strength” and its semantic sibling “security”. Both words have been campaign talismans for the Coalition since the Howard years, when 9/11 and the Tampa debate sensitised voters to national and border security.

This is why “strong economy”, ‘securing our future’ and “secure borders” will be repeated ad nauseum by the Coalition in the hope that old wine in new bottles will again prove to be its election elixir.

These juxtaposed themes appear to promise a level of campaign frission that might potentially reengage a jaded electorate. The reality, however, is likely to be the opposite.

Fighting the framing wars

Campaign communications based on pithy slogans have always been integral to electioneering. Slogans seek to compress complex realities into bite-sized messages that are simple and memorable. But in the 21st century, slogans and other highly truncated communications have become even more critical to political campaigning.

In this so-called age of distraction and information overload, every communicator faces major challenges not just to gain the public’s attention, but hang onto it. This attention/traction dilemma is compounded for politicians given the rapid rate at which citizens are tuning out of mainstream politics.


Read more: Federal election 2019: state of the states


These structural factors have meant the semantic contest between parties – otherwise known as framing wars – have become increasingly influential in how political campaigns are structured and run.

“Framing” in political communications parlance means marking semantic boundaries around the debate that a party’s campaign or policy speaks to. Values – such as fairness, strength, opportunity, equality and continuity – are the most effective words to frame political messages.

This is because distracted and distrustful voters are more likely to listen to political messages that speak to the universal and positive principles that values espouse. Hence, values framing potentially addresses the “attention” problem.

Their simplicity also readily lend themselves to the repetition required by politicians to hang onto public attention, thus helping to overcome the “traction” problem.

Seeking a connection with voters

While values framing – formalised as political communications practice in the United States over a decade ago – has become an integral tool for Australia’s political parties to connect with voters, there are major drawbacks.

First, the number of values – as expositions of basic moral principles – are relatively limited. This is why the same values, with minor variations, keep being churned out by parties in successive elections. They are also used by competing parties in the same campaign to neutralise the impact of rival frames. Already we see the Coalition attempting to reframe Labor’s fairness mantra as well as Labour’s assurances they too are “strong” economic managers.

As a result, rather than helping to differentiate parties, values framing can reinforce voter perceptions that there is little difference between them.


Read more: The end of uncertainty? How the 2019 federal election might bring stability at last to Australian politics


Embracing the vacuous

The universality of values helps major parties – facing an eroding support base – to appeal to many voters simultaneously.

But their catchall character can also make them and their leaders appear shallow and unimaginative. Think of Malcolm Turnbull’s “Continuity and Change” slogan in 2016. Not only was it widely criticised as a meaningless cliche. It was also seen as a knock-off from a popular political comedy series.

Finally, relying on a singular value to frame campaigns hard wires parties to lean on other generalisations that reinforce public perceptions politicians are out of touch.

Take both parties’ perennial appeal to “ordinary Australians” (is there such a thing in the worlds’s second most multi-cultural society?) or “working families” (at a time when more voters than ever are single).

In short, while voters will hear “fair” and “strength” robotically communicated throughout this campaign, what is viewed by the major parties as a “cut-through” cure to voter disengagement risks only adding to it.

ref. ‘Fairness’ versus ‘strength’ – the battle to frame the federal election – http://theconversation.com/fairness-versus-strength-the-battle-to-frame-the-federal-election-115296

As responsible digital citizens, here’s how we can all reduce racism online

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ariadna Matamoros-Fernández, Lecturer in Digital Media at the School of Communication, Queensland University of Technology

Have you ever considered that what you type into Google, or the ironic memes you laugh at on Facebook, might be building a more dangerous online environment?

Regulation of online spaces is starting to gather momentum, with governments, consumer groups, and even digital companies themselves calling for more control over what is posted and shared online.

Yet we often fail to recognise the role that you, me and all of us as ordinary citizens play in shaping the digital world.

The privilege of being online comes with rights and responsibilities, and we need to actively ask what kind of digital citizenship we want to encourage in Australia and beyond.


Read more: How the use of emoji on Islamophobic Facebook pages amplifies racism


Beyond the knee-jerk

The Christchurch terror attack prompted policy change by governments in both New Zealand and Australia.

Australia recently passed a new law that will enforce penalties for social media platforms if they don’t remove violent content after it becomes available online.

Platforms may well be lagging behind in their content moderation responsibilities, and still need to do better in this regard. But this kind of “kneejerk” policy response won’t solve the spread of problematic content on social media.

Addressing hate online requires coordinated efforts. Platforms must improve the enforcement of their rules (not just announce tougher measures) to guarantee users’ safety. They may also reconsider a serious redesign, because the way they currently organise, select, and recommend information often amplifies systemic problems in society like racism.


Read more: New livestreaming legislation fails to take into account how the internet actually works


Discrimination is entrenched

Of course, biased beliefs and content don’t just live online.

In Australia, racial discrimination has been perpetuated in public policy, and the country has an unreconciled history of Indigenous dispossession and oppression.

Today, Australia’s political mainstream is still lenient with bigots, and the media often contributes to fearmongering about immigration.

However, we can all play a part in reducing harm online.

There are three aspects we might reconsider when interacting online so as to deny oxygen to racist ideologies:

  • a better understanding of how platforms work
  • the development of empathy to identify differences in interpretation when engaging with media (rather than focusing on intent)
  • working towards a more productive anti-racism online.

Online lurkers and the amplification of harm

White supremacists and other reactionary pundits seek attention on mainstream and social media. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern refused to name the Christchurch gunman to prevent fuelling his desired notoriety, and so did some media outlets.

The rest of us might draw comfort from not having contributed to amplifying the Christchurch attacker’s desired fame. It’s likely we didn’t watch his video or read his manifesto, let alone upload or share this content on social media.

But what about apparently less harmful practices, such as searching on Google and social media sites for keywords related to the gunman’s manifesto or his live video?

It’s not the intent behind these practices that should be the focus of this debate, but the consequences of it. Our everyday interactions on platforms influence search autocomplete algorithms and the hierarchical organisation and recommendation of information.

In the Christchurch tragedy, even if we didn’t share or upload the manifesto or the video, the zeal to access this information drove traffic to problematic content and amplified harm for the Muslim community.

Normalisation of hate through seemingly lighthearted humour

Reactionary groups know how to capitalise on memes and other jokey content that degrades and dehumanises.

By using irony to deny the racism in these jokes, these far-right groups connect and immerse new members in an online culture that deliberately uses memetic media to have fun at the expense of others.

The Christchurch terrorist attack showed this connection between online irony and the radicalisation of white men.

However, humour, irony and play – which are protected on platform policies – serve to cloak racism in more mundane and everyday contexts.


Read more: Racism in a networked world: how groups and individuals spread racist hate online


Just as everyday racism shares discourses and vocabularies with white supremacy, lighthearted racist and sexist jokes are as harmful as online fascist irony.

Humour and satire should not be hiding places for ignorance and bigotry. As digital citizens we should be more careful about what kind of jokes we engage with and laugh at on social media.

What’s harmful and what’s a joke might not be apparent when interpreting content from a limited worldview. The development of empathy to others’ interpretations of the same content is a useful skill to minimise the amplification of racist ideologies online.

As scholar danah boyd argues:

The goal is to understand the multiple ways of making sense of the world and use that to interpret media.

Effective anti-racism on social media

A common practice in challenging racism on social media is to publicly call it out, and show support for those who are victims of it. But critics of social media’s callout culture and solidarity sustain that these tactics often do not work as an effective anti-racism tool, as they are performative rather than having an advocacy effect.

An alternative is to channel outrage into more productive forms of anti-racism. For example, you can report hateful online content either individually or through organisations that are already working on these issues, such as The Online Hate Prevention Institute and the Islamophobia Register Australia.

Most major social media platforms struggle to understand how hate articulates in non-US contexts. Reporting content can help platforms understand culturally specific coded words, expressions, and jokes (most of which are mediated through visual media) that moderators might not understand and algorithms can’t identify.

As digital citizens we can work together to deny attention to those that seek to discriminate and inflict harm online.

We can also learn how our everyday interactions might have unintended consequences and actually amplify hate.

However, these ideas do not diminish the responsibility of platforms to protect users, nor do they negate the role of governments to find effective ways to regulate platforms in collaboration and consultation with civil society and industry.

ref. As responsible digital citizens, here’s how we can all reduce racism online – http://theconversation.com/as-responsible-digital-citizens-heres-how-we-can-all-reduce-racism-online-114619

Everyday racism fuels prejudice and hate. But we can challenge it

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kumar Yogeeswaran, Senior Lecturer in Social Psychology, University of Canterbury

In the aftermath of the Christchurch terror attacks a month ago, New Zealanders are grappling with difficult, albeit necessary, questions about discrimination and casual racism.

The response to the horrific attack has been heartwarming. Tens of thousands of people from different backgrounds offered support to the Muslim community and paid their respects to those senselessly killed and wounded. The response of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been similarly refreshing, and has become a global talking point. This gives us hope for a better future.

But lurking behind news articles and commentary proclaiming that this is “not us”, debate is growing about what this atrocity also tells us that we have been reticent to acknowledge.


Read more: How to challenge racism by listening to those who experience it


Everyday racism links to extremism

In some ways, both of these narratives ring true. On the one hand, we have bought into New Zealand’s high global ranking for tolerance and inclusion. On the other hand, New Zealand’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) and those of us who research prejudice and bigotry routinely find evidence for everyday experiences of casual racism. These experiences give extremism the space it needs to breathe.

One in three of the complaints received by the HRC in New Zealand is about racial discrimination. In 2017, the commission launched a Give Nothing to Racism campaign fronted by acclaimed film director Taika Waititi.

The New Zealand Human Rights Commission launched a campaign in 2017 to highlight everyday racism.

Everyday, or “casual” racism and bigotry can appear relatively subtle or blatant. It may include comments such as complimenting someone who doesn’t fit the dominant group for being “well-spoken”, calling someone a “good” Muslim/Māori/Asian, excusing race-based jokes or comparisons as “just joking”. These seemingly benign comments are often accompanied with more blatant experiences of ethnic slurs, being told to go back to one’s country, or managers admitting they do not hire people with “foreign” sounding names (a violation of New Zealand law).

Compounded with such day-to-day experiences is research spanning decades and using a variety of tools (including neuroscience methods, reaction-time measures, and behavioural measures) to show bigotry lies on a continuum from blatant to subtle.

It’s worth mentioning, even subtle biases contribute to negative outcomes for minority groups’ health, well-being and participation in wider society. And even subconsciously perceiving minorities as “less civilised” can fuel intergroup conflict and violence towards minority groups, as shown by decades of research

While terrorism may represent the actions by a small number of extremists, they are fuelled by social norms that allow these ideologies to take root and propagate. As acclaimed French theorist Jean Baudrillard observed in The Spirit of Terrorism:

terrorism merely crystallizes all the ingredients in suspension.

Social norms shape attitudes

This does not imply that communities themselves are responsible for acts of terrorism, but rather that terrorism reflects what circulates in geopolitics, national politics, normative beliefs of those around us, the media and the influence of other ideological and social forces. Global context is, of course, important, but New Zealand now needs to reflect on how social norms within our own community can inadvertently promote hate and prejudice.

In Christchurch, and New Zealand more generally, extremist groups have been omnipresent for decades. Just last year, there was a white supremacist march down a main street in Christchurch that received numerous car horn toots of support. Students in Auckland have reported an increase in extremist group messaging on campus, even after the disbanding of a controversial European student association.


Read more: Christchurch mosque shootings must end New Zealand’s innocence about right-wing terrorism


More broadly, data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Survey (NZAVS) show that 28% of New Zealanders are willing to express negative feelings toward Muslims. Fortunately, this is where all of us may be able to contribute to reinforcing the inclusive and tolerant society we tout in international rankings.

Where to from here

Well-intentioned and fair-minded people are often unaware of everyday experiences of members of minority groups. They often dismiss them as unrepresentative because the majority has a psychological investment in believing it “doesn’t happen here”. But such experiences do happen here as empirical research consistently finds, and these experiences cannot be undone simply through a similar number of positive experiences. People have a “negativity bias”, which means that negative events are weighed more heavily than positive ones. And if we have limited opportunities to forge meaningful close connections with people from other groups, then all it takes is a handful of negative experiences to wash away the benefits of other positive interactions and create distrust and social distancing between groups. Research shows although positive experiences are more common, negative experiences influence our attitudes more strongly.

Even as we work in increasingly diverse workplaces, our social circles tend to be fairly homogenous. Data from the NZAVS show that as recently as 2017, 64% of White New Zealanders report that they did not spend any time in the last week socialising with someone Māori. Some 83% say the same about socialising with someone Pasifika, and 77% report spending no time with someone Asian, suggesting that for many of us, our social networks are largely homogenous.

While this is similar to patterns elsewhere in the world, these homogenous networks create psychological distance between “us” and “them”. This also insulates us from hearing differing perspectives because minorities often fear that they will be seen as complainers if they share negative experiences in casual settings.

Instead, establishing relationships with people who are different from ourselves promotes positive intergroup contact, which is one of the most well-established approaches to reducing prejudice. Similarly, promoting social environments that encourage dialogue and cooperation, establishing common goals and providing opportunities for multicultural experiences offer some starting points for how to move forward.

At a time when the UN estimates more than 250 million people live outside of their country of birth, cultural diversity is an inevitable reality. It means we must learn to live and work together, and at the very least tolerate our differences. If each of us works to remove everyday bigotry within our immediate environment, we make it that much harder for extremist ideologies to take hold.

ref. Everyday racism fuels prejudice and hate. But we can challenge it – http://theconversation.com/everyday-racism-fuels-prejudice-and-hate-but-we-can-challenge-it-115118

When’s the best time to get your flu shot?

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Barr, Deputy Director, WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza

When most of us get the flu, we spend three or four days on the couch feeling miserable, then we bounce back pretty quickly. But others have more severe symptoms and need to be hospitalised because they’re at risk of life-threatening complications. Some people even die from the flu.

The size and impact of influenza seasons varies from year to year. In 2017, Australia had its worst flu season for 20 years, with at least 1,255 lives lost. The 2018 season was relatively mild, but it doesn’t seem to have ever ended – cases have been reported throughout summer and into autumn 2019.

The best way to protect against influenza is to get a flu vaccine each year. It’s not as effective as some other vaccines, but it reduces your risk of getting the flu by around 60%.


Read more: Health Check: how to tell the difference between hay fever and the common cold


Protection often will have begun to wane four or five months later, so getting vaccinated in mid to late May, or even early June, will give you better protection at the height of the flu season. But there are number of factors to consider before deciding when to get your flu shot.

Remind me, why get a flu shot each year?

Influenza viruses change each year and the vaccine is updated to keep up with these changes. This year, for example, the vaccine protects against two different strains than the 2018 vaccine.

Our body’s immune response to the vaccine also wanes over time. So even if you were vaccinated last winter, you may no longer be fully protected 18 months later, depending on your age and your response to the last vaccination.

When does the flu vax become available?

Influenza vaccines are usually available in early April, or even in March; though you’ll generally have to pay full price for early access, even if you’re eligible for a free flu vaccine later.

In mid-April, stock starts arriving at GP clinics and pharmacies for the government’s immunisation program, which offers free flu vaccines for those most at risk of complications from influenza. This includes:

  • all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged six months and over
  • pregnant women (during any stage of pregnancy)
  • all people aged 65 years and over
  • people aged six months and over with medical conditions which increase the risk of complications following influenza infections.

Read more: Should I get the flu shot if I’m pregnant?


In addition, most states in Australia offer free vaccination to all other children from six months of age to five years of age.

For those not eligible for the free vaccine, influenza vaccines are available through pharmacies and GPs for between A$10 and A$25 (plus the cost of a consultation if your GP doesn’t bulk bill), or via workplace programs.

The 2018 flu season was mild but there have been more cases of influenza over summer than usual. kurhan/Shuttestock

Is it good to get in early?

Getting a vaccine immediately after it becomes available will ensure you don’t miss out if there’s a vaccine shortage. And it will protect against the “summer flus” we’ve been seeing over the last few months, which are circulating earlier than normal.

But there is a potential downside. Protection against influenza peaks one to two months after you have your vaccine, and then declines. This rate of decline varies from person to person, by age, and by influenza strain.

The flu season usually reaches its peak in August or sometimes even September. So if you’re vaccinated in early April, four to five months will have passed by the time you reach the peak virus months, and you will have lower levels of protection.


Read more: Flu vaccine won’t definitely stop you from getting the flu, but it’s more important than you think


There are few good quality studies across all ages to measure this rate of decline accurately, although a study from 2015 showed that the measurable antibody responses to the influenza vaccine components reduced slowly.

Another study from 2014 showed the vaccine was less effective in people vaccinated three or more months earlier, adding to the evidence that protection wanes over time.

When is too late for the flu shot?

If you delay your decision to be vaccinated until July or August, when the flu season is well underway, your chance of becoming infected will significantly increase.

Mid to late May or early in June is the sweet spot between trying to maximise your protective levels of antibodies generated by vaccination and getting vaccinated before there are significant levels of influenza virus circulating.

It’s better to be vaccinated early than not at all. DonyaHHI/Shutterstock

Remember, it takes seven to ten days from the time of your flu shot for the vaccine to begin to be fully effective.

Getting vaccinated in late May or early June should provide good levels of protection during the peak of the influenza season and may even last through to November, by which time the influenza season has usually finished.

Vaccinate kids a month earlier

Vaccination timing is a little different for children. Those aged six months to nine years who haven’t been vaccinated against influenza before need two doses of vaccine, four weeks apart. So they will need to start their vaccination program a month earlier than adults and the elderly.


Read more: Thinking about getting your child the flu vaccine? Here’s what you need to know


So if you want to get vaccinated in 2019, there’s no need to rush, and in fact May or even early June might be a better time to be vaccinated. But it’s better to be vaccinated early than not at all.

Your GP or pharmacist will advise you on the most appropriate vaccine and the best timing for you.

ref. When’s the best time to get your flu shot? – http://theconversation.com/whens-the-best-time-to-get-your-flu-shot-114978

Homeschooling is on the rise in Australia. Who is doing it and why?

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca English, Lecturer in Education, Queensland University of Technology

This is the first article in our four-part series on homeschooling in Australia. The series will answer common questions including whether homeschooled children have enough opportunities for socialisation, and how their outcomes compare with children who attend formal schooling.


Home education is a legally recognised alternative to enrolling a child in school in all Australian states and territories. Children need to be enrolled in either a school or home education from around the age of 6 until completion age (around 17 years-old). If the parent chooses home education, they must apply to the state or territory authority for permission.

In most states and territories, the parent or a hired registered teacher is responsible for the education of the child, usually at the child’s home. Any parent, regardless of their educational background, is legally able to apply for, and homeschool their child.

Parents must submit a plan for their home education, which, in most cases, should show an alignment between their child’s learning and the national curriculum. Parents can buy a program, but in most cases, they develop their own, in line with their philosophies of education.


Read more: Record numbers of children are now homeschooled, but who’s keeping an eye on the parents?


How many Australian children are being homeschooled?

Across Australia, there are around 20,000 homeschooled students and the numbers are growing. Around 1,100 students were being homeschooled in Queensland in 2013. By 2018, this had increased to 3,232 students.

This means there are around the same number of homeschooled students in Queensland as the population of Brisbane State High School.

The numbers are rising in other states too. In New South Wales an estimated 4,700 students were enrolled in homeschool in 2017 compared to around 3,300 in 2013. Around 5,300 children were being homeschooled in Victoria in 2018, compared to 3,545 children in 2013.

These numbers may not tell the whole story as they only represent families who have registered to homeschool their child. Research suggests there may be thousands who haven’t registered, and so are homeschooling their children “illegally”.

Why do families choose to homeschool?

There are many reasons parents choose to educate their children at home. For some families it will be because of religious beliefs. Geography or financial reasons might stop these families from accessing a suitable private school.

Some families choose to homeschool for cultural reasons. from shutterstock.com

Other families might be ideologically opposed to mainstream schooling and see it as an unnecessary or inappropriate intrusion into family life.

Some of the biggest growth in home education is in the “accidental” home education group. These are families for whom school was a first choice, but it did not work. There are many reasons school may not have worked, but often it’s down to special educational need. These families would traditionally have moved their children around between schools but are now homeschooling instead.

Studies suggest families who take their children out of school, when they have a special need, and homeschool are more satisfied with their child’s education than when they were in traditional school.


Read more: School is not always a safe place for students with disability – this has to change


The rise in homeschooling also appears to have links to worldwide changes in education. Many parents see schools as failing their children including for cultural reasons, and believe homeschooling is a suitable alternative. Some families feel schools are not meeting their primary objectives of education and (healthy) socialisation for their children.

What about assessments?

After a period of time (in Queensland, for instance, it’s ten months) parents report to their state or territory’s education department on their homeschooled child’s progress. The reporting requirements differ across states and territories.

For some states, such as NSW and WA, the report is delivered to a person who visits the family. For others, such as Queensland, the parent writes the report and sends it to the department.

Unlike traditional schools, parents don’t usually “assess” their child’s learning through exams or assignments. The reports must show progress in key areas. Some homeschooled students might choose to participate in NAPLAN testing while others won’t do any testing at all.

Homeschooled students can choose to go for an ATAR and do a school-based apprenticeship or traineeship, even though they don’t do assessment.

Is it the same as distance education?

Some parents may like the idea of home education but feel they want a more school-like experience. They may choose to enrol their children in distance education.

Distance education is different to homeschooling. Dan Peled/AAP

While it’s also conducted at home, distance education is not home education and the enrolment counts as a “school”. Because it’s technically a school, distance education students are not counted among home education numbers.

The differences are many. Home education is conducted by the parent, but distance education is a school program delivered by teachers at home frequently using the internet. It is also usually delivered to a group of children, rather than a family.

There are private and public distance education schools. Some states, such as New South Wales, limit the enrolment to students who are geographically isolated or may be experiencing a special need that stops them from going to school. In others, such as Queensland, any child can enrol in a distance education school.

What about outcomes?

The volume and quality of the research on outcomes for children in home schooling is limited. In Australia, studies have focused on NAPLAN results. These suggest home-educated students score higher than state averages across every measure. The effect continues even if the child returns to school.

These children may be doing well because they receive one-on-one attention. Or it could be because the child’s learning is personalised and the child has agency over their learning.


Read more: Evidence of home schooling success erased from inquiry report


Studies from the US, where there is far more data, suggest home-educated students enjoy benefits in reading, language, maths, science and social studies. And many families there cite dissatisfaction with schools’ achievements as a reason to home educate. There is no difference between home education in the USA and Australia.

The rise in numbers poses issues for education departments and government authorities charged with managing the practise. They may not be set up to deal with large, and increasing, numbers of registrations. For most departments of education, the numbers of families choosing home education has traditionally been low.

In addition, authorities may be unable to police those families who choose not to register.

The increasing choice of home education is an issue that should be on the radar of every state and territory education authority.

ref. Homeschooling is on the rise in Australia. Who is doing it and why? – http://theconversation.com/homeschooling-is-on-the-rise-in-australia-who-is-doing-it-and-why-110268

Of bunyips and other beasts: living memories of long-extinct creatures in art and stories

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick D. Nunn, Professor of Geography, School of Social Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast

On many continents during the last ice age, typically from about 50,000 to 12,000 years ago, species of megafauna that had lived there for hundreds of thousands of years became extinct. Comparatively abruptly, it appears, in most instances.

Either climate change and/or humans caused these megafaunal extinctions. This means, of course, that people likely knew about megafauna: how they looked, how they behaved, how they might be most effectively hunted and so on. Is there a possibility that any fragments of this knowledge have reached us today? Incredibly, the suggestion seems plausible.

An 1847 drawing of a so-called Bunyip skull, reproduced from The Tasmanian Journal of Natural Science. Wikimedia Commons

A recent collaboration between scientists in Australia and Brazil shows there are many similarities in the oral (and visual) records of now-extinct creatures.

We suggest these similarities derive from those in the nature of Australian and South American megafauna and their geological context, especially in drier parts of these continents where certain megafauna were more common owing to the lack of dense vegetation.

Pencil drawing of Genyornis newtoni, a thunderbird from the Pleistocene of Australia. Nobu Tamura/Wikimedia Commons

In most of Australia, megafauna species are considered to have become extinct by about 40,000 years ago although several exceptions are known.

For example, if the horse-sized marsupial tapir (Palorchestes azael) is indeed represented in Kimberley rock art, then it probably survived here until much more recently. A similar conclusion can be drawn about Genyornis, giant flightless birds, their heads “as high as the hills”.

The methods by which these birds were hunted by the Tjapwurung people of southern Australia have come down to us today, suggesting that Genyornis (or something like it) may have survived significantly more recently than the 41,000 years implied by most of its fossil ages.

Indigenous Australians are also known to have co-existed with the lumbering, bull-sized, wombat-like marsupial Zygomaturus trilobus for at least 17,000 years – ample time for details of their nature to have been incorporated into the extraordinarily long cultural memories of Aboriginal people.

Brazilian megafauna were dominated by placental mammals, many species of which became extinct 11,700 years ago.

Among these were the pampatheres, closely related to armadillos; several native horse species, fossil bones of which have cut marks showing humans ate them; a mastodon, Notiomastodon platensis; Xenorhinotherium, which resembled llamas with trunks; and the fearsome carnivore, Smilodon populator, the largest-known, sabre-toothed cat.

Eremotherium laurillard reconstruction from the book Conselhos Geopoéticos, written by Luiza C.M.O. Ponciano and João Marcus Caetano. Illustrated by Pâmella Oliveira (UNIRIO). Author provided

The similarity between palaeontology-informed reconstructions of extinct megafauna and their representations in ancient rock art leave little doubt that Aboriginal Australians and Brazilians were familiar with these creatures. But what of the stories?

From what we know about storytelling in pre-literate societies, it seems likely that the original descriptions of extinct Australian and Brazilian megafauna in Indigenous memories may have evolved through time, being successively applied to species that people feared or with which they were unfamiliar.

In Australia, it is possible that the fabulous creature Aboriginal Australians knew as kadimakara was originally Diprotodon, the largest Australian megafaunal species. Yet in places, it seems likely that kadimakara later became the name for (large) crocodiles.

Maybe the bunyip, that quintessentially Australian beast, said to groan and bellow incessantly from waterholes, was a name recently given to the large water-rat or rakali – something that could be mistaken for an otter. But the name “bunyip” had perhaps earlier been applied to a succession of apparently strange creatures.

For example, an 1846 account that reports local Indigenous groups recalling that bunyips were as tall as gum trees and tore trees out by their roots puts one in mind of Palorchestes azael, the marsupial tapir, which behaved in this way.

An 1890 drawing of a bunyip from the Illustrated Australian news. Wikimedia Commons

Similar mythical creatures are associated with Brazilian cacimbas (waterholes). One of the best-known is the mapinguari, a massive biped (walks on two legs) with long sharp claws, likely to be based on memories of a giant sloth that became extinct about 12,000 years ago.

In other parts of Brazil, there are stories about the Cobra Grande, a giant snake that slides beneath the ground surface, furrowing it as it winds its way, but then also shattering it when it turns abruptly, causing earthquakes.

So ingrained in Brazilian culture is this giant snake that an annual festival in Pará State occurs with the intention of calming the snake and protecting local people from calamity. The parallels with the behaviour of the rainbow serpent in Australian traditions are remarkable.

We shall never be able to prove conclusively that Indigenous stories about fabulous creatures like the bunyip and the mapinguari derive from observations of now-extinct megafauna, but it is reasonable to suppose this may be the case in some instances.

There is good evidence from several parts of the world that stories about observations made more than 7,000 years ago – perhaps more than 10,000 years ago – have come down to us today in intelligible form. With this in mind, it’s plausible to suppose human memories of long-extinct creatures today underpin many stories that we have generally regarded as fiction.

ref. Of bunyips and other beasts: living memories of long-extinct creatures in art and stories – http://theconversation.com/of-bunyips-and-other-beasts-living-memories-of-long-extinct-creatures-in-art-and-stories-113031

View from The Hill: Section 44 remains a constitutional trip wire that should be addressed

]]>

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

The fact the Victorian Liberals are having to change candidates in three seats draws attention to an issue that should be properly fixed but won’t be any time soon – the problem of section 44 of the constitution.

The candidates who’ve fallen over were to run in seats where the Liberals don’t have a chance – Wills, Lalor and Cooper (formerly Batman) – so it’s of no particular political importance that they have to be replaced. Another three flag carriers can be rustled up before nominations close.

But we are reminded of how lethal section 44 has been and how, even now, a major party can have trouble ensuring all the relevant checks have been done.

Some 17 members of the last parliament fell victim to the section – 15 in relation to citizenship, in what was a highly disruptive running crisis. This amounted to 13% of the Senate and 4.6% of the House of Representatives. There were seven byelections.

Section 44 disqualifies anyone from being a candidates if he or she

“(i) is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or

(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or

(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or

(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or

(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons.”

Of the three Liberal candidates in the news two had citizenship issues and one is an Australia Post employee.

Obviously lessons have been learned and actions taken to avoid the appalling ructions of the last parliament.

The parties are working much harder at checking – although you have to wonder how efficient minor parties like One Nation will be.

Also, as part of the nomination form submitted to the Australian Electoral Commission, candidates must now fill in detailed questions on Section 44 matters. If they have been a citizen of another country they must provide documentation that they have renounced.

A candidate’s details will be published (with provision for redacting some personal details).

But the AEC is not responsible for “vetting” the candidates. Nor should it be. That is not its role. Anyway, it couldn’t be, given the short time frame involved.

A parliamentary inquiry into the impact of section 44 on Australian democracy, headed by Liberal senator Linda Reynolds (now a cabinet minister) concluded in its report last year that: “Large sections of the Australian community are disqualified from nominating for election [….]

“Some of those automatically disqualified from nominating under s. 44 may be able to address the reasons for disqualification by quitting their public sector job or successfully renouncing a foreign citizenship before nomination, but many will never be able to.

“With the changing demographic of our nation, s. 44 will increasingly disenfranchise more and more citizens from nominating”.

The inquiry also pointed a somewhat esoteric risk. It said there is “a significant, but previously unexamined, aspect to s. 44 and its interpretation by the High Court. This may lead to an avenue to manipulate an election.

“Any otherwise eligible Senators and Members who are elected on preference flows could have their position challenged, if they relied upon the preferences of an ineligible candidate. This has the serious potential to affect the overall result after the election has concluded, at any point during the term of Parliament.”

The inquiry recommended a referendum to repeal the section, or insert the words “until the parliament otherwise provides”.

If it passed, the committee said, the government should engage with the community “to determine contemporary expectations of standards in order to address all matters of qualification and disqualification for parliament through legislation”.

The committee recommended mitigation in the meantime, while the ground was prepared for a referendum, including full disclosure at nomination.

It’s easy enough to understand why the political parties are reluctant to contemplate going down the referendum path.

Few referendums succeed, not least because they require not just an overall majority, but a win in a majority of states.

Further, a section 44 referendum would likely involve a divisive debate around whether there should be a change from the Australian-only citizenship qualification for standing for parliament.

And there are other referendum priorities – for example to include in the constitution some form of Indigenous recognition.

On the other hand, mitigation can never adequately deal with section 44 hazards. On citizenship, the section means Australians can be hostage to changes in overseas law. Also, people do not always have access to information to put their status beyond doubt, or it may be a difficult and costly process to do so. This may discourage some potential candidates exercising their democratic right.

If there are not any early parliamentary casualties in the coming term, the parties won’t feel any pressure to secure a permanent solution on section 44. Nevertheless it remains a piece of constitutional housekeeping that needs addressing.

ref. View from The Hill: Section 44 remains a constitutional trip wire that should be addressed – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-section-44-remains-a-constitutional-trip-wire-that-should-be-addressed-115435

View from The Hill: Frydenberg up to Bowen’s old tricks

]]>

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

Chris Bowen has unpleasantly vivid memories, from when he was treasurer during the 2013 election campaign, of attributing costings of opposition policy to the public service.

Bowen, at a joint news conference with Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong, claimed a $10 billion hole in Coalition savings, citing advice from Treasury, Finance and the Parliamentary Budget Office. Within hours they’d been rebuked by the heads of all three, who said they hadn’t costed the opposition’s policies.

All these years later, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has failed to learn from Bowen’s mistake. He has misused and verballed his department, and been caught out.

On Friday Bowen complained to the head of Treasury Phil Gaetjens and the secretary of the Prime Minister’s department Martin Parkinson about the government’s use of Treasury costings to claim Labor would impose a $387 billion tax burden over ten years.

The claim is based on adding the $230 billion cost of the second and third stages of the government’s income tax package – which have been rejected by the opposition – to the ALP’s announced tax hikes from its planned changes to negative gearing, franking credits arrangements, etc.

“Treasury costings indicate that Labor’s tax hit on the economy has almost doubled from their initial costings of around $200 billion to $387 billion,” Treasurer Josh Frydenberg trumpeted in the government’s first massive “scare” strike of the campaign.

“This is equivalent to an extra yearly household tax bill of $5,400 within a decade.”

The income tax cuts were announced in last week’s budget but they are not yet legislated.

The program’s first stage has bipartisan support (though Labor would augment it for low income earners) and so can be considered settled policy.

The second and third stages are way into the future. Their cost is mostly outside the forward estimates.

Both stages are to start after the election following this one – that is due in the first half of 2022. Stage 2 is set be begin in 2022-23 and stage 3 in 2024-25.

Former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello last week was scathing about the practice of making tax promises stretching into the never never.

“We’ve stopped promising things for the year ahead, we’ve stopped promising things for the next term, we’ve stopped promising things for the term after the term, even. We’re promising things in the term after the term after the term,” Costello said.

“The tax scales in 2024 won’t be decided in this election. They’ll be decided in the election after it and the election after that.”

These stages may or may not come to pass if Scott Morrison is re-elected. There’s no guarantee they’d be accepted by the Senate – and no knowing what the government’s attitude would be if they weren’t.

Remember what occurred with the long-term tax cuts for big business included in the wider company tax cut package the Turnbull government unveiled in the 2016 pre-election budget.

It couldn’t win Senate approval for them, although deals were done to pass the cuts for small and medium sized companies. Finally, last year the government dropped its commitment to give relief to large companies.

The Coalition in this instance is guilty of a try on, to inflate the size of the target in its tax scare against the ALP.

This comes ahead of what will be many scares from both sides. The media and the voting public should regard them sceptically – just as people should have been sceptical of Labor’s Mediscare last time.

Treasury as recently as last week told Senate estimates that it doesn’t cost opposition policies. But this can be got around by the government having the department cost an “alternative” policy, a distinction without a difference.

When questioned on Friday, Frydenberg invoked the precedent of former treasurer Wayne Swan doing such things. It is not often the Liberals lean on “Swannie” as a crutch.

Looked at any which way this is a very unfortunate use of Treasury.

Of course the very basic calculation could have been done in Frydenberg’s office. But being able to say it was a “Treasury” number gives the scare a more authoritative stamp.

The idea is to suggest it is a non-political calculation – when the whole thing is very political.

Reportedly Treasury was also asked to do some costings on Labor’s climate change policy – another scare which is still in the pipeline.

It would be interesting to know if there was any private push back from Treasury about the government’s requests.

The incident just reinforces Labor’s view about the government’s politicisation of Treasury.

In Labor’s opinion this reached a peak with the appointment of Phil Gaetjens- Morrison’s chief-of-staff when he was treasurer – as secretary of the department.

Labor has already flagged that it would remove Gaetjens if it wins the election, if he didn’t resign first.

In response to the Bowen complaint, Gaetjens wrote back on Friday, saying Treasury had responded to requests before the “caretaker” period from the Treasurer’s office “outlining a number of policies to be costed with details and specifications also provided” – these “made no reference to the Opposition”.

“We were not asked to cost another party’s policies and would not do so,” he wrote.


Extract from Treasury Secretary’s letter to Chris Bowen. Commonwealth Treasury


Treasury did the costings but did not take account of the interactions between the individual policies, so didn’t provide a total, Gaetjens said.

But Frydenberg did give a total – and attributed that total to Treasury.

Bowen seized on this to lambast the government, and promise a Labor one would restore Treasury “to its rightful place as the nation’s pre-eminent economic agency”.

Incidentally the tax costings row has a nice twist. One of those who put Bowen in his place in 2013 was Martin Parkinson, then secretary of Treasury, a recipients of a Bowen letter on Friday.

ref. View from The Hill: Frydenberg up to Bowen’s old tricks – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-frydenberg-up-to-bowens-old-tricks-115382

Explainer: what charges does Julian Assange face, and what’s likely to happen next?

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Cullen, Adjunct professor, University of Western Australia

Julian Assange, the Australian cofounder of Wikileaks, was arrested on April 11 by British police at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he had been claiming political asylum for almost seven years.

He has faced a range of criminal charges and extradition orders, and several crucial aspects of his situation remain to be resolved.

What are the British charges against Assange, and what sentence could be imposed?

Assange moved into the Ecuadorian embassy in London in June 2012 after losing the final appeal against his transfer to Sweden on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). He was then charged with failing to surrender to the court.

While in the embassy, Assange could not be arrested because of the international legal protection of diplomatic premises, which meant police could not enter without Ecuador’s consent. On April 11, British police were invited into the embassy and made the arrest. On the same day, Assange was found guilty, and awaits sentencing. The charge of failing to surrender to the court carries a jail term of up to 12 months.

What are the US charges against Assange?

Also on April 11, the United States government unsealed an indictment made in March 2018, charging Assange with a conspiracy to help whistleblower Chelsea Manning crack a password which enabled her to pass on classified documents that were then published by WikiLeaks. The US has requested that the UK extradite Assange to face these charges before a US court.

What were the Swedish charges, and could they be revived?

In 2010, a Swedish prosecutor issued the EAW requesting Assange’s transfer to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations, which he denies. In 2016, Assange was questioned by Swedish authorities by video link while he remained in the Ecuadorian embassy. In 2017, they closed their investigation.

After Assange was arrested and removed from the embassy, the lawyer for one of the complainants indicated she would ask the prosecutor to reopen the case, as the statute of limitations on the alleged offence does not expire until 2020. As of April 12, Sweden’s Prosecution Authority is formally reviewing the case and could renew its request for extradition.

What are Britain’s legal obligations to extradite to Sweden or the US?

The UK, as a member of the European Union (for now!), is obliged to execute an EAW. The law on EAWs is similar to extradition treaties. However, the law also says it is up to the UK to decide whether to act first on the EAW from Sweden or the US extradition request.

Bilateral extradition treaties are usually based on identical reciprocal obligations. But the current UK-US extradition treaty, agreed in 2003, has been criticised for allowing the UK to extradite a person to the US solely on the basis of an allegation and an arrest warrant, without any evidence being produced, despite the fact that “probable cause” is required for extradition the other way.

The relative ease of extradition from the UK to the US has long been one of the concerns of Assange’s legal team. The treaty does not include a list of extraditable offences but allows for extradition for any non-political offence for which both states have criminalised the behaviour, which carries a sentence of at least one year in prison.

Espionage and treason are considered core “political offences”, which is why the US request is limited to the charge of computer fraud. Conspiracy to commit an extraditable offence is covered in the US-UK treaty, as it is in the EAW (and in the US-Australia extradition treaty).

Assange may legally challenge his extradition either to the US or to Sweden (as he previously did). Such challenges could take months or even years, particularly if Assange applies to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that an extradition request involved a human rights violation.

Given Assange’s previous conduct, and the likelihood that he will be sentenced to prison for failure to surrender to court, he will probably remain in a UK prison until all legal avenues are exhausted.

What are Australia’s obligations to Assange?

As an Australian citizen, Assange is entitled to consular protection by the Australian government, which means staff from the Australian High Commission in London will provide support for him in the legal process. The extent of that support is not set in stone, however, and both Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Prime Minister Scott Morrison have declined to provide detail on the basis that the matter is before the courts.

One possibility is that Assange will serve his sentence for failing to surrender to the court, after which the UK will deport him to Australia. At that point, it is possible the US could request extradition from Australia, and the US-Australian extradition treaty would apply. The US charges would most likely be covered although not specifically mentioned in the treaty.

As with the UK-US treaty, political offences are excluded, and an extradited person can only be tried for the offence in the extradition request or a related offence, and in any event not for an offence not covered by the treaty. In addition, the treaty specifies that neither Australia nor the US is obliged to extradite its own nationals, but may do so. The fact that Australia has the option to refuse extradition purely on the ground of Assange’s nationality could lead to intense pressure on the government to do just that.

ref. Explainer: what charges does Julian Assange face, and what’s likely to happen next? – http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-charges-does-julian-assange-face-and-whats-likely-to-happen-next-115362

Four common debt traps: payday loans, consumer leases, blackmail securities and credit ‘management’

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Saurav Dutta, Head of School at the School of Accounting, Curtin University

From Shakespeare’s Shylock to Dickens’ Ebenezer Scrooge to HBO’s Tony Soprano, characters who lend out money at exorbitant interest rates are unsavoury.

So what should we think of businesses that deliberately target the poorest and most vulnerable for corporate profits?

There has been significant growth in the unregulated small-loan market, aimed at people likely to be in financial stress. Concern about the problem led to an Australian Senate select committee inquiry into financial products targeted at people at risk of financial hardship.


Read more: What 1,100 Australians told us about the experience of living with debt they can’t repay


It found plenty to report on, with businesses structuring their lending practices to exploit loopholes in consumer credit laws and to avoid regulation. Charging fees instead of interest is one example.

Below is a snapshot of four common lending practices identified in the inquiry’s final report. The practices may be legal but they all carry the high potential to make your financial situation worse, and ensnare you in a debt trap from which it is hard to escape.

1. The payday loan

Payday loans are advertised as short-term loans to tide you over until your next payday. They can be up to A$2,000. The payback time is between 16 days and 12 months.

Lenders are not allowed to charge interest but can charge fees, including an establishment fee of up to 20% and a monthly fee of up to 4% of the amount loaned.

If you don’t pay back the money in time, the costs escalate with default fees.

Most payday loans are “small amount credit contracts” (SACC), with three companies – Cash Converters, Money3 and Nimble – dominating the market.


Read more: Four reasons payday lending will still flourish despite Nimble’s $1.5m penalty


In 2016, Cash Converters had to refund $10.8 million to customers for failing to make reasonable inquiries into their income and expenses. In 2018, it settled a class action for $16.4 million for having charged customers an effective annual interest rate of more than 400% on one-month loans.

But it is not necessarily the worst offender. The Senate inquiry’s report singles out one company, Cigno Loans (previously Teleloans), for allegedly appearing “to have structured its operations specifically to avoid regulation”, so it can charge fees that exceed the legal caps.

If you are on a low income and need money for essential goods or services, a better option is the federal No Interest Loans Scheme (NILS), which provides loans of up to $1,500 for 12 to 18 months with no interest charges or fees.

2. The consumer lease

A consumer lease is a contract that lets you rent an item for a period of time, usually between one and four years. You make regular rental payments until the term of the lease finishes.

This can be appealing because the regular payments are very low. But the length of the lease and terms of the contract end up making renting an item a very expensive option.

The Senate inquiry report notes that while consumer leases are subject to responsible lending obligations, unlike small amount credit contracts there is no cap on the maximum cost of a lease, and you will invariably pay more than the cost of buying and owning an item outright.

The report refers to a 2015 study by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The study involved Centrelink recipients leasing goods. Half paid more than five times the retail price of the goods. In one case leasing a clothes dryer for two years effectively cost 884% in interest.


Read more: Loan shark regulators need a lesson in behavioural economics


Consumer lease companies disproportionately profit from those on low incomes. The Senate inquiry heard about the the number of leases being paid through Centrepay, the direct debit service for Centrelink recipients.

Thorn Group, owner of Radio Rentals, told the inquiry 52% of its consumer-leasing customers paid via Centrepay. About A$600 million was paid through Centrepay for consumer leases in 2108.

ASIC’s rent vs buy calculator can help you work out the cost of consumer lease and whether a better option is available.

3. The blackmail security

Lenders sometimes earmark a borrower’s asset as a guarantee for the loan. If the debtor defaults, the lender takes the asset in compensation. Normally, the asset should be of higher value than the loan amount, to cover the debt if the the debtor ever defaults.

However, a lender might choose an asset with a lower value, because it is critical to the borrower’s livelihood. A car or work tools are two examples. The intention is to ensure the borrower prioritises repaying the loan over other expenses. Should you be unable to pay back the loan for some reason, losing an asset critical to earning an income will push you into greater financial hardship.

Because the practice is regarded as coercive, so-called blackmail securities are prohibited on loans lower than $2,000. The Senate inquiry report notes concern that some lenders appear to circumvent this restriction by lending more than $2,000.

So don’t assume generosity or oversight is the reason a lender offers you a bigger loan or to take as security an asset worth less. Think very carefully about the consequences if you can’t repay the loan.

4. The credit ‘manager’

If you’ve gotten into debt and ended up with a bad credit rating, credit repair services offer help with fixing your credit history or managing your debts.

These services may be legitimate businesses or non-profit community services. But there has been an alarming growth in unregulated debt negotiation and debt management services, charging exorbitant and hidden fees for minimal services. The fees and contract structures may be deliberately complex to obscure the costs.


Read more: Debt agreements and how to avoid unnecessary debt traps


According to the Senate inquiry report: “On the evidence provided to the committee in submissions and public hearings, these services rarely improve a consumer’s financial position. The charges for the debt management services increase their debt, and often consumers are referred to inappropriate remedies which may be expensive and cause lasting damage. The committee heard many case studies to this effect.”

ASIC recommends seeking help from free services first. You can find one through its MoneySmart website here.

Social obligation

Most people would agree we want a society that protects the most vulnerable. That includes having laws and regulations to protect the financially vulnerable.


Read more: There are serious problems with the concept of ‘financial literacy’


The growth of financial services that target those most at risk of financial hardship suggests government and industry should take seriously the Senate inquiry’s recommendations.

ref. Four common debt traps: payday loans, consumer leases, blackmail securities and credit ‘management’ – http://theconversation.com/four-common-debt-traps-payday-loans-consumer-leases-blackmail-securities-and-credit-management-113564

Bees seeking blood, sweat and tears is more common than you think

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Manu Saunders, Research fellow, University of New England

The recent story of four live bees pulled from inside a woman’s eye quickly grabbed people’s attention. News reports claimed the bees were “sweat bees”, the common name for species in the bee family Halictidae.

There are some contradictory and unlikely statements in the many news reports covering this story, so it’s hard to know what actually happened. The images accompanying many reports, which some reporters captioned as the live sweat bees in the Taiwanese woman’s eye, are actually uncredited images from a completely unrelated story – this report by Hans Bänzinger of a stingless bee species (Lisotrigona cacciae) collecting tears from his eye in Thailand.

The Guardian/ Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) That Drink Human Tears, in Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society.

All in all, we would consider it extremely unlikely for multiple adult insects to survive inside a human eye for very long. Most halictid bees are too large to get trapped in your eye unnoticed. Female sweat bees also have stingers so you would definitely know straight away!

But whether this story is accurate or not, there are bees who would happily feast on human tears – and blood, sweat and even dead animals. Flower-loving insects like bees and butterflies often seek out other food sources that are at odds with their pretty public image.


Read more: Can bees do maths? Yes – new research shows they can add and subtract


Un-bee-lievable

So why would bees hang around someone’s eye in the first place? It’s a bit of a myth that all bees only collect pollen and nectar for food. There are bee species all over the world that also feed on the bodily fluids of living and dead animals, including animal honeydew, blood, dead meat, dung, sweat, faeces, urine and tears. This is a source of important nutrients they can’t get from flowers, like sodium, or protein and sugar when floral resources are scarce.


Read more: Wasps, aphids and ants: the other honey makers


The term “sweat bee” is used colloquially for bees that ingest human sweat as a nutritional resource.

Many people think the term only refers to bees in the Halictidae family. But not all halictid bee species are known to collect sweat, while many species in the Apidae family, particularly stingless bees, are common sweat-collectors in tropical areas around the world. Swarms of sweat-seeking stingless bees can be a nuisance to sweaty humans in tropical places.

And it’s not just sweat; stingless bees have quite diverse tastes and collect many non-floral resources. There are also a few neotropical Trigona species do we have to say trigona here? that collect animal tissue as their main protein source, instead of pollen. These species collect floral nectar and make honey, like other stingless bees, but predominantly scavenge on carrion (they are technically know as obligate necrophages).

Vulture bees feed on rotting meat rather than pollen or nectar. Wikipedia/José Reynaldo da Fonseca, CC BY-SA

Regardless of taxonomy, bees that are attracted to sweat often use other bodily fluids too, like tears. Tear-feeding is such a common behaviour among insects, it has an official name: lachryphagy. Some stingless bees from south Asia, such as the Lisotrigona species mentioned above, are well-known lachryphagous insects, often seen congregating in groups around animal eyes (including humans) to harvest fluids. They don’t harm the animal in the process, although their activity might be a nuisance to some.

In South America, Centris bees are large, solitary apid bees, in the same family as stingless bees and honey bees. These bees are often observed drinking tears from animal eyes; published observations include interactions with caimans and turtles.

Bees aren’t the only insects that regularly drink from animal eyes. Our world-famous hand gesture, the Aussie salute, is designed to deter the common bush flies (Musca species) that hang around our faces on hot days, looking for a quick drink of sweat, saliva or tears. These flies are also commonly seen clustered around livestock eyes on farms.

The feeding habits of butterflies would shock many people who think they are dainty, angelic flower-frequenting creatures. Butterflies are common feeders on dung, carrion, mud and various other secretions, including animal tears. Moths are also well-known nocturnal feeders on animal tears, even while they are sleeping.

Julia butterflies drinking the tears of Arrau turtles in Ecuador. Wikimedia/amalavida.tv, CC BY-SA

Although most of us wouldn’t like the idea of an insect drinking out of our eyelid, this isn’t the stuff of nightmares. It’s just another fascinating, but little-known, story of how animals interact with each other. From a bee’s perspective, an animal’s eye is just another food source.


Read more: Catch the buzz: how a tropical holiday led us to find the world’s biggest bee


It produces secretions that provide important nutrients, just like a flower produces nectar and pollen. Although entomologists know this behaviour occurs, we still don’t fully understand how common it is, or how reliant pollinating insects are on different animals in their local environment.

But, while tear-collecting behaviour is normal for many insects, the odds of live bees crawling inside your eye to live are extremely low.

ref. Bees seeking blood, sweat and tears is more common than you think – http://theconversation.com/bees-seeking-blood-sweat-and-tears-is-more-common-than-you-think-115300

The sexy gum: a love story

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Whitehead, Research Fellow in Evolutionary Ecology, University of Melbourne

It is perhaps poetic that a region most famous for its lack of trees lies so close to one of Australia’s greatest tree-based spectacles. The Nullarbor Plain, our famous, flat, featureless expanse is literally named for its absence of trees (“arbor” being Latin for tree).

And if you ever get to drive west along the longest stretch of dead-straight road across this iconic landscape, you will come to know the highlights that characterise the experience: the cliff-top views of the Great Australian Bight and the idiosyncratic roadhouses.


Read more: A detailed eucalypt family tree helps us see how they came to dominate Australia


Then finally, a landscape of low shrubs gives way to mallee trees and woodland vegetation. Somewhere between Caiguna and Fraser Range you’ll see your first Eucalyptus salubris, also known as a gimlet gum, or joorderee by the Ngadju people.

It was on a recent botanical research trip chasing scraggly emu bushes that I stumbled upon, and fell in love with, Eucalytpus salubris. The trunks were what instantly caught my eye, slender with graceful twists, all the more observable for the brilliantly shining coppery bark.


The Conversation


The sexy gum

The tree first appears in European record during early explorations crossing east of the Darling Range. Then, it was called “cable gum” after the gently twisting grooves in the trunks.

Later the tree was given the common name of “gimlet” after a form of hand drill. Unfortunately this name stuck and today the species remains “gimlet” – a wholly unattractive moniker for such a splendid tree.

But our imaginations need not be held hostage by the stubborn colonialists who named our flora after such dreary things.


Read more: Stringybark is tough as boots (and gave us the word ‘Eucalyptus’)


That’s why I’m campaigning to update the common name to something more universal, more marketable, something truer to its sensual twists and smooth, glowing bronze surface.

Eucalytpus salubris is the Sexy Gum.

Love goes where my eucalypt grows

E. salubris is a dominant species forming woodlands on deep soils east of the Darling Range. And while much of its former range in the Wheatbelt of Western Australia has been cleared, extensive populations of E. salubris remain in the astonishing stronghold of the Great Western Woodlands.

Those who have walked in a mature woodland understand the pleasure of wandering unimpeded in the shade of widely spaced trees.

Widely spaced trees of the Great Western Woodlands. Keren Gila/Wikimedia, CC BY

The Great Western Woodlands offers this experience on a grand scale. At around 16 million hectares they are the largest tracts of intact temperate woodlands on Earth, occupying an area larger than England and Wales combined.

And it is not just size that is impressive about these woodlands.

The Great Western Woodlands are a renowned hotspot for eucalypt diversity, home to around 30% of Australia’s eucalypt species in just 2% of its land area.

As one of the more common species throughout the area, E. salubris plays a critical ecological role, providing habitat for several threatened bird species including the rotund and charismatic Mallee fowl.


Read more: We need to think about fire in Tasmania’s forests


Due to its remoteness and unreliable rainfall, the Great Western Woodlands has avoided the widescale grazing and clearing that has degraded neighbouring areas to the south and west.

But despite the value of this untouched landscape, most of the area is “orphan country” with no formal management policies in place. Some 60% of the Great Western Woodlands is unallocated crown land, unmanaged and open access.

This is a plus for visitors wanting to experience it now, but raises important concerns about the long-term security of the area.

While remote, threats to the Great Western Woodlands do exist. Chief among them is the increasing frequency and intensity of bush fires.

Most eucalypts are resprouters with the ability to regenerate burned canopies from buds under the bark. There are, however a number of species, such as Mountain Ash, that will die following canopy fires and can only regenerate from the soil seedbank (called “reseeders”).


Read more: Mountain ash has a regal presence: the tallest flowering plant in the world


E. salubris, the sexy gum, is one such reseeder. While the traditional occupants of the land used fire as a land management tool, they also knew E. salubris woodland took hundreds of years to regenerate and were careful to never burn the canopy of old growth forests.

The eye-pleasing spectacle of mature open Eucalytpus salubris woodland above red soil and blue-bush therefore exists today thanks to careful management from this era, and deserves careful handling to ensure its ongoing future.

The glowing bronze surface of the Eucalyptus salubris. Author provided (No reuse)

An ambassador for the Great Western Woodlands

Late in the day, when the Sun’s glancing rays light up the bark of E. salubris, punctuating a pastel blue-green woodland with glowing streaks like molten metal, it’s hard to not stop for at least a moment and be impressed.

And while E. salubris’ role as keystone species might be important ecologically, I think the Sexy Gum can be similarly important as ambassador and draw-card for the Great Western Woodlands.

Its golden tones and metallic lustre conjures just the appropriate impression for the WA Goldfields. It is totally Instagram-able, and I don’t think it’s a hard sell to convince people E. salubris is a spectacle worth getting off the beaten track for.

ref. The sexy gum: a love story – http://theconversation.com/the-sexy-gum-a-love-story-115363

On housing, there’s clear blue water between the main parties

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Associate Director – City Futures – Urban Policy and Strategy, City Futures Research Centre, Housing Policy and Practice, UNSW

Labor’s bold stance on housing tax reform and investment makes this one of the likely policy flashpoints in the coming election campaign. How does the Coalition government’s housing record stand up to scrutiny? What would be in prospect in a third Liberal-National term? And exactly what is Labor’s alternative pitch?


Read more: Housing policy reset is overdue, and not only in Australia


The Coalition record

Under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments we’ve seen a housing market featuring both rampant inflation and damaging volatility. Despite recent falls in some cities, late 2018 prices remained 29% up on 2013 across the country – 42% in Sydney.

While first home buyer numbers grew in 2018, the total remained well below 2007 (pre-GFC) levels. Unless this changes the rate of young adult home ownership is likely to drift still lower.

During this term of government, official action to moderate housing market instability has been left almost entirely to the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, through their influence on the cost and accessibility of housing finance.

The government has mostly turned a blind eye to more far-reaching reforms that could squarely address Australia’s boom-and-bust housing dynamic. The prime source of recent volatility has been the erratic behaviour of landlord investors, as the chart below shows. They are responsible for around 35% of residential transactions across the country.

ABS Cat 5601.0, Author provided

Australia’s unusually favourable tax settings on negative gearing and capital gains tax discount compound investors’ speculative instincts. Calls for reform have been growing, from sources as diverse as a Liberal state government minister and the Reserve Bank. And the annual cost to the public purse has been rising – most recently estimated at A$11.7 billion. Despite this, federal Coalition ministers have resisted any paring back of these concessions.

The Labor alternative

Labor under Bill Shorten has staked out several clear and significant housing policy differences from the Coalition. Julian Smith/AAP

The ALP enters this election campaign restating its 2016 policy to restrict current negative gearing and CGT discount entitlements to newly built properties.

While sectional interests have echoed government claims of damaging market impacts, mainstream economists view the policy as a necessary structural reform that will slightly moderate house price inflation over the longer term. However, with all existing investments exempt from proposed changes, the budgetary pay-off would be modest at first.

Labor also advocates rebalancing the tax treatment of large-scale institutional investment in rental housing. According to industry proponents, resulting “build to rent” development could help to diversify the housing market and provide a better quality tenancy offer. It would also have the benefit of introducing a counter-cyclical component to residential construction.


Read more: Build social and affordable housing to get us off the boom-and-bust roller coaster


Housing stress on the rise

The Coalition government has also presided over intensifying stress at the lower end of the housing market since 2013. Homelessness has been increasing by 2.8% a year. The proportion of low-income tenants facing unaffordable rents rose by four percentage points in the four years to 2015-16.

At least in part, these trends reflect Coalition government disinterest. While slightly moderated under the Turnbull-Morrison administrations, the die was cast with the incoming government’s 2013 decision to abolish the post of housing minister and by the Abbott inclination to re-emphasise a minimalist vision of Federal government responsibilities. The new government was quick to abandon Kevin Rudd’s 2008 commitment to halve homelessness by 2020.

Scott Morrison made positive moves on finance for community housing providers as treasurer, but as prime minister his government has been less active on housing policy. Julian Smith/AAP

To the credit of the Turnbull-Morrison governments, a project begun in 2016, when Morrison was treasurer, has created a new institution to open up access to cheaper, longer-term finance for community housing providers.

Through its first bond, issued only last month, the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC) has enabled four of these providers to secure debt finance on much-improved terms. This will boost recipient organisations’ financial “headroom”. A worthwhile – but modest and one-time-only – addition to affordable housing stock may result.


Read more: Government guarantee opens investment highway to affordable housing


Subsidies needed to restore supply

Importantly, though, the cheaper debt finance made available through the NHFIC only narrows – rather than bridges – the gap between the cost of delivering social housing and the rents that low-income Australians can afford.

A major social housing investment program will require a complementary government subsidy. The treasurer’s own advisory working group has unambiguously stated the need for such provision.

Curiously, the government has yet to give any sign it intends to finish what it started here. Without the necessary gap-filling subsidy, there must be a danger that – perhaps after exhausting the potential for refinancing community housing providers – the NHFIC could become a white elephant.

Indeed, the Coalition’s most significant action on affordable rental housing supply was its 2014 cancellation of the Rudd government’s National Rental Affordability Scheme. Mainly targeted at low-income workers, the NRAS generated 38,000 discount-to-market rental units (against an original target of 50,000).

The ALP is now promising to re-establish a large-scale supply program. As well as restricting landlord investor tax concessions to new-build properties, Labor’s 2019 pitch includes a program similar to NRAS with the aim of generating 250,000 new affordable rental homes over a decade. A shorter-term target of 20,000 dwellings during the next term of government would equal the Rudd government’s 2009-12 social housing stimulus, which helped to stave off the GFC.

Not since the Rudd government has Australia had a major national program to increase the supply of social housing. Alan Porritt/AAP

Supported through subsidy in the form of annual investor incentive payments of $8,500 for 15 years, the program would be mainly targeted at “key workers” and “lower-income families”. Tenants would pay rents of 20-25% below market levels. Beyond this, the program could help more disadvantaged Australians, but only with matching financial assistance or other subsidies from states and territories, which would enable rents to be even lower.


Read more: Labor’s housing pledge is welcome, but direct investment in social housing would improve it


The Coalition’s current offer

Other than its push-back on Labor proposals, the Coalition has – as yet – said little about its election policy on housing. Last week’s budget offered nothing to suggest that, beyond a defence of the policy status quo, housing initiatives are front of mind for the Treasurer or Prime Minister.

The government will maintain the NHFIC, one of its really positive recent moves. The complementary – and overdue – review of social housing regulation will also continue. We can probably expect more City Deals, which may even, as in the recent Hobart announcement, include some provision for affordable housing.

The budget’s infrastructure program, including fast urban rail, might have implications for housing accessibility and affordability. But, if so, these aspects don’t feature prominently in the announcements.

But beyond continuing existing policy directions, nothing much seems likely to be added to the Coalition’s 2019-22 offer on housing. It isn’t proposing any action on the imbalanced tax settings that fuel housing market volatility, let alone any policy to boost affordable housing supply directly. Neither is there any sign of support for the build-to-rent sector, which promises much but appears as yet still-born.


Read more: ‘Build to rent’ could be the missing piece of the affordable housing puzzle


It seems fear of change continues to dominate Coalition thinking on housing. The overriding priority remains to support existing property values, rather than to act on unaffordability – a Boomer protection racket par excellence! Recent ministerial statements offer little indication that a re-elected Coalition government would make a serious effort to fix Australia’s increasingly under-performing housing system.

ref. On housing, there’s clear blue water between the main parties – http://theconversation.com/on-housing-theres-clear-blue-water-between-the-main-parties-113556

WikiLeaks’ Assange arrested to enable US extradition ‘for journalism’ – act now

Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific.Stakeout at the Ecuadorean Embassy and Julian Assange’s arrest – at 11min 06sec.
He gives a “thumbs up” sign. Video: Ruptly

By Caitlin Johnstone of Medium

WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange has been arrested and taken into custody by the London’s Metropolitan police, just as WikiLeaks warned days ago was about to happen.

Assange’s lawyer Jen Robinson reports that his arrest is related to an extradition request from the United States, which the British government has until now refused to admit exists.

“Just confirmed: #Assange has been arrested not just for breach of bail conditions but also in relation to a US extradition request,” tweeted Robinson.

“From #Assange: The US warrant was issued in December 2017 and is for conspiracy with Chelsea Manning in early 2010,” Robinson added.

A WikiLeaks tweet.

So there you have it. Extradited for journalism.

In a blur, everything that Assange and WikiLeaks have been warning about for years has been proven correct, contrary to mountains of claims to the contrary by establishment loyalists everywhere.

The same government which tortured Chelsea Manning is in the process of extraditing her publisher so that they can silence him forever.

Everyone who has ever denied that this was happening needs to hang their heads in shame for scoffing at a very real threat to press freedoms everywhere when they could have been opposing this obscene agenda. It’s time for some serious soul searching.

The time to act is now. It’s too late to prevent Assange from losing his asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy, so the goal now is to fight extradition.

Activist groups are swiftly organising as I type this, so it will be easy for people around the world to find rallies to attend and online movements to help boost.

I encourage everyone in the US, the UK and Australia [New Zealand] to contact their elected representatives and politely but urgently inform them that the agenda to extradite Assange to the US must be fought at all costs.

Educate yourself as best as you can on Assange’s case, and inform everyone you know about what’s going on.

Caitlin Johnston is an independent journalist and radical poet. 

The precedent that could cripple journalism holding the US government to account.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the starting line of the 2019 election campaign

]]>

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

University of Canberra Deputy Vice-Chancellor Leigh Sullivan talks about the start of the federal election campaign with Michelle Grattan. They discuss the messages and tone of each of the leaders, the north-south divide of voters, and the impact of the government’s last minute approval of a stage of the Adani project on the political landscape.

ref. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the starting line of the 2019 election campaign – http://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-the-starting-line-of-the-2019-election-campaign-115365

High Court delivers landmark ruling validating abortion clinic ‘safe access zones’

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Henckels, Senior Lecturer, Monash University

The High Court of Australia handed down a judgment on April 10 that upheld Tasmanian and Victorian laws that created “safe access zones” around abortion clinics. The court ruled the laws are constitutionally valid.

Safe access zones prevent anti-abortionists from targeting patients, staff and others within a specific radius of abortion clinics. They protect the privacy, safety and dignity of women accessing health care. Safe access zones now operate in all Australian jurisdictions, except South Australia and Western Australia.


Read more: Explainer: what are abortion clinic safe-access zones and where do they exist in Australia?


The current case stemmed from two appeals to the Victorian and Tasmanian laws. The challenge to the Victorian law was brought by Kathleen Clubb, who approached a couple within the safe access zone and tried to hand them an anti-abortion leaflet. She was found guilty of engaging in communication about abortion reasonably likely to cause distress or anxiety within the safe access zone.

The challenge to the Tasmanian law was brought by John Preston, who was found guilty of engaging in a protest about abortion within the safe access zone by displaying anti-abortion placards, one of which depicted a foetus.

Clubb and Preston both argued that the law was invalid because it impermissibly burdened the freedom of communication on governmental and political matters that is implied in the constitution.

The High Court unanimously rejected both appeals

All judges agreed that the purpose of the laws – to protect women’s rights to health, safety, privacy and dignity when accessing abortion services – was a compelling objective that was compatible with the Constitution.

In relation to the Victorian law, the judges found that it had not been established in the Magistrates’ Court that Clubb’s actions were political in nature. Nevertheless, four of the seven justices held that any restriction on political communication in the Victorian law was constitutionally valid.

All judges agreed that Preston’s conduct was political communication, and found that the Tasmanian law was valid.

The judges unanimously affirmed the importance of the laws. Justice Nettle, for example, said that:

women seeking an abortion […] are entitled to do so safely, privately and with dignity, without haranguing or molestation.

Chief Justice Kiefel and Justices Bell and Keane delivered a joint judgment, which noted that the aim of safe access zone legislation was to protect the right of women to access abortion clinics, rather to punish those who interfere with women seeking abortions.


Read more: One in six Australian women in their 30s have had an abortion – and we’re starting to understand why


Restriction on political communication

The judges had differing opinions about how much the laws restricted political communication. Four judges (Chief Justice Kiefel and Justices Bell, Keane and Gordon) found that the burden was “slight”, “minimal” or “insubstantial”.

The law regulated only the time, place and manner of the conduct. People could engage in the same conduct at other times and places.

Although three judges (Justices Gageler, Nettle and Edelman) thought that the law’s impact on political communication was significant, these judges agreed that the importance of the law outweighed its impact on political communication.

Laws creating safe access zones are valid

Six of the seven High Court judges now use a technique called “proportionality analysis” to determine whether a law that limits political communication is valid.

Briefly, this approach requires judges to determine:

  • whether the law is rationally connected to its objective

  • whether there are any “obvious and compelling” alternative ways of drafting the law that restrict political communication to a lesser extent

  • whether the law adequately balances the competing interests at stake.

One factor that the judges considered was the size of the safe access zone, which both laws set at a 150 metre radius.

Justice Edelman, for example, decided that a smaller zone would not be as effective. Justice Edelman said it was not the court’s role to decide whether, for example, the zone should have a radius of 130 or 120 metres. Rather, this was a decision for the “parliament as advised by stakeholders, experts, and committees”.

Some of the judges observed that the Victorian law restricted political communication to a lesser extent than the Tasmanian law, in the sense that the conduct needed to be “reasonably likely to cause distress and anxiety”. But the judges decided this did not mean that the Tasmanian law was unconstitutional.

In this respect, the judgments recognise policy choices like these are for parliament to make, and not the courts.


Read more: Who chooses abortion? More women than you might think


The High Court has unanimously affirmed that safe access zones comply with the Constitution. The decision makes it clear that the freedom of political communication is not a license to infringe womens’ rights to access lawful medical services with safety, privacy and dignity.

The Court’s decision should reassure the South Australian and Western Australian governments that there is no constitutional impediment to enacting safe access zone legislation. We hope that 2019 will mark the end of the long history of harassment of women accessing abortion services.

ref. High Court delivers landmark ruling validating abortion clinic ‘safe access zones’ – http://theconversation.com/high-court-delivers-landmark-ruling-validating-abortion-clinic-safe-access-zones-115062

West Papuans call for mass boycott of Indonesian elections

]]>
Exiled West Papuan leader Benny Wenda on a visit to New Zealand’s Pacific Media Centre at Auckland University of Technology in 2013. Image: Del Abcede/PMC

By Tom Stayner of SBS News

A West Papuan independence leader and Nobel peace prize nominee is calling for a mass boycott of Indonesia’s upcoming elections to bring attention to their independence struggle.

Benny Wenda was granted political asylum in the United Kingdom 16 years ago – following an escape from custody while on trial in West Papua.

In exile, he has led the campaign for the self-determination that his countrymen say they have lacked since Indonesia gained internationally-recognised control of West Papua through a disputed referendum vote 50 years ago.

WATCH VIDEO: SBS Skype interview with Benny Wenda

Wenda told SBS News from London, that he is calling for a mass boycott of Indonesia’s upcoming elections to again bring attention to a decades long independence struggle.

“This is a critical time for our people because the election for a colonial occupied force is not legitimate,” Wenda said.

“From now on we will not take part in Indonesian elections because we are not Indonesian.”

-Partners-

“We are Melanesian. We are the Pacific islanders… People are fed up – enough is enough,”he said.

Indonesian elections
On April 17 – more than 190 million registered Indonesian voters will go to the polls for presidential and general elections.

Favoured incumbent President Joko Widodo is being challenged by former military general Prabowo Subianto.

Subianto is also the son-in-law of long-time former President Suharto – who led Indonesia for three decades.

Southeast Asia analyst Damien Kingsbury said both candidates have adopted “nationalist” sentiments in their campaign so far.

“There are both populists that are operating on a populist agenda,” he said.

“Jokowi is trying to broaden his appeal out to the middle ground of Indonesian voters. Prabowo is appealing much more to a base.”

Professor Kingsbury said despite making up some recent ground, Subianto is well behind President Widodo in most polling.

“The polls have been showing that Jokowi is running at around the 50 percent mark in terms of popularity,” he said.

“Prabowo is running at around the 30 percent mark with a significant number of undecided voters.”

This is the second time the two rivals will face off after President Widodo defeated Subianto in elections five years ago.

According to the West Papua National Committee, hundreds of thousands of West Papuans boycotted those elections in 2014.

West Papuan militants back boycott
Indonesia’s control of West Papua has long been a flash-point for ongoing low level conflict between Indonesian forces and Indigenous Papuan militants.

Indonesia recently deployed 600 soldiers to protect the building of a major highway in West Papua, in response to the killings of 19 Indonesian road workers. The road project was a signature promise that President Joko Widodo made to the region.

In following clashes with militants, Indonesia’s military said three of its soldiers were killed along with up to 10 rebels.

But despite this escalation, Professor Kingsbury said West Papua had essentially been a “non-issue” in the election campaign.

“Both candidates believe that that Melanesian West Papuans should accept they are Indonesian.” he said.

“[They believe] the separatist movement [in West Papua] is essentially a criminal organisation.”

In a statement seen by SBS News, the West Papua Liberation Army (TPNPB-OPM) declared its intention to support the push to boycott 2019 elections.

“The TPNPB-OPM never recognised the existence of the Colonial Government of the Republic of Indonesia in Papuans Customary Lands,” the statement reads.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

STEM is worth investing in, but Australia’s major parties offer scant details on policy and funding

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Walker, Visiting Fellow, Australian National University

This article is part of a series examining the Coalition government’s record on key issues while in power and what Labor is promising if it wins the 2019 federal election.


Evidence from around the world shows that public investment in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) can advance nations towards a strong economy, a healthy population and a sustainable environment.

To achieve this, however, countries need ambitious, internationally competitive levels of investment in research and development, stable leadership for the sector within government, and a long-term, whole-of-government strategy for science.

Although Labor has announced clear targets for public investment in research and development, very few of the critical details of a vision for STEM have been outlined by any party in 2019 policy statements.


Read more: Infographic: Budget 2019 at a glance


Election 2019

The current government has not told us much about their short- and long-term plans for Australia’s STEM sector. This is important to note given the National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA), launched in 2015, is due to wrap up this year.

To date the Coalition’s campaigning has focused on:

We’re yet to see concrete figures from the Coalition for public investment in research and development.

Labor has committed to increase investment in research and development to 3% of GDP by 2030, and to establish a review of research priorities (disclosure: Emma, an author on this analysis, will be a panel member for this review). Labor hasn’t yet named any specific figures or areas of focus for the review.

Neither the Coalition nor Labor has outlined how it plans to fund its STEM ambitions if it forms government following the May 18 election.

Declining investment in STEM

Australian government investment in scientific research and the people and facilities that make it possible has had a few major setbacks in the past decade. This occurred in part due to the global financial crisis, and in part due to a push to shift greater responsibility for research and development support to the private sector.

Government expenditure on research and development (GOVERD) has declined since 2006/2007. ABS (screenshot April 10 2019)

At present, investment in research from both government and the private sector is dropping, with the latest figures indicating only 1.8% of GDP – well behind similar nations in the OECD.

The most recent relevant announcement around critical funding for research infrastructure in 2018 was welcome, but otherwise overall investment remains a critical gap.

The 2019 budget and budget response were, in effect, election pitches – and both clearly signalled that science and technology are not front of mind for our major parties.

The Coalition promised generous provisions for medical research, but cut support for university research and sought to reassign the A$3.9 billion education investment fund.

Labor’s Budget reply highlighted the need for STEM skills for our future workforce, focused heavily on VET. It said little about the future of research and development.

We can and should aim higher. To set Australia up for a strong future, we believe a minimum investment in research and development of 3% of gross domestic product is required by 2030. This investment would underpin ambitious and internationally competitive research and development.

Stable leadership

Science and technology has lacked strong, stable leadership within government for many years.

Symbolically, we’ve had ten federal ministers with titular responsibility for science since 2007 – five under the Coalition and five under Labor.

We have also had prolonged stints without a named science minister in the federal cabinet, the two most recent being under Malcolm Turnbull in 2017 and Tony Abbott in 2013.


Read more: No science minister, and it’s unclear where science fits in Australia


Over the past 30 years, we have struggled to achieve unified, bipartisan support for science and technology in the halls of parliament. In key areas – such as research infrastructure, application of the research and development tax incentive, and industry growth centres – Labor and the Coalition have often worked at cross purposes.

The most positive step in recent years was the launch of the National Science Statement under Prime Minister Turnbull in 2017. This signalled intentions to take a holistic government approach to the sector and provide meaningful direction for the years ahead. This promise is yet to be realised.

This is particularly concerning, given the National Innovation and Science Agenda – the current framework for supporting scientific research and development in Australia – will expire in 2019. This framework will not take shape without a champion for science at the decision-making table, someone who can articulate the value of STEM for Australia’s prosperity.

The clever country?

A quick look at Australia’s recent history in STEM strategy is revealing for its variability.

Following years of cuts to research in the 1980s, and after public protests by scientists on the streets of Canberra, Bob Hawke included in his 1990 election campaign the words:

[…] no longer content to be just the lucky country, Australia must become the clever country.

Under the next Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, investment in research and development began to climb. Even though his government’s main focus was the arts and the economy, and there was little narrative left for STEM, actual support for science remained relatively strong.


Read more: Infographic: how much does Australia spend on science and research?


With Keating’s demise and the election of John Howard’s Coalition government, support for basic science was consolidated with the establishment of the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) in 2004. Howard’s government invested in research at the pace of inflation, and sought to strike a balance between curiosity-driven and applied research.

During the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, government investment grew in both STEM education and facilities, facilitating both curiosity-driven and applied research and development.

The introduction of the Education Investment Fund and the Super Science Initiative brought A$5.2 billion in public investment for university research programs, research institutes, and infrastructure-building projects including the Square Kilometre Array.

Labor-led public discourse was predominantly focused on primary and secondary education, covering issues such as quality of STEM education, the shortage of maths and science teachers and falling enrolments in STEM subjects.

It was during this time Labor also introduced the demand-driven system of funding university education. This system removed caps on funding for bachelor degrees, and resulted in a positive gain for STEM courses.

Abbott and Turnbull

The critical balance of supporting both curiosity-driven and applied research began to tip towards application when Tony Abbott became Prime Minister and amped up Australia’s medical research capability with the ambitious medical research future fund (MRFF) in 2014.

Focused on the translation and commercialisation of medical research, this fund increased the weighting on the applied end of the research spectrum; a shift that was reinforced by the “ideas boom” of his successor, Malcolm Turnbull.

The ideas boom lynchpin was the National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA), launched in 2015.

However, we also saw substantial job losses for climate scientists at the CSIRO and a trend of failing to support public research agencies at the same pace as inflation. Since then, public investment in curiosity-driven research has continued to decline.

In 2015 then Minister for Education Christopher Pyne threatened to cut off funding for the critical research facilities in NCRIS. This was avoided when the research sector presented a very public, very vocal united front, through the National Research and Innovation Alliance led by Science & Technology Australia and the Australian Academy of Science.


Read more: Pyne backflips on research infrastructure funding cut


Most recently, we have seen a freeze to education’s demand-driven system, significant cuts to research support funding, and attempts to seize A$3.9 billion from the now defunct education investment fund to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme – which did not succeed – and a subsequent redirection into a proposed emergency response fund (announced in the latest Federal Budget).

The current Coalition government’s focus on commercial research and development has been steady, with the introduction of engagement and impact assessment for funded research and a requirement for publicly funded research to meet a national interest test. However, concerns around the declining level of business investment and how the research and development tax incentive functions are yet to be addressed.

This inconsistency and lack of unity over many years has led to reactivity from our sector, rather than strategic long-term planning.

This may not change in the near future, regardless of who wins the 2019 federal election. But we certainly hope it does.

ref. STEM is worth investing in, but Australia’s major parties offer scant details on policy and funding – http://theconversation.com/stem-is-worth-investing-in-but-australias-major-parties-offer-scant-details-on-policy-and-funding-113739

The success of Winx shows the value of symmetry in race horses

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul McGreevy, Professor of Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare Science, University of Sydney

As Australia prepares to farewell the beloved racehorse Winx in her final race this weekend, it’s interesting to look at the factors that contributed to her incredible success.

This magnificent mare’s extraordinary career reflects her impeccable genetics, rearing, training, strategic rest periods, and race riding. Optimal heart, lung and muscle function also play a part.

But what about something we refer to as her “economy of locomotion” during high-speed galloping? This is the energy cost of travelling a particular distance.


Read more: Vets can do more to reduce the suffering of flat-faced dog breeds


This can be compromised during a race, both by behavioural factors such as “pulling” due to overexcitement, and by any bias in the horse towards one side over the other, known as structural asymmetry.

David Evans on Winx.

We don’t know whether Winx has perfect structural symmetry. But her trainer and regular riders would have a strong sense of the mare’s balance during track work and races.

A matter of left and right

Bilateral symmetry in animals refers to the balance of structures, such that they are mirror images along the body’s midline.

Asymmetry is a disruption of the left-right balance that may be associated with factors such as abnormal anatomy, chronic lameness, or laterality (a preference to use one side of the body rather than the other).

In horses, there is now evidence from laterality studies of differences in and between populations due to age, training, handling, breeding, sex, arousal and anatomical proportions, such a ratio of head length to leg length.

Racecourses vary from state to state

Horse racing in Australia is rarely done only in a straight line. In New South Wales and Queensland, for example, horses race in a clockwise direction, whereas in Victoria they race anticlockwise.

Winx has raced and won mostly in NSW but has also won four Cox Plates (Victoria), so clearly she can cope with both track directions.

For many others, race direction can matter and may risk injury to a horse.

On bends, it is common for horses to use the left leading leg when galloping in an anticlockwise direction, and vice versa. But, because of asymmetry, many horses have a preferred leading leg. So, depending on the state, the bends favour some horses more than others.


Wes Mountain/The Conversation, CC BY-ND


The direction of racing predicts which limbs are vulnerable to injury.

Irrespective of course direction, one study found 72% of musculoskeletal injuries occur to the leading leg. Major sites on a racetrack of injury were:

  • on the straights (30.77% of injuries involved the leading leg)

  • coming out of a turn (55.31% of injuries were to the leading leg)

  • passing a turn (62.5% of injuries corresponded with the leading leg)

This implies that more strain is put on the leading leg during turns.

Therefore, horses racing on their weaker side, in a direction counter to their preferred leading leg, may be at increased risk of injury.

Asymmetry is normal in horses

Sizeable anatomical asymmetries can affect a horse’s race performance and, beyond a certain point, can lead to lameness.

Thoroughbreds have been shown to have longer right than left third metacarpal bones (the long bone in the front leg between the knee) and pastern (the joint immediately above the hoof). This could theoretically lead to advantages when racing on anticlockwise courses, and disadvantages on clockwise courses.

From the moment a foal first rises to her feet, she will tend to use one side of the body more than the other. Any innate bias can become consolidated as the foal grows.

Horses at pasture spend up to 16 hours per day grazing, an activity that forces them to stand with one foreleg ahead of the other, many lock in a preference for advancing the left or right foreleg. Paul McGreevy

When she goes into exercise training, the asymmetry persists, and may show in the horse’s behaviour.

Checking a horse’s movement

Side biases in the movement behaviour in the horse include the ease with which they flex their necks to the left or the right and, perhaps most importantly, their preferred leading leg in the canter and gallop.

Last year we published a study on more than 2,000 thoroughbred racehorses that established, for each horse, the lead-leg preference of the initial stride into gallop from the starting stalls.

Almost half (48.74%) of the horses started races in a direction counter to the optimal gallop leading leg and so would have to change leading leg to optimise their performance and safety on bends.

This increases the risk of errors on landing and therefore injuries. Injuries to horses also bring the risk of injury or even death for jockeys. Perhaps, when we have the right data, we will be able to confirm that Winx makes very few of these changes.

Let the tech detect the movement

Much recent research in horse biomechanics has used on-board accelerometry technology that can measure their movement while exercising freely in their natural environments at speeds near those in competition.

Studies have focused on gait characteristics – the way a horse moves – in normal and obviously lame horses and in other clinical conditions. It’s shown to be useful for accurate and sensitive detection of gait abnormality.

One study using accelerometry on 222 riding horses perceived as “healthy” by their owners found that 73% showed movement abnormalities during straight-line trotting.


Read more: Why horse-racing in Australia needs a social licence to operate


Further studies using this technology should improve the welfare of performance horses and their riders if it can identify any gait abnormalities due to laterality, lameness, and other clinical problems.

Gait analysis will also reveal the attributes of horses that can safely and optimally race in both clockwise and anticlockwise directions, as Winx has shown.

So here’s hoping Winx can go out with another victory in her final race, at a sold-out event at Randwick (it’s a clockwise track and she’s had plenty of wins there).

Jockey Hugh Bowman riding Winx wins race 7, the Longines Queen Elizabeth Stakes, at Randwick in April 2018. AAP Image/Daniel Munoz

ref. The success of Winx shows the value of symmetry in race horses – http://theconversation.com/the-success-of-winx-shows-the-value-of-symmetry-in-race-horses-115148

No matter who is elected, more work remains on women’s rights and Indigenous issues

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Chappell, Director of the Australian Human Rights Institute; Professor of Law, UNSW

This article is part of a series examining the Coalition government’s record on key issues while in power and what Labor is promising if it wins the 2019 federal election.


Women’s rights and gender equity

Louise Chappell, Director of the Australian Human Rights Institute and Scientia Professor, Law Faculty, UNSW

For most of the Coalition’s time in office, gender justice concerns have received scant attention across the board. Former Women’s Minister Michaelia Cash, in fact, is probably better remembered for her sexist slurs on Bill Shorten’s female staff than any major policy announcement.

Since stepping into the minister role in 2017, Kelly O’Dwyer has clearly worked to improve the government’s profile and performance and attempted to develop a coherent policy agenda.

On her watch, the government met its goal of reaching gender parity on government boards and announced a A$109 million women’s economic security package focused on workforce participation, economic independence, and expanding women’s earning potential. While this was welcome, some commentators criticised the relatively small funding package, especially given the scale of the problems it set out to address.


Read more: The Liberals have a serious women problem – and it’s time they took action to change it


Politically, the Coalition’s emphasis on support for domestic violence survivors in the package was a sign it was still playing catch-up after it threatened to strip A$35 million in funding from frontline legal domestic violence services in the 2014 budget. Earlier this year, the Morrison government also committed to spending A$328 million to implement the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children, a program commenced under the Rudd and Gillard ALP governments.

Other women’s issues have been more problematic for the Coalition. For instance, the ParentsNext program has been been the subject of a Senate inquiry over allegations of discrimination on the basis of sex, race and family type. Critics also point to the lack of concrete action on women’s homelessness. Reforms to the childcare system implemented in 2018, meanwhile, are proving a bureaucratic nightmare for families with insecure, unpredictable or contract-based jobs.

The Coalition government has also notably failed when it comes to increasing the number of women in its ranks.

Across both houses of parliament, women comprise just 22.9% of Liberal Party members and only 9.5% of National Party representatives. Women have also held a small proportion of senior Cabinet positions since 2013 (10% under Tony Abbott, 21% under Malcolm Turnbull, and currently 30% under Scott Morrison). In addition, both Coalition partners continue to resist the introduction of gender quotas for parliament.

What about Labor?

These numbers should improve if Labor wins the May election. With women currently making up 46% of Labor’s numbers in parliament, the ALP is close to reaching its goal of gender parity. A strong swing to Labor may well help it reach its goal of 50-50 female representation – or more.

The ALP has already announced a detailed women’s policy platform, claiming it will put gender at the centre of decision-making. This includes the reintroduction of “gender policy machinery” to government, meaning Labor pledges to conduct a gender impact assessment on all policy decisions and cabinet submissions, and release an annual gender budget statement.


Read more: Australia can do more to attract and keep women in parliament – here are some ideas


Tanya Plibersek, the deputy leader and shadow women’s minister, has also made several key announcements, including new measures to tackle the gender superannuation gap and increase childcare funding. Most controversially, the ALP has outlined a plan to deliver a National Sexual and Reproductive Health Strategy, which will include decriminalising abortion and providing access to termination services.

While history shows that ALP governments tend to have a stronger record than Coalition governments in advancing women’s rights, it would be wrong to be complacent. Past Labor governments have proved inconsistent on women’s issues, for example, cutting single parent pensions and keeping women asylum seekers in detention.

This means Australian women must continue to put pressure on both sides of politics to fully realise their rights.


Indigenous rights

Lindon Coombes, Industry Professor (Indigenous Policy), University of Technology Sydney

The Coalition has had a clear focus on employment and business development as the key platforms for improving Indigenous outcomes over both terms of its government, but its top-down approach and failure to genuinely work with Indigenous peoples and organisations has led to few successes.

One of the key components of the government’s policies – and one of the most controversial – has been the Community Development Program (CDP), instituted in 2015. Although the program was championed by the Coalition as a key way of improving rural employment in Indigenous communities, it immediately came under fire and became the subject of a Senate inquiry in 2017.

According to testimony at the inquiry, the success rate in getting Indigenous people into full-time or part-time work has only been about 10%. The program has also been overly punitive, with more than 350,000 fines issued to some 33,000 participants for lateness or missed appointments.


Read more: Why the government was wrong to reject an Indigenous ‘Voice to Parliament’


Another contentious Coalition-led initiative has been the so-called “cashless welfare card”, which has been trialled in various locations across the country. The government claims the card will reduce domestic violence and crime, and improve the welfare of children and families. But an evaluation of a similar program in the Northern Territory could not find “any substantive evidence of the program having significant changes relative to its key policy objectives”.

Equally controversial has been the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS), one of Tony Abbott’s key policy initiatives. In 2016 a Senate inquiry found that less than half of successful applications had gone to Indigenous organisations the year before. Last November, it was also revealed that A$500,000 of IAS money had been given to non-Indigenous industry groups to counter Aboriginal land claims.

Perhaps most disappointing to Indigenous peoples, however, has been the lack of support in the Coalition government for the Uluru Statement’s call for an Indigenous voice to Parliament. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull dismissed the statement as an unworkable attempt to create a “third chamber” of parliament. His successor, Scott Morrison, echoed this view after coming to power.

What about Labor?

While both parties are committed to Constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples, the ALP has promised to hold a referendum on enshrining an Indigenous voice to parliament in the Constitution. Labor has also pledged to establish a Makarrata Commission to supervise a truth-telling and agreement-making process formed between governments and Indigenous peoples.

It appears unlikely the Coalition will support either measure as part of its platform.


Read more: With a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, Australia must fix its record on Indigenous rights


The ALP has also guaranteed it would comply with the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) and affirmed its support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Coalition, meanwhile, has long expressed its desire to amend or abolish the RDA and has been largely silent on the UN declaration.

The ALP has also committed to support the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples as the peak national representative body for Indigenous peoples after it had its funding slashed by the Coalition.

Both parties have aligned behind the Closing the Gap targets, but the ALP has added three extra targets: to increase Indigenous participation in higher education, improve access to services for Indigenous peoples with disabilities, and reduce incarceration and victimisation rates in Indigenous communities.

ref. No matter who is elected, more work remains on women’s rights and Indigenous issues – http://theconversation.com/no-matter-who-is-elected-more-work-remains-on-womens-rights-and-indigenous-issues-114610

If you’re coming off antidepressants, withdrawals and setbacks may be part of the process

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Musker, Senior Research Fellow, South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute

Depression is a common mental disorder affecting over 300 million people across the world. It’s estimated that one in ten people in Australia (10.4%) suffer from depression.

Alongside other therapies, medication is often used to treat patients with depression. About 8% of Australians are taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety and related conditions (but in this article we’re focusing on depression).

Antidepressants are powerful drugs that affect the way the neurotransmitters in our brains work, usually with the outcome of increasing the overall amount of a chemical called serotonin. Low levels of serotonin cause low mood, so increasing the availability of this transmitter improves mood.


Read more: Are antidepressants over-prescribed in Australia?


To be in a position where you feel ready to come off antidepressants is a good thing. But it’s not necessarily an easy thing – particularly if you’ve been taking antidepressants for a long time.

There is a possibility of withdrawal symptoms, and even the chance of relapsing back into a depression. These risks can’t be removed, but they can be managed.

The illness trajectory

Depression can last for a minimum of two weeks, but will more commonly last for months or years. For some, it will be present for the duration of their lives.

Typically, those who suffer from a major depressive disorder will be taking antidepressants for many years.

Antidepressants can sometimes cause side effects such as weight gain, fatigue, sexual dysfunction and insomnia. It’s understandable that people will want to stop taking these drugs as soon as possible, or after they have felt well for a considerable time.

But this process carries risks, so it’s important to establish a plan with your doctor before proceeding.


Read more: Pregnant women taking antidepressants shouldn’t panic about birth defect claims


Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome

Your body has become used to having the drugs in its system, so withdrawal can cause side effects.

A condition called antidepressant discontinuation syndrome affects about 20% of people withdrawing from antidepressants.

This syndrome can cause flu-like symptoms (headache, body aches and sweating), difficulty sleeping, irritability, feeling sick (nausea or even vomiting), disturbance in balance, confusion, anxiety and agitation.

Some people will take antidepressants for many years of their life. From shutterstock.com

These symptoms may only last for a week, but could have more serious consequences if not monitored properly, such as falling back into depression. It’s important to have a withdrawal plan with your GP or prescribing doctor, so that these symptoms can be measured and medications adjusted accordingly.

Some antidepressants such as Paroxetine and Venlafaxine (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) are more likely to cause withdrawal, so extra care should be taken with these medicines. Other drugs like Fluoxetine can be withdrawn over a shorter period, or even act as a buffer while withdrawing from other antidepressants.


Read more: What causes depression? What we know, don’t know and suspect


Steps to take if you’re coming off antidepressants

Coming off antidepressants too quickly may increase the risk that a person will fall into a depression again and need to revert to taking medication, creating a cycle of depression.

The American Psychiatric Association and the UK National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health suggest antidepressants are taken for up to several weeks after the depression symptoms have ceased, particularly if you have been on them for many years. The key aim here is to prevent a relapse into depression.

It takes between four to eight weeks for an antidepressant to start working effectively, and it will take just as long for your body to get used to not being on them.

A general guide is to withdraw from antidepressants over around four weeks, but longer if you are on a group of drugs called monoamine oxidase inhibitors.

This process involves a gradual reduction of the amount of the drug you’re taking over time, according to the plan you and your doctor have agreed upon. Keeping track of how this is affecting your mood is helpful.

Talking therapies can be useful when going through the process of coming off antidepressants. From shutterstock.com

A systematic review found several interventions helpful when thinking about stopping antidepressants. The most effective was a form of psychological treatment called cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).

CBT is a talking therapy that is generally provided in hour-long sessions over a period of about 16 weeks during and after the withdrawal phase.

CBT can be combined with an activity called mindfulness, a type of relaxation that helps you focus on your thoughts.

What if you do experience withdrawal?

If you find yourself suffering from the symptoms of withdrawal, returning to a lower dose of medication and slowing down the discontinuation over a longer period may be a sensible way to go.

You can also focus on some key activities known to have a positive effect upon depression. These might include forming good sleep habits, increasing the amount of exercise you do, engaging in your favourite hobbies or social activities, or adopting a healthy low carbohydrate diet.


Read more: Health Check: what makes it so hard to quit drugs?


The Black Dog Institute recommend you monitor your mood in a mood chart, which will give you a clear picture of how you’re tracking. This enables you to see the danger points when your mood falls below par, and consider when you may need to seek help.

There are many free interactive resources online which may be helpful, alongside professional medical care, as you navigate coming off antidepressants. You can also focus on positive mental health strategies that build your well-being and resilience.

If this article has raised issues for you or you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

ref. If you’re coming off antidepressants, withdrawals and setbacks may be part of the process – http://theconversation.com/if-youre-coming-off-antidepressants-withdrawals-and-setbacks-may-be-part-of-the-process-114179

Australia’s electricity grid can easily support electric cars – if we get smart

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marcus Brazil, Associate Professor and Reader in Engineering, University of Melbourne

Following opposition leader Bill Shorten’s policy announcement that 50% of new cars will be electric by 2030, questions have been raised about the ability of the electricity grid to cope with the increased demand associated with a substantial increase in the use of electric vehicles.


Read more: Labor’s plan for transport emissions is long on ambition but short on details


These concerns are not completely unfounded. Modelling and research at the University of Melbourne, conducted as part of a project led by Professor Iven Mareels, has shown that in Victoria even fairly modest rates of electric vehicle uptake could have a major impact on the electricity distribution grid.

However, these problems would be caused by uncoordinated charging, with battery recharging occurring as soon as the driver returns home and plugs in the car. With some simple coordination – perhaps using smart meters – Australia’s grid can easily support far more electric vehicles for decades to come.

The problems

It’s helpful to first understand the challenges to the grid posed by a high number of electric vehicles. The focus here is on the low voltage electricity distribution network, by which we mean the part of the grid “downstream” from local transformers that directly supply electricity to homes and businesses.

This includes most of the grid infrastructure that we see around us every day, such as residential power lines and pole-mounted transformers. Electric vehicle charging can affect this infrastructure in a number of different ways.

Power demand

An electric car with a typical daily commute of 40km requires roughly 6–8 kilowatt hours of energy to recharge, which is equivalent to the daily needs of a small household. In other words, if you purchase an electric vehicle, the impact on the local electricity network is about the same as adding a small house to the neighbourhood.

And in an unregulated environment most electric vehicle owners are likely to plug in and begin charging when they arrive home, around 6 to 7 pm, which is the time residential electricity networks experience peak demand. This can lead to network failures, or component overload where assets such as distribution transformers and the utility lines run beyond their nominal current ratings and capacity limits, substantially shortening their lifetimes.

Voltage drop

Voltage can be thought of as the “electrical pressure” in the network. Each utility line in the distribution network has an associated impedance, meaning that the voltage at each house in the network decreases the further it is from the distribution transformer. As more current is drawn through the lines due to the charging of electric vehicles, this decrease in voltage is exacerbated. If the voltage in some houses falls below regulated limits, household appliances may fail or suffer.

Phase unbalance and power quality

Electricity distribution networks in Australia are generally three-phase, meaning there are three lines carrying the current, each a third of a cycle out of phase with the others. Most houses connect to only one of these phases. If a disproportionate number of households with electric vehicles all happen to be connected to the same phase, then that phase can get out of balance with the others, leading to a significant loss of efficiency in the network. Mass electric vehicle charging could also affect the overall quality of the power in the network, for example by distorting the shape of the 50Hz waveform that carries the current.

Modelling and simulations, based on real Australian data, have shown these negative impacts on the grid can occur at fairly low rates of electric vehicle ownership. For example, in a study based on an area in Melbourne it was shown that an electric vehicle penetration of only 10% can lead to network failures in an unregulated environment.

Getting smart

The good news is that all of these problems can be prevented by implementing a smart charging framework: shifting electric vehicle demand away from peak times.

Electric vehicles are among the most flexible loads in the grid. Unlike showering, cooking and heating our homes, we can shift the demand to other times, such as overnight, when there is more capacity in the network. The trade-off, of course, is that it takes longer until the vehicle is fully charged.

However, most owners are unlikely to notice this, as long as the car is charged and ready to go by the time they need to leave for work. Furthermore a standard commute will generally mean there is enough spare battery capacity to allow the car to be taken out for an emergency late-night run, even if it is not yet fully charged.

Shifting electric vehicle load. If vehicle charging is not controlled, there is a significant increase in peak demand. If the vehicle charging load is shifted to times when there is more capacity, there is no increase in peak load.

Setting up such a charging system would not be particularly difficult or expensive. One suggested scenario is each for residence with an electric vehicle to acquire a home charging terminal that the car plugs into, which receives instructions from the utility operator via the household smart meter. This allows the operator to control vehicle charging across the network based on the current network conditions and demand.

If the charging of electric vehicles can be controlled in this manner, then our existing networks will be able to sustain high uptake rates, without any additional investment into grid infrastructure.


Read more: Shorten’s climate policy would hit more big polluters harder and set electric car target


Detailed simulations have shown that the same network that started to fail at a 10% uptake with uncontrolled charging is able to sustain more than an 80% uptake when vehicle charging is shifted, using simple optimisation algorithms. Through this sort of demand management, most of our existing networks should be able to handle electric vehicles for decades to come.

ref. Australia’s electricity grid can easily support electric cars – if we get smart – http://theconversation.com/australias-electricity-grid-can-easily-support-electric-cars-if-we-get-smart-115294

Explainer: what is explicit instruction and how does it help children learn?

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lorraine Hammond, Associate Professor, Edith Cowan University

Explicit instruction is a term that summarises a type of teaching in which lessons are designed and delivered to novices to help them develop readily-available background knowledge on a particular topic.

Explicit instruction emerged out of research conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. Researchers sat at the back of classrooms and looked for relationships between particular behaviours of effective teachers and their students’ academic performance.

This research found teachers with the best results spent more time reviewing previously learned concepts, checking whether students had understood concepts and correcting misconceptions during the lesson. Explicit teaching practices involve showing students what to do and how to do it.

Like baking a cake, explicit instruction is a step-by-step process where deviating from the recipe or omitting ingredients can have an underwhelming result.

Explicit instruction came out of 1960s research, when researchers observed effective teachers from the back of their classroom. from shutterstock.com

This is contrasted to a type of learning where, before students are shown the essential information, they are asked to practise a task, and then discover and construct some or all of the essential information themselves. This is sometimes known as inquiry-based learning.

It can be useful for someone who wants to conduct an experiment to learn about evaporation and condensation, provided they already understand the nature of solids, liquids and gases and how to safely use a Bunsen burner.

We remember what we think about

Explicit instruction is also known as “fully guided” practice. Teachers who follow an explicit approach explain, demonstrate and model everything: from blending sounds together to decode words, to writing a complex sentence with figurative language, to kicking a football.

While some students achieve success quickly, others need far more opportunities for practice. Explicit instruction teachers provide daily reviews of previously learned knowledge and skills so they become automatic. Then they can be applied to more complex tasks such as reading, writing a short story or playing a game of AFL.

Explicit instruction is underscored by a learning theory known as the information processing model. It is based on the assumption we only remember what we think about, and keep thinking about. If you can still remember your childhood telephone number, it’s probably because of the number of times you have used and retrieved that information.


Read more: Comic explainer: how memory works


It’s well known there is a limit to how much new information the human brain can process and how much can be stored in our long-term memory. These understandings form something known as cognitive load theory, which adds further value to the effectiveness of explicit instruction.

Information procession theory suggests we only remember what we keep thinking about. from shutterstock.com

Put simply, knowing precursor maths skills – such as times-tables and the difference between the numerator and denominator – reduces the strain on the limited space you have in your brain. So it might free up some brain space to learn about more complex maths, such as simplifying fractions.

Particular models fall under the umbrella term of explicit instruction in Australia and include: explicit instruction, explicit direct instruction, Direct Instruction and I do, we do, you do. These models are based on similar instructional principles and refer to specific lesson design and delivery components.


Read more: Direct Instruction and the teaching of reading


Direct Instruction, for instance, consists of a suite of commercially available teaching resources developed from the work of US educator Siegfried Engelmann in the 1960s. It is a highly scripted model, which is both a reason some teachers perceive the approach as inflexible, and the reason it is effective. When followed with fidelity, direct instruction has been shown to work. The model has proven quite effective when applied in remote aboriginal communities.

Explicit instruction, however, is not scripted. This means there is often variability between the way teachers use it and of the component parts of this approach. This also makes definitive statements on its efficacy problematic.

So, what’s the controversy?

Since the late 1970s, more child-centred approaches have been the prevailing orthodoxy in teacher education and curriculum design in Australia. These approaches include discovery learning and inquiry. They are based on a theory of learning called constructivism, that sees learning as an active process.

Teachers following a constructivist approach provide learning opportunities that enable students to come to their own unique understandings of what is being taught. Constructivism is popular and prevalent because it personalises learning, emphasises the active construction of knowledge and privileges hands-on learning to solve real-world problems.

Critics of explicit instruction typically argue it is a deficit model that sees students sitting passively in rows all day engaging in rote learning. This is a misunderstanding of explicit instruction, which – when done properly – is engaging and rarely done for extended periods of time.

Explicit instruction requires students to face the teacher. from shutterstock.com

It’s true the model requires students to face the teacher. This is because the process involves the teacher asking a lot of questions. She or he may also ask children to write on mini-whiteboards to show their understanding during the lesson.

Arguments that explicit instruction doesn’t allow teachers to cater for range of student abilities are also ill-founded. Explicit instruction allows teachers to teach the same concept to students but differentiate at the point of individual practice.


Read more: Learning languages early is key to making Australia more multilingual


For example, after teaching the algorithm for subtraction, students will have the same time to solve problems of increasing difficulty. But not all students will follow the same process. While some students will only solve (29-13), others might solve (189-101) and (1692-1331).

As adults learning to abseil or skydive, we prefer it when information is broken down into manageable chunks, the instructor checks for understanding and we are given opportunities to practise the skills we’ll need before we step over the edge. There is a place for explicit instruction in Australian classrooms, particularly when background knowledge is low and the task is difficult.

ref. Explainer: what is explicit instruction and how does it help children learn? – http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-explicit-instruction-and-how-does-it-help-children-learn-115144

Retiree home ownership is about to plummet. Soon little more than half will own where they live

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Fellow, Grattan Institute

Australia’s retirement incomes system has been built on the assumption that most retirees would own their home outright. But new Grattan Institute modelling shows the share of over 65s who own their home will fall from 76% today to 57% by 2056 – and it’s likely that less than half of low-income retirees will own their homes in future, down from more than 70% today.

Home ownership provides retirees with big benefits: they have somewhere to live without paying rent, and they are insulated from rising housing costs. Retirees who have paid off their mortgage spend much less of their income on housing (on average 5%) than working homeowners or retired renters (25% to 30%). These benefits – which economists call imputed rents – are worth more than A$23,000 a year to the average household aged 65 or over, roughly as much again as the maximum pension.

You’ll be OK if you own

Our 2018 report Money in Retirement showed that while Australia’s retirement income system is working well for the vast majority of retirees, it’s at risk of failing those who rent. They are more than twice as likely as homeowners to suffer financial stress, as indicated by things such as skipping meals, or failing to pay bills.

This is not surprising – renters typically have lower incomes. But the rising deposit hurdle and greater mortgage burden risks means rates of home ownership are falling fast among the presently young and the poor.



The share of 25 to 34 year olds who own their home has fallen from more than 60% in 1981 to 45% in 2016. For 35 to 44 year olds it has fallen from 75% to about 62%.

And home ownership now depends on income much more than in the past: among 25-34 year olds, home ownership among the poorest 20% has fallen from 63% to 23%.



But fewer will

Home ownership is likely to fall further in coming years. Using Grattan Institute modelling, we find that on current trends, the share of over 65s who own their home will fall from 76% today to 74% in 2026, to 70% by 2036, 64% by 2046, and 57% by 2056.

And while we don’t project home ownership rates for different income groups due to data limitations (we have the necessary Census data on home ownership rates by age and income only for 1981 and 2016), it is more than likely that less than half of low income retirees will own their homes in future, down from more than 70% today.



Today’s younger Australians will become tomorrow’s retirees.

Worsening housing affordability means renting will become more widespread among retirees. As a result, more retirees will be at risk of poverty and financial stress, particularly if rent assistance does not keep pace with future increases in rents paid by low-income renters.

And rent assistance won’t much help

The maximum rent assistance payment is indexed in line with the consumer price index, but rents have been growing faster than the consumer price index for a long time. Between June 2003 and June 2017, the consumer price index climbed by 41%, while average rents climbed by 64%.

That’s why our Money in Retirement report recommended boosting Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 40%, at a cost of $300 million a year in today’s dollars. That would restore it to the buying power it had 15 years ago. It should be indexed in future to changes in the rents typically paid by the people who get it, so its value is maintained, as recommended by the Henry Tax Review.

There’s another important implication. Retirement incomes are likely to become more unequal in future. Money in Retirement found that in general future retirees will have adequate retirement incomes. Most workers today can expect a retirement income of at least 89% of their pre-retirement income, well above the 70% benchmark used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and more than enough to maintain pre-retirement living standards.

But a retirees who rent will have much less for living on.

There will be ‘haves’ and more ‘have nots’

Among home-owners, an increasing proportion will be still paying off their mortgages when they retire – the proportion of 55 to 64 year olds who own their home outright fell from 72% in 1995-96 to 42% in 2015-16. Some will (quite rationally) use some or all of their super to pay off their mortgage.

And rising housing costs will in time force retirees to draw down on more of the value of their home to fund their retirement.

Currently, few retirees downsize or borrow against the equity of their home while continuing to live in it. But that will have to change.


Read more: Renters Beware: how the pension and super could leave you behind


House prices have outstripped growth in incomes. Median prices have increased from around four times median incomes in the early 1990s to more than seven times median incomes today (and more than eight times in Sydney).

Government policy should continue to encourage these retirees to draw down on the increasingly valuable equity of their homes to help fund their retirement. They are not the ones who will need government help. The government’s recent expansion of the Pension Loans Scheme that allows all retirees to borrow against the value of their homes is a step in that direction.

Retirement is going to change in the years ahead. Most retirees will be far from poor, many of them better able to support themselves than ever before. But an increasing number will not. They are the ones who will need our help.


Read more: Productivity Commission finds super a bad deal. And yes, it comes out of wages


ref. Retiree home ownership is about to plummet. Soon little more than half will own where they live – http://theconversation.com/retiree-home-ownership-is-about-to-plummet-soon-little-more-than-half-will-own-where-they-live-115255

Vital Signs: why governments get addicted to smoking, gambling and other vices

]]>

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

We’ve known about smoking’s health risks for half a century — at least since the landmark 1964 report by US Surgeon General Luther Terry.

But it turns out it is not just smokers addicted to nicotine. So is the Australian government.

This year’s budget predicts revenue from the tobacco tax at a staggering A$17.4 billion. That’s a lot of money compared to the expected surplus of A$7.1 billion. It’s more than the A$12.3 billion from diesel fuel, A$6.4 billion from petrol tax, and the roughly A$6 billion from alcoholic beverages.

Part of the reason governments tax things is the same reason Slick Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: “Because that’s where the money is.” But the better reason to tax tobacco, pokies and the like is these activities have costs to society.

Internalising externalities

People who smoke impose costs – or externalities – on the rest of us. Second-hand smoke is both unpleasant and harmful. The health effects of smoking like heart and lung disease, and cancer, are borne by the taxpayer thanks to our universal health-care system. Smoking sets a bad example for kids, and so on.

When a behaviour is enjoyable but harms society, most economists think it better to tax it instead of banning it. This is why we favour congestion taxes and “sugar” taxes, rather than banning private cars in city centres or outlawing soft drinks.


Read more: Smoking costs society dear – so why isn’t Big Tobacco paying its way?


So-called “Pigouvian taxes” – named after British economist Arthur Pigou, who first proposed the idea – are intended to make those responsible for negative externalities pay for them. Ideally the tax will even motivate to change their behaviour.

When tobacco is taxed, smokers are forced to balance their personal enjoyment with the harm they’re creating for others. Public health experts point to tobacco taxes as one of the reasons we’ve seen a huge drop in the number of smokers.

Addicted to revenue

But what happens when a government becomes reliant on a Pigouvian tax because it gets so much revenue from it?

Federal treasurer Josh Fydenberg’s boast of being “back in the black” has a rather dark irony to it. The 2019-20 forecast budget surplus was made possible by the blackening lungs of Australia’s 2.5 million smokers.

This puts the government in a difficult position.

The whole idea of a Pigouvian tax is to reduce the amount of an activity — in this case smoking. But the government needs these 2.5 million smokers puffing away to fund basic services.

As was wryly noted on the BBC comedy Yes Prime Minister, smokers are “national benefactors”. With an average annual tobacco tax contribution of nearly A$7,000 per Australian smoker, it’s not hard to see why.

A clip from the Yes Prime Minister episode ‘The Smoke Screen’.

This kind of revenue addiction is not unique to tobacco or the federal government. The New South Wales government gets 8.4% of its total revenue from gambling taxes. Poker machines alone account for 5.3% of NSW government revenue. Victoria is not much better, with 4.6% of government revenue coming from pokies.

No wonder, then, that actions taken by the NSW government in the name of curbing the harms of poker machines have been criticised as ineffective. Why would we expect the government to cut off its cash cow?

Designing a better tax

It is worth comparing the A$17.4 billion in revenue that goes straight into federal government coffers from tobacco tax with the potential use of a Pigouvian tax to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

My colleague Rosalind Dixon and I have proposed the Australian Carbon Dividend Plan (ACDP) – which would impose a tax of A$50 on every tonne of carbon emitted. This would raise A$21 billion a year at current emissions levels. That money would be returned to voting-age citizens, leaving the average household A$585 a year better off, and low-income households more than A$1,300 a year ahead.


Read more: Fresh thinking: the carbon tax that would leave households better off


At first glance these two Pigouvian taxes look similar. But the tobacco tax does relatively little to deter smoking because nicotine is addictive.

The carbon dividend imposes a similar tax burden, but would be a meaningful step in addressing climate change. Importantly, it would return all the tax proceeds to households rather than propping up the budget.

Cutting the Gordian knot

By giving the proceeds directly to citizens, the Gordian knot that binds a government to the revenue from harmful behaviour is cut.

This preserves the magic of a Pigouvian tax, without the government being conflicted.

The same thing could be done with tobacco tax – to ensure the government doesn’t have nicotine on its hands.

I don’t mind that Pigouvian taxes might generate a lot of revenue that can be put to good use. But when the government gets so much revenue from one or two such taxes, it creates a conflict of interest.

That conflict can mean the government doesn’t pursue public health campaigns around smoking as vigorously as it should, or goes soft on regulating poker machines.

ref. Vital Signs: why governments get addicted to smoking, gambling and other vices – http://theconversation.com/vital-signs-why-governments-get-addicted-to-smoking-gambling-and-other-vices-115254

Friday essay: do ‘the French’ care about Anzac?

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Romain Fathi, Lecturer, History, Flinders University

When the first world war came to an end on the Western Front in November 1918, it was time for Australian soldiers to return home. As in Gallipoli, they left behind their fellow Australians who had died. But the Australian public felt less anxiety about the war graves on the Western Front than those in Gallipoli. France was a mostly Christian country, and an Allied nation. Surely, the French would deeply care about the Anzacs?

Soon after the war, the Australian government tried to impose the view that Australians had saved the city of Amiens. Canadians, British, French and others were claiming the same, as the Third Battle of Picardy had been an Allied operation.

Australian commemorative plaque, Cathedral of Amiens. author

Realising that the good people of Amiens would certainly never believe that the Australians had done it all, Australian authorities turned their interest to much smaller villages to have their glorious – and often historically inaccurate – narrative displayed, and therefore ensure the commemoration of the Anzacs.

This worked well enough for them. Back in 1919, some French people were genuinely keen to contribute to the Australian state-sponsored glorification of the Anzacs in the Somme area. They were mostly motivated by the prospect of Australian pounds.

A few mayors clearly indicated that, for money, they would honour the Australian war dead, and chose to celebrate the Australian narrative of the war.

The French Mayor of Steenwerk, for instance, could not have been more explicit when he reached out to the Australian Governor-General in 1920, writing:

In return [for Australian financial assistance] we make this offer […] The old men of the Hospital will take care of [the remains of your gallant soldiers] and will consider it an honour to tend the graves and ornament them with flowers. On the front of the new edifice, we shall put the inscription: ‘In Memory of the Australian and New Zealand soldiers gloriously buried under our soil during the war of 1914–1918.’ Thus [your people] will have the satisfaction of thinking and knowing from the antipodes, [that] the memorial to their dead, associated to a charitable idea, will be perpetuated from generation to generation.

He wasn’t the only one. The Mayor of Villers-Bretonneux, Dr Jules Vendeville, was even more cunning in securing Australian financial assistance. He had a plaque made celebrating Australian heroes so that the Australian government would finally commit to building the Australian National Memorial at Villers-Bretonneux. The money started pouring in.

Instilling Anzac

Better yet, when the Victoria Villers-Bretonneux Fund based in Melbourne approached Dr Vendeville in 1922 to discuss how the money raised by Victorians could be used to help Villers-Bretonneux’s reconstruction and commemorate the sacrifice of Australian war dead, the mayor proposed public baths .. and an abattoir! You can imagine how this went down.

As a result, Australians, through Victoria’s then director of Education Frank Tate, raised the idea of a commemorative school, but the Mayor of Villers-Bretonneux did not want this.

Instead, the French mayor simply crafted a deceptive financial system, which would lead Australians to believe that all of their money went to rebuild what is today Victoria School at Villers-Bretonneux, while actually using parts of the funds for different purposes.

In the interwar period, the school kids of Villers-Bretonneux were entrusted with keeping the memory of the Anzacs alive. Tate was the one who had the “Do not Forget Australia” signs put in each classroom of this small primary school in rural France. It was, essentially, propaganda.

The Australian National Memorial, Villers-Bretonneux, France. The memorial commemorates nearly 11,000 Australians with no known grave. Author provided

And so it was that in the 1920s, on the Western Front, the memory of Australian soldiers was in fact promoted and paid for by Australian authorities, rather than the French. The French had other priorities – and who could blame them?

Australians and the British had it comparatively easy during the war. France lost nearly 1.4 million soldiers (and 7.2% of its population overall), and a fifth of its territory was utterly and completely destroyed. That level of devastation, to this day, is barely comprehensible for those who have not visited the Red Zone around Verdun.

Still, the remembrance of Australian soldiers was not always financially motivated. Some locals remembered the diggers fondly, as they also remembered soldiers of the 30 or so Allied nations who had come to fight in France.

In fact, had it not been for a handful of French people who founded in 1955 the Welcome Committee, which then became the French-Australian Association of Villers-Bretonneux, the French memory of Australian soldiers in the Somme would have all but disappeared in the 1960s and 1970s. As a thank you, some of the members of this association were bestowed with the Order of Australia, once the Anzac legend became a commodity in high demand for Australian politicians in the 1990s.

Putting tiny towns on the map

As time progressed, other villages in Northern France saw how Villers-Bretonneux was benefitting from tourism and the visits of Australian politicians. They too wished to reap the rewards of this memory boom. The towns of Bullecourt and Vignacourt both renamed one of their streets Rue des Australiens in the late 1980s. Soon after, Australian-funded memorials were built and visitors came.

But what’s in it for these French villages? While observing Anzac Day ceremonies at Bullecourt in 2011, an official from the Australian Embassy in Paris told me it “puts them on the map”. The French had known this for a while. The local newspaper La Voix du Nord reported in the early 1990s: “Paradoxically, Bullecourt (a small village south of Arras) is better known in Sidney [sic] or in any other town in Australia, than in France.”

In its article, the newspaper felt obliged to locate Bullecourt in relation to nearby Arras because even French readers would not necessarily know of its existence. For most French, these Australian “battlefields” were entirely unknown and of too small a scale to be remembered.

Anzac Day ceremony, Bullecourt, 2011. Author provided

Since the 2000s, with cheaper airfares and what historians have coined the “return of Anzac”, more and more Australians have visited the former Western Front in France and Belgium. This interest was fostered by former prime minister John Howard, who preferred the Western Front’s association with victory to the defeat at Gallipoli.

Tens of millions of Australian dollars were spent developing new commemorative sites for Australians to visit, at times helped along by some French euros to boost local tourism.

Australians funded and created more commemorative sites in France between 1998 and 2018 than between 1918 and 1938. Anzac is indeed a big industry.

Anglo commemorative tourism has boomed on the former Western Front in the last 20 years. Author provided.

Before the Australian government took over the organisation of Anzac Day commemorations at Villers-Bretonneux and turned them into a big TV show, they were a small affair where French locals and visiting Australians would gather after the service for a luncheon. In 2001, however, the Australian Embassy stopped funding lunch, as too many locals were coming for the free food without attending the ceremony.

Australia a minor player

Beyond these small villages, most French people are unaware that Australians fought in the first world war. The second world war and its stories of resistance and collaboration have dominated France’s official memory landscape instead. Until the centenary of the WWI, fewer French people were interested in that conflict, compared to the huge network of associations and museums dedicated to WWII.

Furthermore, the French national curriculum in history does not discuss Australia’s engagement in the first world war. It mentions the involvement of the colonies but France had its own empire back then.

Additionally, the French didactic approach is more cultural than military, and the emphasis is put on Franco-German reconciliation. National school textbooks insist on the story of European integration. So the causes, the consequences, the mass violence, the horror and the uselessness of the war, as well as the idea of total war, are what is studied rather than which troops fought in what village.

And although proportionally the number of Australian volunteers was relatively high with regard to the total Australian population, they represented less than 0.6% of the total number of soldiers involved in the first world war.

Put simply, unless a French person has done more reading than usual about this war, extensively visited the former front, or happens to live in one of the few villages where Australian troops were involved, then they are very unlikely to be aware of the engagement of Australian soldiers in it.

Commemorative diplomacy

While the vast majority of French are unaware of the Anzacs, their government has recently rediscovered this shared page of history. Throughout the negotiations for the huge $50 billion sale of French submarines to Australia, French authorities lavishly praised the Anzacs.

The French State started sending senior representatives to Villers-Bretonneux for Anzac Day instead of local officials, the Champs-Elysées was bedecked with French and Australian flags for subsequent state visits, and Australia (with New Zealand) was chosen as guest of honour for the 2016 Bastille Day parade. No effort was spared to seal the deal.

In 2015, the French government welcomed the idea of the Sir John Monash Centre, which has since been built on the grounds of the Villers-Bretonneux Military Cemetery in northern France. No French historians were involved in the project, though. The centre tells the Australian version of the war, tinged with nationalism, and showcases a very self-centred and biased narrative of the conflict.

Again, the French don’t mind too much: not only was this $100m project funded by the Australian taxpayer, it will generate more tourism to a now essentially rural region, devastated by the economic crisis of the 1980s, which does not attract tourists as Paris, Provence or Brittany do.

Front exterior of the John Monash Centre. Author provided.

Since the Australian National Memorial at Villers-Bretonneux was unveiled in 1938 – and only then because King George VI was performing that ceremony – no French Prime Minister had set a foot at the memorial until 25 April 2018 when the Monash Centre was unveiled.

There, French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe paid tribute to Australian soldiers. But don’t be fooled, homage paid to the glorious Australian heroes is paid elsewhere to the Canadians, the Irish, the Indians, the Americans, the South Africans etc etc. Commemorative diplomacy cares little about history, but does much to facilitate the countries’ political and commercial agendas of the day.

What about the Moroccan division?

So why do we care about the French remembering the Anzacs? Why does the press, every year, feature articles about the French commemorating Australian service? Is this a remnant of a lingering colonial insecurity, whereby we can only exist as a nation if others acknowledge that we are one?

This craving to be bigger than Ben Hur when it comes to first world war extraterritorial commemorations is also a convenient vehicle with which to locate Australianness outside of Australia, and therefore shift the national narrative away from the story of dispossession.

Perhaps we shouldn’t care too much whether the French or anyone else remember the Anzacs. National self-worth can’t come from overseas. As Malcolm Fraser put it:

The constant need to be aggressive about one’s national identity, to vociferously reaffirm it, usually indicates a sense of inferiority towards other nations. Being able to regard oneself as an Australian, being able to contribute to Australia, does not depend on outward symbols.

French, British, Canadian, Australian war graves alongside those of the soldiers of the Moroccan Division, testifying to the allied nature of the Second Villers-Bretonneux operation. Crucifix Corner Cemetery. Author

Instead of desperately wishing others to remember us, perhaps Australians should change their perspective. At the new Monash Centre, Australians don’t remember or discuss the French Army’s Moroccan Division, which relieved the AIF’s 52nd Battalion during Second Villers-Bretonneux in late April 1918.

This was a joint operation, so why make it Australian? We can’t expect others to remember us if we don’t remember them.

ref. Friday essay: do ‘the French’ care about Anzac? – http://theconversation.com/friday-essay-do-the-french-care-about-anzac-110880

Grattan on Friday: In this campaign, Morrison won’t be wearing gloves like Turnbull did in 2016

]]>

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

The Wall Street Journal carried the announcement of Australia’s May 18 poll with the rather cruel headline “Australia to Pick Its Next Leader—With an Election”.

It was a sharp reminder (if anyone needed one) of how appalling federal politics has been – and what it looks like to outsiders, as well as to the local voters who will soon register their judgement.

This election is Bill Shorten’s to lose, if you take the long trend of opinion polls, and what the public predict when asked who’ll win.

But the campaign over the coming weeks can be crucial, and Scott Morrison is a ferocious and desperate fighter.


Read more: Morrison visits Governor-General for a May 18 election


Bill Shorten starts in a strong position. The Coalition has been a shambles through much of the parliamentary term. The Liberals executed a prime minister; a Nationals leader executed himself. The government has few significant achievements except same-sex marriage, to which it was dragged.

Labor has a coherent narrative and an extensive suite of well-developed policies.

But those policies – including on negative gearing, franking credits, and climate change – are Labor’s weakness too. They leave it wide open to the scaremongering that will be relentless (and often dishonest, if the electric car debate is a guide).

Government and opposition begin this contest with nearly equal numbers. After the redistribution, the Coalition has a notional 73 House of Representative seats and Labor 72, with six crossbenchers; 76 seats are required for majority government in the new 151-member house.

The closeness of the numbers means the Coalition (in minority government when the term ended) must win seats to survive.

It has hopes in a scattered handful of Labor seats – including Herbert in Queensland and Lindsay in NSW.

The Liberals may win back Malcolm Turnbull’s old seat of Wentworth – which independent Kerryn Phelps took in the byelection – if former Liberal voters have got over their fury at the coup and look to a potential future high-flyer in Liberal candidate Dave Sharma.

Another possible Coalition gain could be Indi, where independent Cathy McGowan’s bid to pass her mantle to an independent successor may be too ambitious.

But against the government’s few prospects, its outlook in Victoria is bleak and it has many marginals in Queensland. Several Liberal seats are at risk in Western Australia. The Nationals seat of Cowper could go to a recycled independent, former MP Rob Oakeshott.

If the Coalition pulled this election out of the fire, its victory would surely be narrow, even a hung parliament, not a prospect many voters would relish.

Morrison is framing the battle as centrally about economic management, recalling Labor’s deficits, casting forward to ALP tax hikes.

He has drawn on John Howard 2004 “trust” pitch, asking “who do you trust to deliver that strong economy which your essential services rely on?”

But how will Morrison rate compared with Shorten on the empathy meter? His reply, when asked On Thursday about Labor’s “fairness” theme, that “under a Liberal Nationals government, we will always be backing in those Australians who are looking to make a contribution not take one” was jarring (and reminiscent of Joe Hockey’s lifters and leaners).

Morrison will persistently exploit Shorten’s unpopularity. “If you vote for me, you’ll get me. You vote for Bill Shorten and you’ll get Bill Shorten”. Labor sources claim people’s reservations about Shorten are already factored into the vote. Shorten says: “It’s not about me and it’s not about him” – which of course it is.

Shorten is tapping into a rich vein of grievances, over flat wages and the high cost of living. His mantras are fairness, a united team, and the contrast between looking to the future “versus being stuck in the past”. He has made Labor’s pitch on health, its traditional strength, very personal for people with his big-ticket promise to slash costs for cancer sufferers.

Compared with 2016 this will be a short campaign, 38 days to 56 days. And it will be rougher, as the Coalition runs heavily negative and reaches for every weapon. Unlike Turnbull in 2016, Morrison will not be wearing gloves.

On the other side, Labor will benefit from the freneticism of GetUp, which has many government MPs in its sights and a target of making a million phone calls. And the unions have money and manpower.

Turnbull campaigned badly, and the government was lucky to survive last election. The former prime minister’s hyped language – “innovation”, “agile”, “ideas boom”, “age of excitement” – was attuned to the future but a turn off in many parts of the country.

Morrison has to be wary of falling into the opposite trap – sounding old-fashioned, out of sync with public opinion and the rush of technology.

The scepticism of sections of the Coalition about renewables has damaged the government. The misrepresentation and demonisation of Labor’s target of having electric cars form 50% of new car sales by 2030 is likely to be counterproductive. “Bill Shorten wants to end the weekend […] where you’ve got Australians who love being out there in their four wheel drives,” Morrison said last Sunday. After the airing of past quotes from ministers praising electric cars (and maybe some focus groups) the attacks shifted gear slightly.

Australians love renewables and believe electric cars are the way of the future – that it’s just a matter of when they become cheap enough. The Coalition will get nowhere by appearing to stand in the way of progress.

Both sides are struggling with the imperatives of geography in this election. Adani epitomises the dilemma.

This week the Morrison government signed off on another stage of the proposed coal mine – a good message to central and north Queensland, a bad one to Victorian Liberal seats where climate change resonates. Likewise, Labor has its own problem dancing along the Adani tightrope. The controversial project will stalk the campaign.


Read more: Morrison government approves next step towards Adani coal mine


In announcing the May 18 date on Thursday, Morrison spoke in his prime ministerial courtyard. A few hours later Shorten made his opening statement from the home “of an everyday Australian family” in the Melbourne suburb of Mitcham.

Courtyard versus backyard – the competing images at the election’s kickoff. A beginning that will be long forgotten when the campaign reaches its exhausted end after five weeks of trench warfare.

Bill Shorten at his first press conference of the campaign in the backyard of a family home in Melbourne. Daniel Pocket/AAP

ref. Grattan on Friday: In this campaign, Morrison won’t be wearing gloves like Turnbull did in 2016 – http://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-in-this-campaign-morrison-wont-be-wearing-gloves-like-turnbull-did-in-2016-115333

Indonesia bans foreign media from covering elections in West Papua

]]>
Foreign media … banned from next week’s Indonesian elections coverage in West Papua. Image: Kumparan

By Paul of Kumparan in Jayapura

The Indonesian Immigration Office in West Papua has warned that it will take firm action against foreign journalists trying to cover the elections in the Melanesian region.

This was emphasised by Manokwari Class II Non-TPI Immigration Office West Papua representative Bugie Kurniawan at a meeting on foreign surveillance at the Bintuni Bay regency last week.

“We will act firmly if there are foreign media [journalists] reporting on April 17. Report them to us if there are foreigners covering TPS [polling stations], we will secure and deport those concerned and enter their names on the banned list,” he said.

READ MORE: Papuans plan to boycott Indonesian elections

Kurniawan said the Immigration Office was coordinating with the General Elections Supervisory Board in “dealing with” foreign journalists reporting in West Papua.

“Firm measures must be taken because we’re coordinating with the Bintuni Bay regency Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu),” he said.

-Partners-

Kurniawan added that so far there had not been any information on foreign media reporting during the elections in Bintuni Bay regency.

Translated by James Balowski for Indoleft News Service. The original title of the article was “Wartawan Asing Dilarang Meliput Pemilu Di Papua Barat“.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Geoffrey Rush’s victory in his defamation case could have a chilling effect on the #MeToo movement

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karen O’Connell, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

The decision in Geoffrey Rush v Nationwide News, handed down today in Australia’s federal court, is the first – and so far, only – legal determination of a case associated with the #MeToo movement in Australia.

The defamation case was decided in favour of the actor Geoffrey Rush, who had sued News Corp’s Nationwide News, the publisher of the Daily Telegraph, over allegations the newspaper published regarding Rush’s inappropriate behaviour with an unnamed fellow actor, later identified as Eryn Jean Norvill, who gave evidence in the case.

In finding for Rush, Justice Michael Wigney decided that the defence of truth argued by Nationwide News had not been proven. Because Wigney said Rush had suffered significant distress – and to vindicate his reputation – he set non-economic damages at A$850,000. This is more than double the cap in cases not involving aggravated damages, with further economic loss still to be determined.

The Rush decision comes as the Australian #MeToo Movement seems to have gone quiet. The high-profile cases that arose in the year following #MeToo, which included allegations against television presenter Don Burke, actor Craig McLachlan and politicians Barnaby Joyce, Luke Foley and Jeremy Buckingham, have mostly faded from public view.


Read more: Craig McLachlan, defamation and getting the balance right when sexual harassment goes to court


None of these cases have been heard under sexual harassment laws, and none of the women has claimed or received any remedy. Rather, what most of these cases have in common is that the men involved have sued or threatened to sue for defamation.

While reckless and sensationalist media stories certainly cause harm, the Rush decision and other defamation cases may lead someone who has experienced sexual harassment to think that the reputational interests of the accused are better protected by law than those alleging harassment.

Australia has particularly strong defamation laws, which the Rush trial has brought into sharp relief. Actress Yael Stone, who publicly raised further concerns about Rush, said that Australia’s defamation laws made her “terrified” to speak up.

Will the decision in favour of Rush have a further chilling effect on future harassment claims, especially in the absence of any successful, high-profile sexual harassment cases?

Sexual harassment: layers of silence

We have, on paper, strong laws in Australia to respond to individual incidents of sexual harassment in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). But laws are useless if they are not enforced, and only a tiny proportion of sexual harassment incidents are ever reported (just 17%), let alone taken to court.

Of those few reports, most are kept quiet and out of the public view. If an incident is reported in a workplace, for instance, only a few insiders may ever know about it because of non-disclosure agreements.


Read more: We need to do more about sexual harassment in the workplace


If a harassed person makes a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission, he or she must go through a compulsory, confidential conciliation stage. If this is unsuccessful and the complainant proceeds to court, there are very strong incentives to settle the case privately (namely the cost and difficulty of pursuing a case).

While these layers of confidentiality and privacy may suit the harassed as well as the alleged harasser, the flip side is that it makes sexual harassment, an enormous social problem, barely known to the public. Only the tiniest number of cases make it to court and into public scrutiny.

And if women speak up publicly through social or conventional media, defamation laws come into play.

What impact will the Rush decision have on sexual harassment reporting?

An unfortunate side effect of the decision is that it is likely to have an additional silencing effect on sexual harassment discussions and reporting. Such a widely reported defamation case can only further entrench public perceptions of the risks of speaking up.

There are further concerns. There is the potential for the public to mistakenly see this as a sexual harassment case between Rush and Norvill, rather than a defamation case between Rush and Nationwide News.


Read more: #MeToo has changed the media landscape, but in Australia there is still much to be done


Since the court found that the defence of “truth” was not proven, this may lead to a misconception that Norvill’s statements about inappropriate behaviour were a lie. This will only be reinforced by Wigney’s statements questioning Norvill’s credibility, saying she was a witness “prone to exaggeration and embellishment”.

The judge said Eryn-Jean Norvill had nothing to gain from making accusations against Rush, but was not an ‘entirely credible witness’. Peter Rae/AAP

But having insufficient evidence to prove the truth of a statement in law is not the same thing as it being a lie. That misconception has the potential to exacerbate stereotypes about women making up claims of assault and harassment.

The Rush decision is a legal success for the actor, but it may have unintended side effects for the #MeToo movement and the effectiveness of sexual harassment laws.

People bringing sexual harassment cases to court generally receive very low damages payouts. Compared to the million-dollar awards for a celebrity defamation case, the median damages payment in a sexual harassment case is below A$30,000. The severe under-reporting and under-valuing of sexual harassment allegations, and the silencing of public discussion of the problem, may be further impacted by this decision, as well.

We need the #MeToo movement to continue if we are to tackle the continuing problem of sexual harassment and gendered abuse. In delivering his summary judgement, Wigney’s comment to the courtroom is surely the truest statement of all:

… it would have been better for all concerned if the issues that arose … were dealt with in a different place to the harsh, adversarial world of a defamation proceeding.

ref. Geoffrey Rush’s victory in his defamation case could have a chilling effect on the #MeToo movement – http://theconversation.com/geoffrey-rushs-victory-in-his-defamation-case-could-have-a-chilling-effect-on-the-metoo-movement-115127

Don’t trust the environmental hype about electric vehicles? The economic benefits might convince you

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gail Broadbent, PhD candidate Faculty of Science UNSW, UNSW

With electric cars back in the headlines, it’s time to remember why we should bother making the transition away from oil.

In our recent research looking at attitudes towards electric vehicle uptake, we pointed to some of the factors making the case for change. We need to remind ourselves that burning oil, a finite resource, to energise motor vehicles will not only cost the environment, but also the economy.

A critical factor is carbon emissions. The transport sector is the fastest growing contributor of greenhouse gases.

The transport sector contributes some 18% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas pollution and Australia is ranked second worst in an international scorecard for transport energy efficiency.


Read more: Costly, toxic and slow to charge? Busting electric car myths


But even if you don’t believe this is an urgent issue, there are plenty of economic reasons to change our gas-guzzling habits.

A matter of money

In just one year (2017-18), Australia’s imports of refined petroleum cost A$21.7 billion.

Crude petroleum cost us a further A$11.7 billion – that’s more than A$33 billion going to overseas companies who may pay limited tax to Australia.

The argument that electric vehicle motorists, who do pay GST on their electricity, may not pay any fuel tax is really a distraction asking taxpayers to look somewhere else instead of the big companies.

What’s more, the A$18 billion fuel tax goes to general revenue and isn’t pledged to road building.

Unsteady fuel reserves

Policies minimising Australia’s reliance on oil imports could bring significant benefits to businesses and families, and even to public sector agencies with fleet operations.

Around 90% of the oil Australia consumes is imported and road transport is almost entirely dependent on it. The bulk of our automotive gasoline comes from Singapore and South Korea, and in the event of geopolitical imbalance, the supply of our fuel could potentially be jeopardised.

And our fuel stockpiles are very low. Australia has only about 21 days’ supply in stock, rather than the recommended 90 days.


Read more: Australia’s fuel stockpile is perilously low, and it may be too late for a refill


Health risks

Potential geopolitical imbalances affecting the national supply are important, but the health costs associated with fossil fuels are in the scale of billions of dollars in Australia.

This includes premature death, hospital and medical costs, and loss of productivity that arise from toxic air pollution from internal combustion engine vehicles.

It has also been found pollution from burning fossil fuels can cause respiratory illnesses like asthma and neurodevelopmental disorders in children It’s a high price to pay to continue burning fossil fuels.

And noise pollution from traffic can cause health problems, for instance, by elevating blood pressure, or creating cognitive development problems for children, who have noise-related sleep disturbance.

Conventional cars are inefficient

Electric vehicles convert about 60% of their energy to propulsion. Conventional cars, on the other hand, are very inefficient.

For every litre of fuel burned, only about 17 to 21% of the energy is converted to forward motion, the rest is lost as heat and noise. The waste heat collectively warms up urban areas, causing more use of air conditioning in buildings in summer.

And buildings located near heavily trafficked roads may be exposed to high air and noise pollution, so windows may not generally be used for ventilation. This also places demand on air conditioning and electricity.

An electric charging station in Canberra. Mick Tsikas/AAP

Renewable energy is cheaper and faster

An important point in the ongoing debate about electric vehicles is that they’re only as clean as the electricity they use. A widespread adoption of electric vehicles means the electricity supply will need to be increased.

And Australia’s current energy supply is notoriously one of the dirtiest in the world.

But the demand for new electricity to supply future electric vehicle uptake will be met by installing renewables because they’re cheaper and faster than installing new coal fired power stations.


Read more: How electric cars can help save the grid


The bottom line on this ongoing debate is really about changing our mindset about transport – let’s not get stuck in the past, let’s join the modern world and charge ahead.

ref. Don’t trust the environmental hype about electric vehicles? The economic benefits might convince you – http://theconversation.com/dont-trust-the-environmental-hype-about-electric-vehicles-the-economic-benefits-might-convince-you-115225

Curious Kids: is water blue or is it just reflecting off the sky?

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Peter, Climate Scientist, Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.


Is water blue or is it just reflecting off the sky? – The students of Ms Brown’s class, Neerim South Public School, Victoria.


This is a wonderful question as it involves many of the puzzles that motivated research into the physics of light in the early 20th century.

The short answer is that the sea is blue because of the way water absorbs light, the way particles in the water scatter light, and also because some of the blue light from the sky is reflected.

But to explain what I mean by that, I have to tell you a bit about light and physics.


Read more: Curious Kids: Why is the sky blue and where does it start?


How light works

First, we need to know some fun facts about the nature of light.

The light we see, which we call white light, is made up of incredibly tiny particles called photons. A photon is even smaller than an atom. You can’t see them, but they’re there.

These particles are very strange because when we measure them, sometimes they move like a tiny ball and sometime like a wave – weird, right?

White light is made from photons that have many different wavelengths, some shorter and some longer, and together make up all the colours of the rainbow. The photons with the shortest wavelength we can see look blue, while those with the longest wavelength look red.

White light is made from photons that have many different wavelengths. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

So let’s think about sunlight. The photons stream from the sun and interact with all matter on Earth. Depending on what the light touches, some of the photons will get absorbed or soaked up. And some will bounce back. When they bounce back, we call this “scattering”.

The photons that get scattered are what gives things their colour. For instance leaves are green, because the green photons bounce back towards our eyes and that is what colour our eyes perceive. Other coloured photons are absorbed by the leaves.

What colour is a glass of water?

Now that we know a bit more about light, we can begin to answer your question.

Experiments have shown that pure water (water with nothing else dissolved in it) absorbs more of the red light than the blue light.

But how much of the red light will get absorbed? Well, that depends on how much water the light has to pass through.

A small bottle or glass of pure water is clear, because it can only absorb a little bit of red light. from www.shutterstock.com

You might be wondering why the water in a glass looks clear. It is because the glass of water is too small to absorb more red light waves. To see the effect with your eye, you would have to look through a glass of water as big as a swimming pool. That amount of water could absorb quite a lot of red light, so the water would look quite blue.

Now imagine a glass that held an entire ocean’s worth of water. It would be enormous! With that much water, you could absorb a LOT of red light. So it would look very blue.

But when it comes to how light interacts with the ocean, there’s more to the story.


Read more: Curious Kids: how is water made?


For starters, sea water is not pure. Sea water has lots of things dissolved in it, like salt and small pieces of dead sea creatures. These particles in the water reflect some of the light from before it has time to develop the full blue colour. The light coming back out from the sea is usually more greenish-blue in colour.

You asked about the sky. We know the sky is blue and the sea does reflect some of this light. So, yes, it does play a role.

It’s true the sky does play a role in how our eyes perceive the colour of the sea. But it’s not the only factor. renê ardanuy on/off/flickr, CC BY

To sum it all up: the sea is blue because of the way water absorbs light, the way particles in the water scatter light, and also because some of the blue light from the sky is reflected.

Finally, we need to think about the time of day and the position of the Sun in the sky. When the Sun is shining bright, the sea appears bluer than it does late at night, when the sea looks very dark and almost black.

Like many questions in science, the answer is not as easy as a simple yes or no. There are often lots of correct, but incomplete, answers to many questions. To me, that’s what makes science so interesting.

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au


ref. Curious Kids: is water blue or is it just reflecting off the sky? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-is-water-blue-or-is-it-just-reflecting-off-the-sky-113199

Australia is vulnerable to a catastrophic cyber attack, but the Coalition has a poor cyber security track record

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Austin, Professor UNSW Canberra Cyber, UNSW

This article is part of a series examining the Coalition government’s record on key issues while in power and what Labor is promising if it wins the 2019 federal election.


The government’s chief cyber security coordinator, Alastair McGibbon, told an audience of specialists in November 2018 that the prospect of a catastrophic cyber incident is:

the greatest existential threat we face as a society today.

Using a nautical metaphor, he said such an event was not far off on the horizon, but could be on the next wave. He cited what one technology expert called the most devastating cyber attack in history, the NotPetya attack in 2017. NotPetya was a random attack on a single day that cost one Danish global company more than A$400 million dollars.

The latest dire warning from the government is appropriate, yet its policy responses have not quite matched the challenge – or their own commitments.


Read more: Should cyber officials be required to tell victims of cyber crimes they’ve been hacked?


Cyber security is everyone’s business

The government is 16 months into a departmental reorganisation in order to deliver better cyber security responses, especially through the new Home Affairs Department. That department has been very busy with everyday skirmishes in the escalating confrontations of cyberspace – from Huawei and 5G policy, to foreign cyber attacks on Australian members of parliament.

But Home Affairs is not the only department with a broad responsibility in cyber security policy. On the military side, the Defence Organisation has moved decisively and with discipline. In 2017, it announced the creation of a 1,000-strong joint cyber unit to be in place within a decade. It also announced increased funding to expand the number of people working in civilian defence roles on cyber operations.

Another department with potentially heavy responsibilities is the Department of Education, working with universities, the TAFE sector and schools. Unfortunately, it appears to be missing in action when it comes to cyber security.

Key plans have stalled

In April 2016, Prime Minister Turnbull released a National Cyber Security Strategy. It included commitments to grow the cyber workforce (especially for women), expand the cyber security industry and undertake annual reviews of the strategy itself.

But in key places the ambitious plans appear to have stalled or fallen short. As a result of the Turnbull overthrow, the post of Minister for Cyber Security – which was only created two years previously – disappeared. The 2018 annual review of the strategy was not released, if it took place at all. The annual threat report of the Australian Centre for Cyber Security (ACSC) did not appear in 2018 either.

In November 2018, AustCyber, an industry growth centre that is one good outcome of the 2016 strategy, published its second Sector Competitiveness Plan. Typical of government funded agencies, it reports much good news. Australia is indeed an international powerhouse of cyber security capability. What is unclear from the report is whether the government’s 2016 strategy has much to do with that.


Read more: Why international law is failing to keep pace with technology in preventing cyber attacks


Where we’re falling short

One indicator that we’re off-track is the fact the AustCyber report of 2018 has no data on the participation of women in the sector after 2016. Reports from the decade prior to 2016 showed a decline from 22% down to 19%, but the government does not appear to be tracking this important commitment after it was made.

In other bad news, the AustCyber report concludes that the education and workforce goals remain unfulfilled. It is hard to estimate how badly, since the initial strategy of April 2016 set no baselines or metrics. AustCyber now assesses that:

the skills shortage in Australia’s cyber security sector is more severe than initially estimated and is already producing real economic costs.

On the government’s commitment to increase the cyber workforce, AustCyber reports growth over the previous two years of 7% – roughly 3.5% per year. But it probably needs to be of the order of 10% per year for a full ten years if the gap identified by the report is to be met:

The latest assessment indicates Australia may need up to 17,600 additional cyber security workers by 2026 …

The government has provided $1.9 million over four years to promote university cyber security education in two Australian universities. That amount is so small it might not even be called a drop in the ocean. As AustCyber suggests, though in muted language, Australia does have huge resourcing holes in our cyber security education capability.

The most important gap in my view is the near total lack of university degree programs or professional education in advanced cyber operations, the near total lack of technical education facilities to support such programs, such as advanced cyber ranges, and a weakly developed national capability for complex cyber exercises.

What we should be doing

In 2018, I argued at a national conference sponsored by the government that Australia needs a national cyber war college, and a cyber civil reserve force, to drive our human capital development. I suggested at the time the college should be set up with a budget of A$100 million per year. Based on a recent international research workshop at UNSW Canberra, I have changed my estimate of cost and process.

Australia needs a cyber security education fund with an initial investment of around A$1 billion to support a new national cyber college. It should be networked around the entire country, and independent of control by any existing education institutions, but drawing on their expertise and that of the private sector.

It would serve as the battery of the nation for cyber security education of the future.


Read more: The public has a vital role to play in preventing future cyber attacks


Labor isn’t offering a better alternative

The Labor Party, through its cyber spokesperson Gai Brodtmann, has been critical of the government’s failure to fill the gaps. But she is retiring from the House of Representatives at the next election.

Labor has no well developed policies, and no budget commitments, that can address the gaps. There is even reason to believe the party doesn’t have a front bench that is engaged with the scope of the challenge. None of them seem to be as technologically oriented as Turnbull, the last cyber champion the Australian parliament may see for a while.

ref. Australia is vulnerable to a catastrophic cyber attack, but the Coalition has a poor cyber security track record – http://theconversation.com/australia-is-vulnerable-to-a-catastrophic-cyber-attack-but-the-coalition-has-a-poor-cyber-security-track-record-113470

When science is put in the service of evil

]]>

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Francisco López-Muñoz, Profesor Titular de Farmacología y Director de la Escuela Internacional de Doctorado, Universidad Camilo José Cela

The Holocaust is one of the worst collective crimes in the history of humanity – and medical science was complicit in the horrors.

After World War II, evidence was given at the Nuremberg Trials of reprehensible research carried out on humans. This includes subjects being frozen, infected with tuberculosis, or having limbs amputated.

There was also specific research into pharmacology that is less well-known, as can be seen from the articles we have published over the past 15 years.


Read more: Is it ethical to use data from Nazi medical experiments?


The prestige of German medicine

German pharmacology and chemistry enjoyed great international prestige from the second half of the 19th century.

This golden age ended with the Nazi Party’s rise to power in 1933 and was replaced with institutionalised criminal behaviour in public health and human research.

At the beginning of World War II, Nazi leadership saw medical and pharmaceutical research as a front-line tool to contribute to the war effort and reduce the impact of injury, disease and epidemics on troops.

Nazi leaders believed concentration camps were a source of “inferior beings” and “degenerates” who could (and should) be used as research subjects.

German pharmacology and medicine lost all dignity. As Louis Falstein pointed out:

the Nazis prostituted law, perverted education and corrupted the civil service, but they made killers out of physicians.

The rise of eugenics in central Europe at the beginning of the 20th century paved the way for the Nazi government to implement a disastrous policy of “racial hygiene”.

The Aktion T4 Programme

The Nazi ideology promoted the persecution of those who were considered “abnormal”, as part of the Aktion T4 program.

September 1, 1939 – the date of the start of World War II – marked the beginning of the mass extermination of patients with “deficiencies” or mental conditions, who were deemed to be “empty human shells”.

Aktion 4 patients getting on a bus, 1941. Wikimedia Commons

At first, the crimes were carried out via carbon monoxide poisoning.

In 1941, a second phase was launched: so-called “discrete euthanasia” via a lethal injection of drugs such as opiates and scopolamine (anti-neausea medication), or the use of low-doses of barbiturates to cause terminal pneumonia.

These techniques were combined with food rations and turning off the hospital heating during winter.

These euthanasia programmes led to what amounted to psychiatric genocide, with the murder of more than 250,000 patients. This is possibly the most heinous criminal act in the history of medicine.

Experimenting with healthy subjects

Medical experimentation became another tool of political power and social control, over both sick people from the T4 Program, as well as healthy people.

Those in good health were recruited in the concentration camps of ostracised ethnic or social groups such as Jews, Gypsies, Slavs and homosexuals.

A number of experiments were undertaken, including the study of:

  • the effect of sulfonamides (antibiotics) on induced gas gangrene (Ravensbrück)
  • the use of the toxic chemical formalin for female sterilisation (Auschwitz-Birkenau)
  • the use of vaccines and other drugs to prevent or treat people intentionally infected with malaria (Dachau)
  • the effects of methamphetamine in extreme exercise (Sachsenhausen)
  • the anaesthetic properties of hexobarbital (a barbiturate derivative) and chloral hydrate (a sedative) in amputations (Buchenwald)
  • the use of barbiturates and high doses of mescaline (a hallucinogenic drug) in “brainwashing” studies (Auschwitz and Dachau).

Block 10 of the Auschwitz concentration camp, where medical experiments with prisoners were carried out. Francisco López Muñoz

Faced with all this evidence, how it is possible that up to 45% of German doctors joined the Nazi party? No other profession reached these figures of political affiliation.

What were the reasons and circumstances that led to these perverse abuses?

The banality of evil in medicine

The answer is difficult. Many doctors argued that regulations were designed for the benefit of the nation and not the patient. They invoked such misleading concepts as “force majeure” or “sacred mission”.


Read more: Two steps forward, one step back: how World War II changed how we do human research


Some believed everything was justified by science, even the inhumane experiments carried out in the camps, while others considered themselves patriots and their actions were justified by the needs of wartime.

Some were followers of the perverse Nazi ethos and others, the more ambitious, became involved in these activities as a means of promoting their professional and academic careers.

Lastly, avoiding association with the Nazi apparatus may have been difficult in a health sector where fear had become a system of social pressure and control.

A monument by Richard Serra in Berlin honouring of the victims of the Aktion 4 programme. Wikimedia Commons

Arturo Pérez-Reverte, in his book Purity of Blood, defines this type of motivation very well:

… although all men are capable of good and evil, the worst are always those who, when they administer evil, do so on the authority of others or on the pretext of carrying out orders.

However, as has happened in many moments of history, sometimes tragedies bring positive posthumous effects.

After the trial of the Nazi doctors, the first international code of ethics for research with human beings was enacted, the Nuremberg Code, under the Hippocratic precept “primun non nocere”. This code has had immense influence on human rights and bioethics.


Read more: Two steps forward, one step back: how World War II changed how we do human research


ref. When science is put in the service of evil – http://theconversation.com/when-science-is-put-in-the-service-of-evil-113138

- ADVERT -

MIL PODCASTS
Bookmark
| Follow | Subscribe Listen on Apple Podcasts

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service


- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -